48 jili casino

48 jili casino Bloomerang Clients Raised a Record $56M on GivingTuesday

LOS CABOS, Mexico, Dec. 23, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Cabo Platinum, the leading Cabo San Lucas luxury villas and elite concierge service in Los Cabos, is thrilled to announce that customers have awarded it a distinguished 5-star rating for its unparalleled concierge program and outstanding customer service. This accolade highlights the company’s commitment to providing an exceptional experience for its guests, setting a new standard in luxury hospitality. Cabo Platinum’s concierge program has long been celebrated for its personalized touch and attention to detail. When guests make their reservations, they are met with a dedicated team ready to curate a bespoke vacation experience tailored to their preferences. Whether arranging private yacht charters, exclusive dining experiences, or personalized wellness sessions, Cabo Platinum ensures that every detail is meticulously planned to perfection. "We are very proud to receive 5-star ratings because it shows our commitment to excellence and our guests," said Mishan Andre, Managing Partner at Cabo Platinum. "Our team works hard to create unforgettable experiences and to provide service that not only meets but exceeds expectations." The 5-star ratings are a testament to Cabo Platinum's ethos of consistent innovation and adaptation to the evolving needs of luxury travelers. The company’s seamless technology integration with personalized service allows it to maintain a competitive edge, ensuring guests can access the best Los Cabos offers. Cabo Platinum's customer service team, known for its warmth and professionalism, plays a pivotal role in this achievement, consistently garnering praise from guests for their proactive and responsive approach. Cabo Platinum’s commitment to excellence is reflected in its robust portfolio of luxury villas, each offering a unique blend of elegance, comfort, and privacy. Guests can expect top-tier amenities, breathtaking views, and an ambiance that fosters relaxation and indulgence. As Cabo Platinum continues to expand its offerings and refine its services, the company remains steadfast in its mission to deliver unforgettable experiences that capture the essence of luxury and hospitality. These 5-star ratings serve as a milestone in Cabo Platinum’s journey and inspiration further to elevate the standard of excellence in the industry. About Cabo Platinum: Cabo Platinum is a premier luxury villa rental and concierge service based in Los Cabos, Mexico. Renowned for its exceptional customer service and personalized travel experiences, Cabo Platinum offers a curated collection of high-end properties and bespoke services tailored to discerning travelers. The company aims to provide unparalleled luxury and hospitality, making every guest’s stay memorable. Contact: marketing@caboplatinum.com Karina Herrera +52-624-237-8879 A photo accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/94a58a86-b418-45a9-8d91-2d33a43e6776

For survivors of strokes, the device implanted in her chest could be a game changer in recovery.Giants QB Tommy DeVito has a sore throwing arm after loss to BucsRussian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has given an exclusive interview to conservative American journalist Tucker Carlson this week. The two talked about a wide range of topics of international concern, primarily the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, as well as the state of US-Russia relations. Here’s the full text of the conversation. Carlson: Minister Lavrov, thank you for doing this. Do you believe the United States and Russia are at war with each other right now? Lavrov: I wouldn’t say so. And in any case, this is not what we want. We would like to have normal relations with all our neighbors, of course, but generally with all countries, especially with a great country like the United States. And President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly expressed his respect for the American people, for American history, for American achievements in the world, and we don’t see any reason why Russia and the United States cannot cooperate for the sake of the universe. Carlson: But the United States is funding a conflict that you’re involved in, of course, and now is allowing attacks on Russia itself. So that doesn’t constitute war? Lavrov: Well, we officially are not at war. But what is going on in Ukraine is what some people call a hybrid war. I would call it a hybrid war as well, but it is obvious that the Ukrainians would not be able to do what they’re doing with long-range modern weapons without the direct participation of American servicemen. And this is dangerous, no doubt about this. We don’t want to aggravate the situation, but since ATACMS and other long-range weapons are being used against mainland Russia as it were, we are sending signals. We hope that the last one, a couple of weeks ago, the signal with the new weapon system called Oreshnik , was taken seriously. However, we also know that some officials in the Pentagon and in other places, including NATO, started saying in the last few days something like that NATO is a defensive alliance, but sometimes you can strike first because the attack is the best defense. Some others in STRATCOM, Thomas Buchanan is his name, representative of STRATCOM, said something which allows for an eventuality of exchange of limited nuclear strikes. And these kinds of threats are really worrying. Because if they are following the logic which some Westerners have been pronouncing lately, that don’t believe that Russia has red lines, they announced their red lines, these red lines are being moved again and again. This is a very serious mistake. That’s what I would like to say in response to this question. It is not us who started the war. Putin repeatedly said that we started the special military operation in order to end the war which the Kiev regime was conducting against its own people in parts of Donbass. And just in his latest statement , President Putin clearly indicated that we are ready for any eventuality. But we strongly prefer a peaceful solution through negotiations on the basis of respecting the legitimate security interest of Russia, and on the basis of respecting the people who live in Ukraine, who still live in Ukraine, being Russians. Their basic human rights, language rights, religious rights, have been exterminated by a series of legislation passed by the Ukrainian parliament. They started long before the special military operation . Since 2017, legislation was passed prohibiting Russian education in Russian, prohibiting Russian media operating in Ukraine, then prohibiting Ukrainian media working in the Russian language, and the latest, of course there were also steps to cancel any cultural events in Russian. Russian books were thrown out of libraries and exterminated. The latest was the law prohibiting the canonic Orthodox Church, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. You know, it’s very interesting when people in the West say we want this conflict to be resolved on the basis of the UN Charter and respect for the territorial integrity of Ukraine, and Russia must withdraw. The Secretary General of the United Nations says similar things. Recently his representative repeated that the conflict must be resolved on the basis of international law, the UN Charter and General Assembly resolutions, while respecting the territorial integrity of Ukraine. It’s a misnomer, because if you want to respect the United Nations Charter, you have to respect it in its entirety. The United Nations Charter, among other things, says that all countries must respect the equality of states and the right of people to self-determination. And they also mentioned the United Nations General Assembly resolutions, and this is clear that what they mean is the series of resolutions which they passed after the beginning of this special military operation which demand the condemnation of Russia, that Russia get out of Ukraine; territory in its 1991 borders. But there are other United Nations General Assembly resolutions which were not voted on, but which were consensual, and among them is a declaration on principles of relations between states on the basis of the Charter. And it clearly says, by consensus, everybody must respect the territorial integrity of states whose governments respect the right of people for self-determination, and because of that represent the entire population living on a given territory. To argue that the people who came to power through military coup d’état in February 2014 represented Crimeans or the citizens of eastern and southern Ukraine is absolutely useless. It is obvious that Crimeans rejected the coup. They said, leave us alone, we don’t want to have anything with you. So we did: Donbass and Crimeans held referendums, and they rejoined Russia. Donbass was declared by the putschists who came to power a ‘terrorist group’. They were shelled, attacked by artillery. The war started, which was stopped in February 2015. The Minsk agreements were signed. We were very sincerely interested in closing this drama by seeing the Minsk agreements implemented fully. It was sabotaged by the government which was established after the coup d’état in Ukraine. There was a demand that they enter into a direct dialogue with the people who did not accept the coup. There was a demand that they promote economic relations with that part of Ukraine. And so on and so forth. None of this was done. The people in Kiev were saying we would never talk to them directly. And this is in spite of the fact that the demand to talk to them directly was endorsed by the [UN] Security Council. The putschists said they are terrorists, we would be fighting them, and they would be dying in cellars because we are stronger. Had the coup in February 2014 not happened and the deal which was reached the day before between the then president and the opposition [been] implemented, Ukraine would have stayed in one piece by now, with Crimea in it. It’s absolutely clear. They did not deliver on the deal. Instead they staged the coup. The deal, by the way, provided for the creation of a government of national unity in February 2014, and holding early elections, which the then president would have lost. Everybody knew that. But they were impatient and took the government buildings the next morning. They went to this Maidan Square and announced that they had created the government of the winners. Compare the government of national unity to prepare for elections and the government of the winners. How can the people whom they, in their view, defeated, how can they pretend that they respect the authorities in Kiev? You know, the right to self-determination is the international legal basis for the decolonization process which took place in Africa on the basis of this charter principle, the right to self-determination. The people in the colonies, they