What’s the most exciting initial public offering (IPO) of 2025? My vote would go to CoreWeave (CRWV -3.25%). Its IPO was the biggest for a tech stock since 2021.

Sure, CoreWeave had to lower its planned IPO share price. However, that was due more to broader market headwinds than anything related to the company itself. At any rate, CoreWeave stock has nonetheless performed exceptionally well. It ranks among the biggest large-cap winners of the year.

But that’s all water under the bridge now. Where will CoreWeave stock be in five years?

Image source: Getty Images.

CoreWeave’s future largely hinges on three key factors

To make an educated guess about CoreWeave’s prospects, we have to first understand its business. The company is one of a handful of artificial intelligence (AI) hyperscalers. Its sole focus is providing infrastructure designed to support the workloads of AI systems, especially generative AI applications.

The most important factor affecting where CoreWeave stock will be in 2030 is almost certainly how strong the demand for AI infrastructure will be through the rest of the decade. As of right now, the prognosis looks great. Exhibit A is that CoreWeave’s revenue more than tripled year over year in its latest quarter.

Next on the list, in my view, is how well CoreWeave can keep up with the demand. CEO and co-founder Michael Intrator said in the company’s Q2 update, “We are scaling rapidly as we look to meet the unprecedented demand for AI.” Such a massive buildout is expensive. That’s the main reason CoreWeave remains unprofitable.

Electricity supply could also be a constraint. Consulting giant Deloitte estimates that power demand from U.S. AI data centers could skyrocket more than 30x by 2035 to 123 gigawatts.

CoreWeave’s future hinges on a third factor, too: competition. The hyperscaler’s rivals include some of the biggest companies on the planet with exceptionally deep pockets. If AI infrastructure demand slows, the competitive threats could become more pronounced.

Potential scenarios

With those factors in mind, let’s explore a few potential scenarios for CoreWeave. I’ll start with the most optimistic one.

An explosion in AI infrastructure demand fueled by AI advances

The AI demand we’ve seen thus far could be only the tip of the iceberg. Agentic AI remains in its early stages of adoption. Artificial general intelligence (AGI) and artificial superintelligence (ASI) aren’t the stuff of science fiction anymore. Major companies are investing heavily in developing these game-changing AI breakthroughs.

In this scenario, CoreWeave’s growth would be impressive. The company could probably generate revenue of over $200 billion in 2030. At the current average price-to-sales ratio of 8 for the internet services and infrastructure industry, that would translate to a market cap for CoreWeave of at least $1.6 trillion — a gain of roughly 23x in five years.

One wrinkle in this scenario, though, is that the biggest hyperscalers could view CoreWeave as an attractive acquisition target to boost their own capacity. The purchase price would depend on the timing of such a potential buyout: The earlier in the AI infrastructure explosion, the less expensive acquiring CoreWeave would be.

Solid AI infrastructure demand growth

In this scenario, AI infrastructure demand continues to grow at a robust (although not explosive) pace. We probably wouldn’t see AGI or ASI emerge over the next five years. However, agentic AI could gain more widespread adoption.

I think CoreWeave could realistically rake in revenue in the ballpark of $60 billion in this scenario. That number reflects an increase of around 12x from Wall Street’s consensus revenue estimate for 2025. Using the average industry P/S multiple of 8, that would put CoreWeave’s market cap at $480 billion or so. Its share price would need to grow nearly 7x to hit that mark.

Weak AI infrastructure demand growth

Now, let’s suppose AI infrastructure demand tapers off dramatically. This scenario would likely be devastating for CoreWeave. Its stock already has significant growth baked into the share price with a P/S ratio of 19.

If CoreWeave fell to the current industry average P/S multiple, its stock could plunge by at least 50%. However, I suspect that the average would itself decline quite a bit if AI infrastructure demand slowed to a crawl. A decline of 70% or more for CoreWeave’s share price probably wouldn’t be out of the question in this scenario.

A prediction for CoreWeave in 2030

The easiest prediction for CoreWeave in 2030 is to go with something along the lines of the middle-of-the-road scenario mentioned above. Even if that scenario is still overly optimistic, I could easily see CoreWeave being worth at least $200 billion by the end of the decade. A gain of almost 3x in just five years isn’t too shabby.

DIEGO COSTA may be retired, but he hasn’t lost any of the fire he showed in his playing days, KICKING OUT at ex-Liverpool right-back Martin Kelly in the Chelsea vs Liverpool legends match.

The ex-Brazil and Spain forward, 37, was running onto a through ball from Eden Hazard, when Kelly came through from behind to win the ball from the physical striker, leaving him furious.

2

2

Costa, still on the floor, decided to lash out at Kelly with his studs, planting a foot into the right-back’s upper leg.

Kelly – who only officially retired from football YESTERDAY – was left furious, and we saw a familiar scene as Costa got to his feet and squared up to the 35-year-old.

Things looked to be diffused, only for Costa to carry on playing before choosing Martin Skrtel as his next target.

The Slovakian defender challenged Costa just minutes later, with the striker still clearly unhappy, and then getting booked for squaring up to Skrtel.

And fans were left less-than-shocked on social media.

Taking to X, one wrote: “Diego Costa being aggressive in a Legends match is the most Diego Costa thing ever.”

Another said: “People don’t really change, and Diego Costa reminding us why.”