never treated their colonial powers, colonial masters, as somebody who represents them, as somebody whom they want to see in the structures which govern those lands. By the same token, the people in the east and south of Ukraine, people in Donbass and Novorossiya, they don’t consider the Zelensky regime as something which represents their interests. How can they do that when their culture, their language, their traditions, their religion, all this was prohibited? The last point is that if we speak about the UN Charter , resolutions, international law, the very first article of the UN Charter, which the West never, never recalls in the Ukrainian context, says, “Respect human rights of everybody, irrespective of race, gender, language, or religion.” Take any conflict. The United States, UK, Brussels, they would interfere, saying, “Oh, human rights have been grossly violated. We must restore the human rights in such and such territory.” On Ukraine, never, ever have they mumbled the words “human rights,” seeing these human rights for the Russian and Russian-speaking population being totally exterminated by law. So when people say, “Let’s resolve the conflict on the basis of the Charter,” - yes. But don’t forget that the Charter is not only about territorial integrity. And territorial integrity must be respected only if the governments are legitimate and if they respect the rights of their own people. Carlson: I want to go back to what you said a moment ago about the introduction or the unveiling of the hypersonic weapons system that you said was a signal to the West. What signal exactly? I think many Americans are not even aware that this happened. What message were you sending by showing it to the world? Lavrov: Well, the message is that you, I mean the United States, and the allies of the United States who also provide these long-range weapons to the Kiev regime, they must understand that we would be ready to use any means not to allow them to succeed in what they call the strategic defeat of Russia. They fight for keeping the hegemony over the world on any country, any region, any continent. We fight for our legitimate security interests. They say, for example, 1991 borders. Lindsey Graham, who visited some time ago Vladimir Zelensky for another talk; he bluntly, in his presence, said that Ukraine is very rich with rare earth metals and they cannot leave this richness to the Russians. We must take it. We fight. So they fight for a regime which is ready to sell or to give to the West all the natural and human resources. We fight for the people who have been living on these lands, whose ancestors were actually developing those lands, building cities, building factories for centuries and centuries. We care about people, not about natural resources which somebody in the United States would like to keep and to have Ukrainians just as servants sitting on these natural resources. So, the message which we wanted to send by testing in real action this hypersonic system is that we will be ready to do anything to defend our legitimate interests. We hate even to think about war with the United States, which will take nuclear character. Our military doctrine says that the most important thing is to avoid a nuclear war. And it was us, by the way, who initiated in January 2022 the message, the joint statement by the leaders of the five permanent members of the Security Council saying that we will do anything to avoid confrontation between us, acknowledging and respecting each other’s security interests and concerns. This was our initiative. And the security interests of Russia were totally ignored when they rejected at about the same time the proposal to conclude a treaty on security guarantees for Russia, for Ukraine in the context of coexistence and in a context where Ukraine would not ever be a member of NATO or any other military bloc. These security interests of Russia were presented to the West, to NATO and to the United States in December 2021 . We discussed them several times, including during my meeting with Antony Blinken in Geneva in January 2022 . And this was rejected. So we would certainly like to avoid any misunderstanding. And since the people, some people in Washington and some people in London, in Brussels, seemed to be not very capable of understanding, we will send additional messages if they don’t draw the necessary conclusions. Carlson: The fact that we’re having a conversation about a potential nuclear exchange and it’s real... thought I’d never see. And it raises the question, how much back-channel dialogue is there between Russia and the United States? Has there been for the last two and a half years? Is there any conversation ongoing? Lavrov: There are several channels, but mostly on the exchange of people who serve [prison] terms in Russia and in the United States. There were several swaps. There are also channels which are not advertised or publicized, but basically the Americans send through these channels the same message which they send publicly. You have to stop, you have to accept the way which will be based on the Ukrainian needs and position. They support this absolutely pointless ‘peace formula’ by Vladimir Zelensky, which was additioned recently by [his] ‘victory plan’. They held several series of meetings, Copenhagen format, Burgenstock. And they brag that [in the] first half of next year they will convene another conference and they will graciously invite Russia that time. And then Russia would be presented an ultimatum. All this is seriously repeated through various confidential channels. Now we hear something different, including Vladimir Zelensky’s statements that we can stop now at the line of engagement, line of contact. The Ukrainian government will be admitted to NATO, but NATO guarantees at this stage would cover only the territory controlled by the government, and the rest would be subject to negotiations. But the end result of these negotiations must be the total withdrawal of Russia from Ukrainian soil. Leaving Russian people to the Nazi regime, which exterminated all the rights of the Russian and Russian-speaking citizens of their own country. Carlson: If I could just go back to the question of nuclear exchange. So there is no mechanism by which the leaders of Russia and the United States can speak to each other to avoid the kind of misunderstanding that could kill hundreds of millions of people. Lavrov: No. We have this channel which is automatically engaged when a ballistic missile launch is taking place. As regards this Oreshnik hypersonic mid-range ballistic missile. 30 minutes in advance, the system sent the message to the United States. They knew that this was the case and that they don’t mistake it for anything bigger and really dangerous. Carlson: I think the system sounds very dangerous. Lavrov: Well, it was a test launch, you know. Carlson: Yes. Oh, you’re speaking of the test, okay. But I just wonder how worried you are that, considering there doesn’t seem to be a lot of conversation between the two countries. Both sides are speaking about exterminating the other’s populations. That this could somehow get out of control in a very short period and no one could stop it. It seems incredibly reckless. Lavrov: No, we are not talking about exterminating anybody’s population. We did not start this war. We have been, for years and years and years, sending warnings that pushing NATO closer and closer to our borders is going to create a problem. In 2007, Putin started to explain [this] to the people who seemed to be overtaken by the ‘end of history’ and being dominant, no challenge, and so on and so forth. And of course, when the coup took place, the Americans did not hide that they were behind it. There is a conversation between Victoria Nuland and the then-American ambassador in Kiev when they discuss personalities to be included in the new government after the coup. The figure of $5 billion spent on Ukraine after independence was mentioned as the guarantee that everything would be like the Americans want. So we don’t have any intention to exterminate Ukrainian people. They are brothers and sisters to the Russian people. Carlson: How many have died so far, do you think, on both sides? Lavrov: It is not disclosed by the Ukrainians. Vladimir Zelensky was saying that it is much less than 80,000 persons on the Ukrainian side. But there is one very reliable figure. In Palestine during one year after the Israelis started their operation in response to this terrorist attack, which we condemned . And this operation, of course, acquired the proportion of collective punishment, which is against international humanitarian law as well. So during one year after the operation started in Palestine, the number of Palestinian civilians killed is estimated at 45,000. This is almost twice as many as the number of civilians on both sides of Ukrainian conflict who died during ten years after the coup. One year and ten years. So it is a tragedy in Ukraine. It’s a disaster in Palestine, but we never, ever had as our goal killing people. And the Ukrainian regime did. The head of the office of Vladimir Zelensky once said that we will make sure that cities like Kharkov, Nikolaev will forget what Russian means at all. Another guy in his office stated that Ukrainians must exterminate Russians through law or, if necessary, physically. Ukrainian former ambassador to Kazakhstan Pyotr Vrublevsky became famous when giving an interview and looking into the camera (being recorded and broadcast) he said: “Our main task is to kill as many Russians as we can so that our children have less things to do” . And statements like this are all over the vocabulary of the regime. Carlson: How many Russians in Russia have been killed since February of 2022? Lavrov: It’s not for me to disclose this information. In the time of military operations special rules exist. Our ministry of defense follows these rules. But there is a very interesting fact that when Vladimir Zelensky was playing not in international arena, but at his comedy club or whatever it is called, he was (there are videos from that period) bluntly defending the Russian language. He was saying: “What is wrong with Russian language? I speak Russian. Russians are our neighbors. Russian is one of our languages” . And get lost, he said, to those who wanted to attack the Russian language and Russian culture. When Vladimir Zelensky became president, he changed very fast. Before the military operation, in September 2021, he was interviewed, and at that time he was conducting war against Donbass in violation of the Minsk agreements . And the interviewer asked him what he thought about the people on the other side of the line of contact. He answered very thoughtfully there are people and there are species. And if you, living in Ukraine, feel associated with the Russian culture, my advice to you, for the sake of your kids, for the sake of your grandkids, get out to Russia. And if this guy wants to bring Russians and people of Russian culture back under his territorial integrity, I mean, it shows that he’s not adequate. Carlson: So, what are the terms under which Russia would cease hostilities? What are you asking for? Lavrov: Ten years ago, in February 2014, we were asking only for the deal between the president and the opposition to have government of national unity, to hold early elections, to be implemented. The deal was signed. And we were asking for the implementation of this deal. They were absolutely impatient and aggressive. And they were, of course, pushed, I have no slightest doubt, by the Americans, because if Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador agreed the composition of the government, why wait for five months to hold early elections? The next time we were in favor of something was when the Minsk Agreements were signed. I was there. The negotiations lasted for 17 hours (well, Crimea was lost by that time because of referendum ). And nobody, including my colleague John Kerry, meeting with us, nobody in the West was worried about the issue of Crimea. Everybody was concentrated on Donbass. And the Minsk Agreements provided for territorial integrity of Ukraine, minus Crimea (this was not even raised) and a special status for a very tiny part of Donbass, not for the entire Donbass, not for Novorossiya at all. Part of Donbass, under these Minsk Agreements, endorsed by the Security Council, should have the right to speak Russian language, to teach Russian language, to study in Russian, to have local law enforcement (like in the states of U.S.), to be consulted when judges and prosecutors are appointed by the central authority, and to have some facilitated economic connections with neighboring regions of Russia. That’s it. Something which President Macron promised to give to Corsica and still is considering how to do this. And when these agreements were sabotaged all along by Pyotr Poroshenko and then by Vladimir Zelensky. Both of them, by the way, came to presidency, running on the promise of peace. And both of them lied. So when these Minsk Agreements were sabotaged to the extent that we saw the attempts to take this tiny part of Donbass by force, and we, as President Putin explained, at that time, we suggested these security arrangements to NATO and the United States, which was rejected. And when the Plan B was launched by Ukraine and its sponsors, trying to take this part of Donbass by force, it was then that we launched the special military operation . Had they implemented the Minsk Agreements Ukraine would be one piece, minus Crimea. But even then, when Ukrainians, after we started the operation, suggested to negotiate, we agreed, there were several rounds in Belarus, and one later they moved to Istanbul. And in Istanbul, Ukrainian delegation put a paper on the table saying: “Those are the principles on which we are ready to agree.” And we accepted those principles. Carlson: The Minsk Principles? Lavrov: No. The Istanbul Principles. It was April 2022. Carlson: Right. Lavrov: Which was: no NATO, but security guarantees to Ukraine, collectively provided with the participation of Russia. And these security guarantees would not cover Crimea or the east of Ukraine. It was their proposal. And it was initialed. And the head of the Ukrainian delegation in Istanbul, who is now the chair of the Vladimir Zelensky faction in the parliament, he recently (a few months ago) in an interview, confirmed that this was the case. And on the basis of these principles, we were ready to draft a treaty. But then this gentleman who headed the Ukrainian delegation in Istanbul said that Boris Johnson visited and told them to continue to fight. Then there was... Carlson: But Boris Johnson, on behalf of... Lavrov: He said no. But the guy who initialed the paper, he said it was Boris Johnson. Other people say it was President Putin who ruined the deal because of the massacre in Bucha . But they never mentioned any more massacre in Bucha . I do. And we do. In a sense, they are on the defensive. Several times in the United Nations Security Council, sitting at the table with Antonio Guterres, I (last year and this year) at the General Assembly, I raised the issue of Bucha and said, guys, it is strange that you are silent about Bucha because you were very vocal when BBC team found itself on the street where the bodies were located. I inquired, can we get the names of the persons whose bodies were broadcast by BBC? Total silence. I addressed Antonio Guterres personally in the presence of the Security Council members. He did not respond. Then at my press conference in New York after the end of the General Assembly last September, I asked all the correspondents: guys, you are journalists. Maybe you’re not an investigative journalists but journalists normally are interested to get the truth. And Bucha thing, which was played all over the media outlets condemning Russia, is not of any interest to anyone - politicians, UN officials. And now even journalists. I asked when I talked to them in September , please, as professional people, try to get the names of those whose bodies were shown in Bucha. No answer. Just like we don’t have any answer to the question, where is the results of medical analysis of Alexey Navalny, who died recently, but who was treated in Germany in the fall of 2020. When he felt bad on a plane over Russia, the plane landed. He was treated by the Russian doctors in Siberia. Then the Germans wanted to take him. We immediately allowed the plane to come. They took him. In less than 24 hours, he was in Germany. And then the Germans continued to say that we poisoned him. And now the analysis confirmed that he was poisoned. We asked for the test results to be given to us. They said, no, we give it to the organization on chemical weapons. We went to this organization, we are members, and we said , can you show to us, because this is our citizen, we are accused of having poisoned him. They said that the Germans told us not to give it to you. They found nothing in the civilian hospital, and the announcement that he was poisoned was made after he was treated in the military Bundeswehr hospital. So it seems that this secret is not going... Carlson: So how did Navalny die? Lavrov: Well, he died serving the term in Russia. As far as it was reported, every now and then he felt not well. Which was another reason why we continued to ask the Germans: can you show us the results which you found? Because we did not find what they found. And what they did to him, I don’t know. Carlson: What the Germans did to him? Lavrov: Yeah, because they don’t explain to anybody, including us. Or maybe they explain to the Americans. Maybe this is credible. But they never told us how they treated him, what they found, and what methods they were using. Carlson: How do you think he died? Lavrov: I am not a doctor. But for anybody to guess, even for the doctors to try to guess, they need to have information. And if the person was taken to Germany to be treated after he had been poisoned, the results of the tests cannot be secret. We still cannot get anything credible on the fate of Skripals - Sergei Skripal and his daughter. The information is not provided to us. He is our citizen, she is our citizen. We have all the rights and the conventions which the UK is party to, to get information. Carlson: Why do you think that Boris Johnson, former Prime Minister of the UK, would have stopped the peace process in Istanbul? On whose behalf was he doing that? Lavrov: Well, I met with him a couple of times, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he was motivated by some immediate desire or by some long-term strategy. He is not very predictable. Carlson: But do you think he was acting on behalf of the US government, on behalf of the Biden administration, or he was doing this independently. Lavrov: I don’t know. And I wouldn’t guess. The fact that the Americans and the Brits are leading in this “situation” is obvious. Now it is becoming also clear that there is a fatigue in some capitals, and there are talks every now and then that the Americans would like to leave it with the Europeans and to concentrate on something more important. I wouldn’t guess. We would be judging by specific steps. It’s obvious, though, that the Biden administration would like to leave a legacy to the Trump administration as bad as they can. And similar to what Barack Obama did to Donald Trump during his first term. Then late December 2016, President Obama expelled Russian diplomats. Just very late December. 120 persons with family members. Did it on purpose. Demanded them leave on the day when there was no direct flight from Washington to Moscow. So they had to move to New York by buses with all their luggage, with children, and so on and so forth. And at the same time, President Obama announced the arrest of pieces of diplomatic property of Russia. And we still never were able to come and see what is the state of this Russian property. Carlson: What was the property? Lavrov: Diplomatic. They never allowed us to come and see it though under all conventions. They just say that these pieces we don’t consider as being covered by diplomatic immunity, which is a unilateral decision, never substantiated by any international court. Carlson: So you believe the Biden administration is doing something similar again to the incoming Trump administration. Lavrov: Because that episode with the expulsion and the seizure of property certainly did not create the promising ground for beginning of our relations with the Trump administration. So I think they’re doing the same. Carlson: But this time President Trump was elected on the explicit promise to bring an end to the war in Ukraine. So I mean, he said that in appearance after appearance. So given that, there is hope for a resolution, it sounds like. What are the terms to which you’d agree? Lavrov: Well, the terms, I basically alluded to them. When President Putin spoke in this Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the 14th of June he once again reiterated that we were ready to negotiate on the basis of the principles which were agreed in Istanbul and rejected by Boris Johnson, according to the statement of the head of the Ukrainian delegation. The key principle is non-bloc status of Ukraine. And we would be ready to be part of the group of countries who would provide collective security guarantees to Ukraine. Carlson: But no NATO? Lavrov: No NATO. Absolutely. No military bases, no military exercises on the Ukrainian soil with participation of foreign troops. And this is something which he reiterated. But of course, he said, it was April 2022, now some time has passed, and the realities on the ground would have to be taken into account and accepted. The realities on the ground are not only the line of contact, but also the changes in the Russian Constitution after referendum was held in Donetsk, Lugansk republics and Kherson and Zaporozhye regions. And they are now part of the Russian Federation, according to the Constitution. And this is a reality. And of course, we cannot tolerate a deal which would keep the legislation which are prohibiting Russian language, Russian media, Russian culture, Ukrainian Orthodox Church, because it is a violation of the obligations of Ukraine under the UN Charter , and something must be done about it. And the fact that the West (since this russophobic legislative offensive started in 2017) was totally silent and it is silent until now, of course we would have to pay attention to this in a very special way. Carlson: Would sanctions against Russia be a condition? Lavrov: You know, I would say probably many people in Russia would like to make it a condition. But the more we live under sanctions, the more we understand that it is better to rely on yourself, and to develop mechanisms, platforms for cooperation with ‘normal’ countries who are not unfriendly to you, and don’t mix economic interests and policies and especially politics. And we learned a lot after the sanctions started. The sanctions started under President Obama. They continued in a very big way under the first term of Donald Trump. And these sanctions under the Biden administration are absolutely unprecedented. But what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger, you know. They would never kill us, so they are making us stronger. Carlson: And driving Russia east. And so the vision that I think same policymakers in Washington had 20 years ago is why not to bring Russia into a Western bloc, sort of as a balance against the rising east. But it doesn’t seem like that. Do you think that’s still possible? Lavrov: I don’t think so. When recently President Putin was speaking at Valdai Club to politologists and experts, he said we would never be back at the situation of early 2022. That’s when he realized (for himself, apparently, not only he, but he spoke publicly about this) that all attempts to be on equal terms with the West have failed. It started after the demise of the Soviet Union. There was euphoria, we are now part of the ‘liberal world’, democratic world, ‘end of history’. But very soon it became clear to most of the Russians that in the 1990s we were treated as - at best as junior partner, maybe not even as a partner, - but as a place where the West can organize things like it wants, striking deals with oligarchs, buying resources and assets. And then probably the Americans decided that Russia is in their pocket. Boris Yeltsin, Bill Clinton, buddies, laughing, joking. But even at the end of Boris Yeltsin’s term, he started to contemplate that this was not something he wanted for Russia. And I think this was very obvious when he appointed Vladimir Putin prime minister, and then left earlier, and blessed Vladimir Putin as his successor for the elections which were coming and which Putin won. But when Vladimir Putin became president, he was very much open to cooperation with the West. And he mentions about this quite regularly when he speaks with interviewers or at some international events. I was present when he met with George Bush Jr., with Barack Obama. Well, after the meeting of NATO in Bucharest, which was followed by NATO-Russia summit meeting in 2008, when they announced that Georgia and Ukraine will be in NATO. And then they tried to sell it to us. We asked: why? There was lunch and President Putin asked what was the reason for this? Good question. And they said this is something which is not obligatory. How come? Well, to start the process of joining NATO, you need a formal invitation. And this is a slogan - Ukraine and Georgia will be in NATO. But this slogan became obsession for some people in Tbilisi first, when Mikhail Saakashvili lost his senses and started the war against his own people under the protection of OSCE mission with the Russian peacekeepers on the ground. And the fact that he launched this was confirmed by the European Union investigation, which they launched and which concluded that he gave the order to start. And for Ukrainians, it took a bit longer. They were cultivating this pro-Western mood. Well, pro-Western is not bad, basically. Pro-Eastern is also not bad. What is bad is that you tell people, either/or, either you go with me or you’re my enemy. What happened before the coup in Ukraine? In 2013, the president of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych negotiated with the European Union some association agreement which would nullify tariffs on most of the Ukrainian goods to the European Union and the other way around. And at some point, when he was meeting with Russian counterparts, we told him, Ukraine was part of the free trade area of the Commonwealth of Independent States. No tariffs for everybody. And we, Russia, negotiated agreement with World Trade Organization for some 17 years, mostly because we bargained with European Union. And we achieved some protection for many of our sectors, agriculture and some others. We explained to the Ukrainians that if you go zero in your trade with European Union, we would have to protect our customs border with Ukraine. Otherwise the zero tariff European goods would flood and would be hurting our industries, which we tried to protect and agreed for some protection. And we suggested to the European Union: guys, Ukraine is our common neighbor. You want to have better trade with Ukraine. We want the same. Ukraine want to have markets both in Europe and in Russia. Why don’t we sit three of us and discuss it like grownups? The head of the European Commission was the Portuguese José Manuel Barroso. He responded it’s none of your business what we do with Ukraine. And then the president of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych convened his experts. And they said, yes, it would be not very good if we have opened the border with European Union, but the customs border with Russia would be closed. And they would be checking, you know, what is coming. So that the Russian market is not affected. So he announced in November 2013 that he cannot sign the deal immediately, and he asked the European Union to postpone it for until next year. That was the trigger for Maidan, which was immediately thrown up and ended by the coup. So my point is that this either/or. Actually, the first coup took place in 2004, when after second round of elections, the same Viktor Yanukovych won presidency. The West raised hell and put pressure on the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to rule that there must be a third round. The Constitution of Ukraine says there may be only two rounds. But the Constitutional Court, under the pressure of the West, violated the Constitution for the first time then. And pro-Western candidate was chosen. At that time, when all this was taking place and boiling, the European leaders were publicly saying Ukrainian people must decide: are they with us or with Russia? Carlson: But it is the way that big countries behave. I mean, there are certain orbits, and now it’s BRICS versus NATO, US versus China. And it sounds like you’re saying the Russian-Chinese alliance is permanent. Lavrov: Well, we are neighbors. And of course geography is very important. Carlson: But you’re also neighbors with Western Europe. And you’re part of it, in effect. Lavrov: Through Ukraine the Western Europe wants to come to our borders. And there were plans that were discussed almost openly to put British naval bases on the Sea of Azov. Crimea was eyed. Dreaming about creating NATO base in Crimea and so on and so forth. Look, we have been very friendly with Finland, for example. Overnight, the Finns came back to the early years of preparation for World War II when they were best allies of Hitler. And all this neutrality, all this friendship, going to sauna together, playing hockey together, all this disappeared overnight. So maybe this was deep in their hearts, and the neutrality was burdening them, and niceties were burdening for them. I don’t know. Carlson: They’re mad about the ‘winter war’. That’s totally possible. Can you negotiate with Zelensky? You’ve pointed out that he has exceeded his term. He’s not democratically elected president of Ukraine anymore. So do you consider him a suitable partner for negotiations? Lavrov: President Putin addressed many times this issue as well. In September 2022, during the first year of the special military operation , Vladimir Zelensky, in his conviction that he would be dictating the terms of the situation also to the West, he signed a decree prohibiting any negotiations with Putin’s government. During public events after that episode, President Vladimir Putin is asked why Russia is not ready for negotiations. He said, don’t turn it upside down. We are ready for negotiations, provided it will be based on the balance of interest, tomorrow. But Vladimir Zelensky signed this decree prohibiting negotiations. For starters, why don’t you tell him to cancel it publicly? This will be a signal that he wants negotiations. Instead, Vladimir Zelensky invented his ‘peace formula’. Lately, it was complemented by a ‘victory plan’. They keep saying, we know what they say when they meet with European Union ambassadors and in other formats, they say no deal unless the deal is on our terms. I mentioned to you that they are planning now the second summit on the basis of this peace formula, and they don’t shy away from saying, we will invite Russia to put in front of it the deal which we agreed already with the West. When our Western colleagues sometimes say nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine in effect, this implies that anything about Russia without Russia. Because they discuss what kind of conditions we must accept. By the way, recently they already violated, tacitly, the concept nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine. There are passes, there are messages. They know our position. We are not playing double game. What President Putin announced is the goal of our operation. It’s fair. It’s fully in line with the United Nations Charter . First of all, the rights: language rights, minority rights, national minority rights, religious rights, and it’s fully in line with OSCE principles. There is an Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe which is still alive. And well, several summits of this organization clearly stated that security must be indivisible, that nobody should expand his security at the expense of security of others, and that, most important, no organization in Euro-Atlantic space shall claim dominance. This was last time it was confirmed by OSCE in 2010. NATO was doing exactly the opposite. So we have legitimacy in our position. No NATO on our doorsteps because OSCE agreed that this should not be the case if it hurts us. And please restore the rights of Russians. Carlson: Who do you think has been making foreign policy decisions in the United States? This is a question in the United States. Who is making these decisions? Lavrov: I wouldn’t guess. I haven’t seen Antony Blinken for years. When it was the last time? Two years ago, I think, at the G20 summit. Was it in Rome or somewhere? In the margins. I was representing President Putin there. His assistant came up to me during a meeting and said that Antony wants to talk just for ten minutes. I left the room. We shook hands, and he said something about the need to de-escalate and so on and so forth. I hope he’s not going to be angry with me since I am disclosing this. But we were meeting in front of many people present in the room, and I said, “We don’t want to escalate. You want to inflict strategic defeat upon Russia.” He said, “No. It is not strategic defeat globally. It is only in Ukraine.” Carlson: You’ve not spoken to him since? Lavrov: No. Carlson: Have you spoken to any officials in the Biden administration since then? Lavrov: I don’t want to ruin their career. Carlson: But have you had meaningful conversations? Lavrov: No. Not at all. When I met in international events one or another person whom I know, an American, some of them say hello, some of them exchange a few words, but I never impose myself. It’s becoming contagious when somebody sees an American talking to me or a European talking to me. Europeans are running away when they see me. During the last G20 meeting, it was ridiculous. Grown-up people, mature people. They behave like kids. So childish. Unbelievable. Carlson: So, you said that when in 2016, in December, the final moments of the Biden administration, Biden made the relationship between the United States and Russia more difficult. Lavrov: Obama. Biden was vice-president. Carlson: Exactly. I’m so sorry. The Obama administration left a bunch of bombs, basically, for the incoming Trump administration. In the last month since the election, you have all sorts of things going on politically in bordering states in this region. In Georgia, in Belarus, in Romania, and then, of course, most dramatically in Syria, you have turmoil. Does this seem like part of an effort by the United States to make the resolution more difficult? Lavrov: There is nothing new, frankly. Because the US, historically, in foreign policy, was motivated by making some trouble and then to see if they can fish in the muddy water. Iraqi aggression, Libyan adventure - ruining the state, basically. Fleeing from Afghanistan. Now trying to get back through the back door, using the United Nations to organize some ‘event’ where the US can be present, in spite of the fact that they left Afghanistan in very bad shape and arrested money and don’t want to give it back. I think this is, if you analyze the American foreign policy steps, adventures, most of them are the right word - the pattern. They create some trouble, and then they see how to use it. When the OSCE monitors elections, when it used to monitor elections in Russia, they would always be very negative, and in other countries as well, Belarus, Kazakhstan. This time, in Georgia, the monitoring mission of OSCE presented a positive report. And it is being ignored. So when you need endorsement of the procedures, you do it when you like the results of the election. If you don’t like the results of elections, you ignore it. It’s like when the United States and other Western countries recognized unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo, they said this is the self-determination being implemented. There was no referendum in Kosovo - unilateral declaration of independence. By the way, after that the Serbs approached International Court of Justice, which ruled that (well, normally they are not very specific in their judgment, but they ruled) that when part of a territory declares independence, it is not necessarily to be agreed with the central authorities. And when a few years later, Crimeans were holding referendum with invitation of many international observers, not from international organizations, but from parliamentarians in Europe, in Asia, in post-Soviet space, they said, no, we cannot accept this because this is violation of territorial integrity. You know, you pick and choose. The UN Charter is not a menu. You have to respect it in all its entirety. Carlson: So who’s paying the rebels who’ve taken parts of Aleppo? Is the Assad government in danger of falling? What is happening exactly, in your view, in Syria? Lavrov: Well, we had a deal when this crisis started. We organized the Astana process (Russia, Türkiye and Iran). We meet regularly . Another meeting is being planned before the end of the year or early next year, to discuss the situation on the ground. The rules of the game are to help Syrians to come to terms with each other and to prevent separatist threats from getting strong. That’s what the Americans are doing in the east of Syria when they groom some Kurdish separatists using the profits from oil and grain sold, the resources which they occupy. This Astana format is a useful combination of players, if you wish. We are very much concerned. And when this happened, with Aleppo and surroundings, I had a conversation with the Turkish minister of foreign affairs and with Iranian colleague. We agreed to try to meet this week. Hopefully in Doha at the margins of this international conference. We would like to discuss the need to come back to strict implementation of the deals on Idlib area, because Idlib de-escalation zone was the place from where the terrorists moved to take Aleppo. The arrangements reached in 2019 and 2020 provided for our Turkish friends to control the situation in the Idlib de-escalation zone and to separate the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (former Nusra) from the opposition, which is non-terrorist and which cooperates with Türkiye. And another deal was the opening of M5 route from Damascus to Aleppo, which is also now taken completely by the terrorists. So we, as ministers of foreign affairs, would discuss the situation, hopefully, this coming Friday. And the military of all three countries and the security people are in contact with each other. Carlson: But the Islamist groups, the terrorists you just described, who is backing them? Lavrov: Well, we have some information. We would like to discuss with all our partners in this process the way to cut the channels of financing and arming them. The information which is being floated and it’s in the public domain mentions among others the Americans, the Brits. Some people say that Israel is interested in making this situation aggravated. So that Gaza is not under very close scrutiny. It’s a complicated game. Many actors are involved. I hope that the context which we are planning for this week will help stabilize the situation. Carlson: What do you think of Donald Trump? Lavrov: I met him several times when he was having meetings with President Putin and when he received me twice in the Oval Office when I was visiting for bilateral talks. Well, I think he’s a very strong person. A person who wants results. Who doesn’t like procrastination on anything. This is my impression. He’s very friendly in discussions. But this does not mean that he’s pro-Russian as some people try to present him. The amount of sanctions we received under the Trump administration was very big. We respect any choice which is made by the people when they vote. We respect the choice of American people. As President Putin said, we are and we have been open all along to the contacts with the current administration. We hope that when Donald Trump is inaugurated, we will understand. The ball, as President Putin said, is on their side. We never severed our contacts, our ties in the economy, trade, security, anything. Carlson: My final question is: how sincerely worried are you about an escalation in conflict between Russia and the United States, knowing what you do? Lavrov: Well, we started with this question, more or less. Carlson: It seems the central question. Lavrov: Yes. The Europeans whisper to each other that it is not for Vladimir Zelensky to dictate the terms of the deal - it’s for the US and Russia. I don’t think we should be presenting our relations as two guys decide for everybody. Not at all. It is not our style. We prefer the manners which dominate in BRICS , in Shanghai Cooperation Organization , where the UN Charter principle of sovereign equality of states is really embodied. The US is not used to respect sovereign equality of states. When the US says we cannot allow Russia to win on Ukraine because this would undermine our rules-based world order. And rules-based world order is American domination. Now, by the way, NATO, at least under Biden administration, is eyeing the entire Eurasian continent, Indo-Pacific strategies, South China Sea, East China Sea, is already on NATO agenda. NATO is moving infrastructure there. AUKUS, building ‘quartet’ Indo-Pacific Four as they call it (Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea). US, South Korea, and Japan are building military alliance with some nuclear components. And Jens Stoltenberg, the former Secretary General of NATO, last year after the summit he said that the Atlantic security is indivisible from Indo-Pacific security. When he was asked does it mean that you go beyond territorial defense, he answered - no, it doesn’t go beyond territorial defense, but to defend our territory, we need to be present there. This element of preemption is more and more present. We don’t want war with anybody. And as I said, five nuclear states declared at the top level in January 2022 that we don’t want confrontation with each other and that we shall respect each other’s security interests and concerns. And it also stated nuclear war can never be won, and therefore nuclear war is not possible. And the same was reiterated bilaterally between Russia and the United States, Putin-Biden, when they met in 2021 in Geneva in June . Basically, they reproduced the statement by Reagan-Gorbachev of 1987 ‘no nuclear war’. And this is absolutely in our vital interest, and we hope that this is also in vital interest of the United States. I say so because some time ago John Kirby, who is the White House communications coordinator, was answering questions about escalation and about possibility of nuclear weapons being employed. And he said, “Oh, no, we don’t want escalation because then if there is some nuclear element, then our European allies would suffer.” So even mentally, he excludes that the United States can suffer. And this is something which makes the situation a bit risky. It might – if this mentality prevails, then some reckless steps would be taken, and this is bad. Carlson: What you’re saying is American policy makers imagine there could be a nuclear exchange that doesn’t directly affect the United States, and you’re saying that’s not true. Lavrov: That’s what I said, yes. But professionals in deterrence, nuclear deterrence policy, they know very well that it’s a very dangerous game. And to speak about limited exchange of nuclear strikes is an invitation to disaster, which we don’t want to have.

Fresno State QB Mikey Keene transferring to MichiganUS Government Takes Step Forward With Self-Driving Vehicle Rules — Will They Last?

Mount Clemens students partner with Detroit vs. Everybody founder to rebrand school store

France's Macron announces fourth government of the year

President Joe Biden’s announcement on Tuesday of a couldn’t have come soon enough for Lebanon, a country in the midst of a yearslong economic crisis and intense political paralysis. The war, which began on Oct. 8, 2023, as a series of hostile exchanges across the Israel-Lebanon border and escalated into a heavy Israeli air and ground campaign in Southern Lebanon, and turned some of Beirut’s districts into a war zone. Hours before the U.S.-brokered deal was announced, Israel in what was no doubt a message to the Lebanese militia: Israel can sustain the conflict for as long as it sees fit. In the end, Israel and Hezbollah concluded that they could gain more through negotiations than they could on the battlefield. The agreement is a recitation of , which ended a previous monthlong war between the two adversaries more than 17 years ago but was viewed by all the parties involved, Israel in particular, as a lackluster initiative that wasn’t enforced. The current deal seeks to strengthen UNSCR 1701 by adding stronger monitoring. During a 60-day ceasefire, Israeli troops will withdraw from Southern Lebanon, Hezbollah will do the same, and the Lebanese army will re-deploy to the area. Meanwhile, the approximately 60,000 Israelis who have been displaced in northern Israel will get to return home. In effect, the deal allows both Israel and Hezbollah to claim victory; Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu can boast that Hezbollah’s military capacity has been significantly diminished; Hezbollah can claim that its resistance drove Israeli forces out of Lebanon. Over the long term, the pause in fighting is designed to give Israel and Lebanon the time and space to officially demarcate their shared border. Yet, at the risk of sounding like a pessimist, just getting to that point would be an achievement. A lot can go wrong between now and then. After all, signing an agreement means nothing if it isn’t implemented. There are any number of ways the agreement can go sideways. First and foremost, the question of whether Hezbollah will actually withdraw north of the Litani River, approximately 20 miles from the Israeli-Lebanese border, is very much in question. Southern Lebanon is Hezbollah’s support base; the militia is a core part of the social fabric in the region, its fighters have homes and families there, and the small towns and villages dotting the area have often been given the short end of the stick from the Lebanese government, which has proven incapable of delivering social services or even basic administration. Hezbollah may be willing to move their weapons caches further north, but the idea that tens of thousands of Hezbollah fighters will uproot their lives is difficult to believe. In this case, Israel will then be forced with a choice: renew military operations and risk the resumption of war, or loosen enforcement and risk Hezbollah maintaining its power base. Second, is the Lebanese army capable of patrolling Southern Lebanon to Israel’s satisfaction? While the Lebanese army is a well-respected institution inside the country and crosses the usual sectarian divisions that have defined Lebanese political life for decades, it’s also arguably the weakest military in the Middle East. , the Lebanese army is smaller than Hezbollah. The since 2006 has barely kept the Lebanese army afloat. The defense systems you would expect a modern military to possess — air defenses, fighter and bomber aircraft, patrol vessels, various air-to-air and air-to-ground munitions — . Due in large part to Lebanon’s financial crisis, some of Lebanon’s soldiers to support themselves and their families. Israel understands all this but is nevertheless unlikely to be very patient. If the Lebanese army is unable or unwilling to do the job of clearing Hezbollah forces out and confronting the remnants that remain, the Israeli army will do it for them as Netanyahu during his remarks upon announcing the ceasefire. This, in effect, would negate the ceasefire and risk plunging the country into war again. Assuming the ceasefire in Lebanon sticks, Israeli and U.S. officials are hopeful it will change Hamas’ calculations about continuing its war with Israel in Gaza. “What Hamas wanted was support from Hezbollah and others,” an Israeli official the Times of Israel. “Once you cut the connection, you have the ability to reach a deal. It’s a strategic achievement. Hamas is alone.” But this sounds more like wishful thinking than reality. Hamas has experienced the most destructive war with Israel in its 37-year history, with tens of thousands of its fighters killed, its upper echelon wiped out and its control in Gaza at its weakest since it kicked the Palestinian Authority out of the coastal territory in 2007. Even so, it’s bottom-line negotiating position remains unchanged: If Israel wants to retrieve the rest of its hostages, it must withdraw entirely from Gaza and end the war permanently. Hamas’ strategy doesn’t depend on Hezbollah, so the notion it will adopt Hezbollah’s position now that it is out of the fight is fanciful at best. If all goes according to plan, Lebanon will now have a chance to rebuild. But how long the peace will stick is another matter entirely.

China’s trade reprisals may extend to minerals like rare earthsOnfolio Holdings Inc. Announces Quarterly Preferred Stock Cash Dividend of $0.75 Per Share

Briefly 11-22Melody Chen JD Industrials has relaunched a bid to list in Hong Kong, aiming to raise funds to enhance its supply chain capabilities and expand its business. The industrial technology and service provider was launched in 2017 as an independent unit of its parent JD.com (9618) and was featured on the e-commerce giant homepage as a main category by 2018. As a business-to-business platform for industrial products, the company was the largest player in China's maintenance, repair, and operations procurement services market, measured by gross merchandise value last year, with a size twice that of the next largest competitor, according to China Insights Consultancy. Its GMV soared from around 17.4 billion yuan (HK$18.5 billion) in 2021 to 26.1 billion yuan in 2023, showing a compound annual growth rate of 22.5 percent. JD Industrials recorded an interim net profit of 291.2 million yuan this year from a net loss of 187.2 million yuan during the same period last year. Most of its revenue came from product sales, with the rest derived from marketplace, advertising, technology and other services. Product revenue rose to 8.1 billion yuan in the first half of the year, from 6.6 billion yuan during the same period last year, accounting for over 95 percent of total revenue. Service revenue was 550 million yuan, down from 608.5 million yuan in 2023. JD Industrials offers around 65 product categories across approximately 41.7 million stock-keeping units, topping CIC's list for the broadest variety of industrial products. Leveraging its digital supply chain advantages, the company built the broadest customer coverage and became the largest service provider in the sector, with a market share of 4.1 percent, it says. Its key accounts include around half of China's Fortune 500 companies and more than 40 percent of Global Fortune 500 companies with operations in China. However, the businesses capitalize and depend on the JD group and its associates to a large extent. The revenue generated from the group's platforms was 6.66 billion yuan in 2022, 7.52 billion yuan in 2023 and 3.66 billion yuan in the first half of 2024 respectively, making up 47.1 percent, 43.4 percent and 42.5 percent of total revenue respectively. Therefore, any negative developments in its relationship with the JD group or unfavorable publicity concerning the group could adversely impact the business and brand, the company warns. The listing plan is not new: JD.com had announced plans back in March 2023 to spin off JD Industrials and JD Property for separate listings in Hong Kong. JD Industrials was reportedly looking to raise US$1 billion (HK$7.8 billion) when it filed for an initial public offering last year but the attempt was unsuccessful due to market volatility and its financial losses at the time. If JD Industrials completes its IPO this time round, it will be JD.com's third successful spinoff after JD Logistics (2618) and JD Health International (6618). JD.com's fintech arm JD Technology had also attempted unsuccessfully to go public on the Shanghai Stock Exchange's Star market back in 2020. Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs and Haitong International Capital are the sponsors of the share sale.

Top Real Estate Agents in Tahoe City, CA, Publishes Important Information For Real Estate Buyers in Lake TahoeApple Seen Having Strong Holiday Sales. Stock Hits Record High.

Who from the Crocodile Dundee cast outlived the famed 16ft reptile Burt? Here's where the cast are now - including Paul Hogan the 'recluse' By TOM LAWRENCE Published: 22:12 GMT, 23 December 2024 | Updated: 22:12 GMT, 23 December 2024 e-mail View comments Fans have mourned the death of Burt the crocodile in the 1986 blockbuster Crocodile Dundee. Burt, the 5.1-metre 700kg monster crocodile from the comedy adventure film, who starred alongside Paul Hogan , died in captivity in Darwin. He was thought to have been over 90 years old. Crocosaurus Cove, a crocodile herpetarium and aquarium attraction which had kept Burt in captivity since 2008, announced the reptile's death on Monday. 'It is with great sadness that we announce the passing of Burt, the iconic saltwater crocodile and star of the Australian classic Crocodile Dundee,' the facility posted on its Facebook page. 'Burt passed away peacefully over the weekend, estimated to be over 90 years old, marking the end of an incredible era.' Crocosaurus Cove plans to honour Burt's legacy with a commemorative sign at the attraction. But which of Burt's co-stars have outlived him? And where are they now? Crocosaurus Cove, the facility where the reptile lived in captivity since 2008, announced Burt's death on Monday Crocosaurus Cove, the facility where the reptile lived in captivity since 2008, announced Burt's death on Monday Paul Hogan Before becoming the star of Crocodile Dundee, Paul made his name in the talent show New Faces, performing as a tapdancing knife thrower. The reclusive 85-year-old has been married three times - including to his co-star Linda Kozlowski until 2014. Hogan was also married twice to Nolene Edwards, the mother of five of his children. When they split it was described as Australia's ugliest celebrity divorce. The couple could be set for a reunion next year, when a 4K Encore Cut of the movie hits theatres. In 2003, Hogan was investigated for tax evasion and fraud for seven years before he was finally cleared. He claims he still gets questioned by fans over whether he spent time behind bars . Paul Hogan, 85, who starred as Mick Dundee in the instant classic, pictured in 2024 Paul shares Chance, his youngest child, with with ex-wife and former co-star Linda Kozlowski. All pictured in 2013 Read More EXCLUSIVE Crocodile Dundee star Paul Hogan breaks silence on 'troubled' son Chance's erratic behavior Speaking in 2014, he said: 'Some people still say, 'I thought you went to jail, Hoges',' he said in a live cross from Cairns, Queensland to the show. 'No, I didn't go to jail, I wasn't ever charged!' 'I was investigated for like five or six years by the crime commission, the tax office, the IRS in America, the FBI and after five or six years they said: 'Urgh we won't be charging you, we've got nothing,'' Making light of the matter, he joked: 'Just take my word for it, I did them like a dinner!' Paul keeps a low profile, but two years ago was seen in a rare public appearance after an angry note was left to homeless people camping outside his mansion in Venice, Los Angeles , The Sun reported . The letter, which the actor denied writing, was pinned to the gates of the £2.86million pad and read: 'THIS IS MY HOME NOT YOURS.' Linda Kozlowski In the movie, Linda's character Sue Charlton was a reporter tasked with writing a profile about Mick Dundee, before she unexpectedly falls in love with him. In remarkably simialr circumstances, the two fell in love on set of the iconic film while Hogan – 19 years Kozlowski's senior – was still married to wife Noelene Edwards. Kozlowski became a top box office star after making a major splash in the hit 1986 film Crocodile Dundee alongside her ex-husband Paul Hogan, now 85 Linda Kozlowski appears to be enjoying a more low-key lifestyle nearly 25 years after leaving Hollywood for good Read More EXCLUSIVE Crocodile Dundee star and retired actress Linda Kozlowski seen enjoying life away from spotlight The couple wed in 1990, welcomed son Chance eight years later, and divorced in 2014. Chance, now 26, is currently living with his father in Venice, California. Chance is no stranger to scandal – after all, his parents' relationship was one of the biggest tabloid stories of the late 1980s. Last month Hogan was reported to be 'worried sick' about his son after concerning photos continue to emerge of his youngest child. Chance was recently spotted looking disheveled as he loitered in a back alley close to his father's lavish Venice Beach home. His online behavior has also become more erratic, sparking further concerns. He recently shared a bizarre video of himself ominously claiming something is about to 'begin' as he bared his inflamed gums to the camera. Linda’s won a Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actress for her performance in Crocodile Dundee, but after that, she struggled to land big parts and quit acting to be a mother. She now lives a serene life in bucolic Ojai, California , alongside her second husband, Moulay Hafid Baba, and their four-year-old Golden Retriever, Thaddeus. Steve Rackman Steve Rackham (right, as a gym manager later in life) was not an actor by trade but was instead one of Australia’s most famous pro-wrestler, ‘Crusher’ Before his appearance as 'Donk', Steve Rackman was a wrestler who used the name ‘Crusher’, and famously fought Andre the Giant before a 10,000-strong crowd. Having appeared in dozens of ads and several films, he was cast in Crocodile Dundee when his agent answered a call saying ‘send me a tape or show reel and your CV of the ugliest, loud mouthed, mongrel looking wrestlers’. ‘Before I knew it, I was in all the movies. I was either perfect for the role, or just plain lucky,’ he said years later. After appearing in three Crocodile Dundee films, Rackman stepped away from the limelight and opened several gyms, which he sold to retire in 2010. David Gulpilil Indigenous actor and artist David Gulpilil suffered financial hardship in the years before his death, after giving away most of his money to members of his family and the community. Generous: Despite starring in iconic Australian films such as Storm Boy, Ten Canoes, Rabbit-Proof Fence, Crocodile Dundee and The Tracker, Gulpilil was never a wealthy man because he would often donate his earnings to others. Pictured: Gulpilil and his wife, Miriam Ashley Read More Legendary indigenous Australian actor and artist David Gulpilil who shot to global fame alongside Paul Hogan in Crocodile Dundee dies after battle with lung cancer aged 68 Gulpilil won global fame for his performance in Crocodile Dundee, but was a suprising star of the screen due to his upbringing. He was raised with the Yolngu people in Arnhem Land in northern Australia, away from western influence. As an actor he appeared in iconic Australian films like Storm Boy, Charlie's Country, Ten Canoes, Rabbit-Proof Fence, and The Tracker. But it was a small role as Neville Bell in Crocodile Dundee that earned him fans around the world for his memorable scene opposite Paul Hogan in the 1986 classic. Despite his success, Gulpilil was never a wealthy man because he would often donate his earnings to others. The multi-talented performer was immortalised in an Archibald Prize-winning portrait in 2004 and once danced for Queen Elizabeth at the opening of the Sydney Opera House in 1973. However, drinking took a toll on Gulpilil in the last decade of his life. Gulpilil was sentenced to a year in jail in 2011 after breaking his wife Miriam Ashley's arm with a broom in a drunken fight. In 2006, he was charged with carrying an offensive weapon after drawing a machete during an altercation but was later cleared as the blade was deemed useful for cultural purposes. Gulpilil was diagnosed with terminal lung cancer in 2017. He died four years later aged 68. Reginald VelJohnson Reginald VelJohnson appearing on Dancing With The Stars on US TV earlier this year VelJohnson played the limo driver Gus in Crocodile Dundee and is also known for appearances in two Die Hard films, Turner & Hooch, That's So Raven and Family Matters. The personal life of the 72-year-old is not well known, he is not known to have ever married or have any children. In 2017, a website falsely claimed he had died of a heart attack in an internet death hoax. This year, he appeared on Dancing With The Stars - The US version of Strictly Come Dancing. He was eliminated in the show's second week. John Meillon John Meillon's role as Mick’s business partner was among his last in a illustrious 30-year career before he died in 1989 of liver cirrhosis aged 55 While most of Crocodile Dundee’s stars were at the beginning of their careers, Meillon’s roles as Mick’s business partner in both the film and its sequel were among his last. The well-known Australian star had an illustrious 30-year career behind him as a prolific character actor, most notably in My Name's McGooley, What's Yours? He had appeared in radio plays since he was a boy, toured with Shakespeare companies and even received an OBE for services to theatre in the Queen's honours list in 1979. Meillon died of liver cirrhosis in 1989 aged 55. Mark Blum American actor Mark Blum scored one of his early roles playing Sue’s editor and love interest back in the U.S. and went on to have a productive TV career The American actor scored one of his early roles playing Sue’s editor and love interest back in the U.S. He went on to have a productive TV career, playing a journalist again soon after in Capital News and then had guest star roles on dozens of major TV shows, with consistent work over three decades. He also starred in numerous Broadway plays, including in Gore Vidal’s The Best Men in two runs more than a decade apart. Mark died from complications related to coronavirus in 2020 at the age of 69. Caitlin Clarke The actress who played Simone, a friendly sex worker in Crocodile Dundee ,had enjoyed her breakthrough role as Valerian in the film Dragonslayer just a year earlier. In the 1990s she returned to the theatre and starred in Titanic: The Musical on Broadway. Clarke was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2000, she moved home to Pittsburgh where she taught theatre at the university until her sad death in 2004 at the age of 52. John Snyder John Snyder's (right in 2013) scene-stealing role was among the prolific American actor’s first screen appearances before he launched a successful TV career Snyder has now carved out a profitable niche as a voiceover artist, providing English dubs to Japanese animation series and movies. The scene-stealing role was among the prolific American actor’s first screen appearances before he launched a successful TV career. After a decade as a guest star in numerous U.S. TV shows, he carved out a profitable niche as a voiceover artist, providing English dubs to Japanese animation series and movies. He also lent his voice to a dozen video games and popped up in various stage plays. Paul Hogan Share or comment on this article: Who from the Crocodile Dundee cast outlived the famed 16ft reptile Burt? Here's where the cast are now - including Paul Hogan the 'recluse' e-mail Add commentEAST RUTHERFORD, N.J. (AP) — New York Giants quarterback Tommy DeVito came out of his first start of the season with a sore throwing arm and his status for Thursday's game against the Cowboys in Dallas is uncertain. DeVito was not listed on Monday's injury report and coach Brian Daboll said he did not know about the injury to the quarterback's right arm until just before the team had a walkthrough practice on Tuesday. Daboll said he was hopeful DeVito would play, but he added that backup Drew Lock will get a couple of extra snaps in the short workout. Having played on Sunday, the Giants (2-9) are prepping for the Cowboys (4-7) with walkthroughs. DeVito was given the starting job last week when Daboll benched Daniel Jones after five straight losses. Jones asked co-owner John Mara to cut him on Friday and the team released him so he could pursue other opportunities after he cleared waivers on Monday, which he did. DeVito was 21 of 31 for 189 yards in a 30-7 loss to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. He was sacked four times and missed one play in the fourth quarter after being hit hard after making a throw. AP NFL: https://apnews.com/hub/nflNone

Ulefone Armor X31 Pro rugged smartphone with Android 14, Night vision camera unveiled

Of the total 24 PS4-Orbital Experiment Module (POEM-4) payloads which will be flown onboard the PSLV-C60 SpaDeX mission, four have been developed by Karnataka-based academia and start-ups. The PSLV-C60 SpaDeX mission is likely to be launched by ISRO by the end of this month from Sriharikota. The four payloads are: RVSat-1 payload, BGS ARPIT (Amateur Radio Payload for Information Transmission), RUDRA 1.0 HPGP and GLX-SQ payload. Microbiological experiment The RVSat-1 payload is developed by R.V. College of Engineering, Bengaluru, and aims to perform a microbiological experiment under microgravity conditions in Low Earth Orbit. “RVSat-1 will measure the growth kinetics of a gut bacterium, ‘Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron,’ in space and generate a comprehensive growth curve of the bacterium under space conditions, supplemented with prebiotics, and compare it with Earth-based data. This experiment provides valuable data for understanding human physiology in space and astronaut health and well-being during crewed missions. The data collected from the experiment has diverse applications such as the development of effective antibiotics against resistant strains, waste management, recycling and bioremediation processes critical for space exploration,” ISRO said. Amateur radio satellites The BGS ARPIT payload is developed by SJC Institute of Technology, Chickballapur, and it is a multimode message transmitter payload that can transmit audio, text, and image messages from a satellite to the ground using FM modulation and the VHF band. “It is designed to provide amateur radio satellite services globally,” the space agency said. Developed by space start-up Bellatrix Aerospace Pvt. Ltd., RUDRA 1.0 HPGP’s primary objectives are to demonstrate a high-performance green propulsion system, sustain steady-state thruster firing for a minimum of 50 seconds, and monitor the thermal profile of the propulsion system. The GLX-SQ payload developed by GalaxEye Space Solutions Private Limited demonstrates the generation, capture, and processing of Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) images in a space environment. Walking robotic arm In addition the mission will also see the launch of payloads such as Relocatable Robotic Manipulator-Technology Demonstrator (RRM-TD), also known as the Walking Robotic Arm. The RRM-TD is India’s first space robotic manipulator with walking capability, Compact Research Module for Orbital Plant Studies (CROPS) payload which is envisioned as a multi-phase platform to develop and evolve ISRO’s capabilities for growing and sustaining flora in extraterrestrial environments. “Designed as a fully automated system, a 5 to 7-day experiment is planned to demonstrate seed germination and plant sustenance until the two-leaf stage in a microgravity environment,” ISRO said. Also onboard is the Amity Plant Experimental Module in Space (APEMS) payload is developed by Amity University, Mumbai, which is designed to study growth-related changes in plant callus using the ‘Spinacia oleracea’ model under microgravity (space environment) and Earth gravity (natural environment) Of the 24 payloads flown in this POEM-4 mission, 14 payloads are from ISRO centres and 10 payloads are from various academia and start-ups. Published - December 22, 2024 10:10 pm IST Copy link Email Facebook Twitter Telegram LinkedIn WhatsApp Reddit ISRO / technology (general) / space programme

5 Smart Jump Ropes That Will Level Up Your WorkoutThe Captain Planet Foundation, in collaboration with YFM, hosted a pivotal Planeteer Alliance and Tide Turners plastic policy training session on Saturday, December 14, 2024, at the Airport West Hotel in Accra. The training was designed to equip young individuals with the skills and knowledge needed to become effective environmental stewards, focusing on the development and implementation of policies to manage plastic waste and drive environmental conservation efforts. Bringing together a diverse group of young environmental advocates, the event provided strategic insights into designing impactful plastic waste policies. Participants engaged in interactive group sessions and experiential learning methods aimed at empowering them to take the lead in shaping Ghana’s environmental future. The training underscored the importance of creating sustainable solutions that address the growing challenge of plastic pollution. Leesa Carter-Jones, President and CEO of the Captain Planet Foundation, spoke at the event, highlighting the potential of the participants. “What’s truly exciting is the potential of these young environmental advocates. Our training is not just about teaching skills—it’s about igniting a movement. We’re seeing young people who aren’t just learning, but actively creating solutions that can transform environmental conservation in Ghana and beyond,” Carter-Jones said. The training was led by young Planeteer Alliance leaders who had participated in previous sessions. Ipato Kenta from Kenya and Toluwalase Abiona from Nigeria facilitated the sessions in Ghana, bringing their experience and expertise to the training. Latoya Henry, COO of the Captain Planet Foundation, also supported the event, bridging generational perspectives with her extensive background in environmental advocacy. Toluwalase Abiona expressed his admiration for the creativity of the participants. “What impressed me most was the creativity of the participants. During our group sessions, we saw young people developing technological solutions to environmental challenges. It’s clear that Ghana’s youth are not just aware of environmental issues; they are ready to solve them with ingenuity and passion,” Abiona said. Dr. Timothy Karikari, a Board Member of the Captain Planet Foundation and Leader of the Ghana Planeteers Movement, emphasized the importance of investing in the next generation of environmental leaders. “We stand at a critical juncture where environmental challenges demand innovative solutions and passionate commitment. By investing in these 50 young leaders, we are protecting our future. Each participant here today carries the potential to influence their community, challenge existing practices, and inspire a nationwide conversation about sustainable living.” Dr. Karikari also noted that while Planeteer Alliance is for individuals aged 25 and below, those above 25 with a passion for environmental change can join the Ghana Planeteers Movement as a support group to mentor the younger participants. Ahead of the training, the Captain Planet Foundation and YFM organized a significant beach clean-up initiative at Akoma Village in Accra on Friday, December 13, 2024. The event, supported by Ecozoil Limited, a leading waste management service in Ghana, saw a coalition of volunteers, including local community members, students, and environmental enthusiasts, coming together to remove plastic waste, discarded fishing nets, and other debris from the beach. Other notable leaders who contributed to the event included Lakeisha Sesay, an award-winning public sector strategist and Board Member of the Captain Planet Foundation; Tracy Kyei, Founding Member of the Ghana Planeteers Movement and Marketing Manager at Samsung Ghana; Princess Sekyere, an international communications consultant and founding member of the Ghana Planeteers Movement; Professor Daniel Nukpezah from the Institute of Environment and Sanitation Studies at the University of Ghana; and Anna Sakyibea Bekai, Senior Programme Officer at the Ministry of Environment, Science, Technology, and Innovation. The Captain Planet Foundation remains committed to its mission of inspiring and educating young people globally, turning environmental awareness into tangible action. Established by Ted Turner and Barbara Pyle, the foundation is dedicated to environmental education and empowering youth to become leaders in environmental conservation. Through its innovative programs and global partnerships, the foundation strives to create a sustainable future for the planet.