A third added: “Diego Costa will always be Diego Costa.”

CASINO SPECIAL – BEST CASINO BONUSES FROM £10 DEPOSITS

Even Eden Hazard weighed in at half-time, saying: “”This guy is still the same, you know. We just saw it.”

THIS IS A DEVELOPING STORY..

The Sun is your go to destination for the best football, boxing and MMA news, real-life stories, jaw-dropping pictures and must-see video.Like us on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/TheSunFootball and follow us from our main Twitter account at @TheSunFootball.

When Kostas Tsimikas swept in Greece’s goal on 62 minutes, it followed a passage of play that involved Greece making 54 almost unchallenged passes over three minutes during which Andy Robertson’s glancing header to clear a cross was the only Scottish touch.

It typified the passiveness of the first hour.

“I wonder whether Steve will look at bringing Billy Gilmour on,” McCann had already said at the break.

“I don’t think it’s worked with Ryan [Christie] and Lewis [Ferguson] playing really narrow and deep, because they’ve not got on it. We’ve not been able to build the game going through.”

Gilmour did not come on and suddenly grab the game by the scruff of the neck and change things on his own, but nonetheless his influence was there after Christie’s equaliser.

His first real opportunity to get his head up and pass was on 69 minutes and he fired it through a tight space to Ferguson, whose first-time pass round the corner just evaded Che Adams as Scotland sprung forward quickly.

Gilmour’s clever free-kick also teed up Adams for a good chance at 1-1 and he ended up with five passes into the final third during his half hour on the pitch.

Only Robertson and Ferguson had more – and they played nearly the full game.

“I think Billy Gilmour coming on was pivotal in terms of us getting hold of the ball,” McCann said at full-time on BBC Scotland’s Sportscene.

“He was instrumental in the cross-field pass which Tsimikas takes out Ferguson when he eventually scores.”

As McCann described, Gilmour’s prints were on the build-up to the second goal as his positioning allowed Grant Hanley to find a pass to him between two Greece players.

He turned and moved it forward to Christie, got it back, moved the ball to Robertson, before executing the crucial pass once McTominay returned it to him.

Tsimikas fouled Ferguson and the Bologna man did brilliantly to take his chance in the box from the free-kick as Scotland hit the front.

For the past couple of months, the billionaire father-son duo of Larry and David Ellison have been making deals involving major media brands. Having acquired Paramount, the parent company of CBS News, they appointed Bari Weiss – an outspoken supporter of Israel – as the network’s editor-in-chief. The moves by the Ellisons are not just about growing their media empire, but about shaping the narrative around Israel in the US, where public support continues to decline.

Contributors: 
David Klion – Columnist, The Nation
Danielle Moodie – Host, The Danielle Moodie Show
Ryan Grim – Reporter, Drop Site News

On our radar:

Israel and Hamas have agreed to the first phase of a Gaza ceasefire, ending two years of genocide. It’s a moment that brought relief to Palestinians in Gaza. But for Donald Trump, it was an opportunity for self-congratulation – with both he and his allies emphasising how pivotal he was in making things happen. Tariq Nafi has been following the story.

In Portugal, the far-right party Chega, once on the fringes, is leading the polls, and its leader, Andre Ventura, has become one of the country’s most recognisable political figures. Ventura’s rise has been spurred by his television background and carefully crafted media persona. The onetime football pundit has become a political showman. And he’s been amplified by the country’s mainstream media, who have been chasing ratings over accountability.  Ryan Kohls reports.

Featuring:
Miguel Carvalho – Journalist
Ines Narciso – Disinformation researcher, Iscte-Iul
Anabela Neves – Journalist, CNN Portugal

Hamas is pressing Israel to include prominent Palestinians in a prisoner-release list – part of a ceasefire deal that will also see hostages returned from Gaza.

Hamas’s insistence comes after the Israeli justice ministry published the names of 250 prisoners to be freed, but excluded seven high-profile prisoners, including Marwan Barghouti and Ahmad Saadat.

The men, who are serving sentences after being convicted of involvement in separate deadly attacks in Israel, have long been seen by Palestinians as symbols of resistance.

Twenty Israeli hostages are expected to be released before 12:00 (09:00 GMT) on Monday as part of the deal proposed by US President Donald Trump.

A senior Palestinian official familiar with the talks told the BBC that US envoy Steve Witkoff had promised to raise the exclusion of the Palestinian prisoners with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but Israel has firmly refused to include them.

It is not clear whether this could be a sticking point, or impact the timeline for the release of hostages from the Gaza Strip and Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails.

The releases are due to take place in the first phase of Trump’s ceasefire and hostage return deal, approved this week to end the two-year war in Gaza.

It is unclear how the hostages will be released this time – on previous occasions Hamas paraded them in public, infuriating Israel and many of its Western allies.

The bodies of deceased hostages will also be returned. It is thought that at least 26 hostages are deceased, with the fate of two others unknown.

Israel will also release about 250 Palestinian prisoners serving life sentences in Israeli jails, and another 1,700 Palestinians from Gaza who have been detained.

Hamas had submitted a list of prisoners it wanted released that included Barghouti and Saadat.

Barghouti is serving five life sentences plus 40 years after being convicted in 2004 of planning attacks that led to five civilians being killed.

Opinion polls have consistently indicated that he remains the most popular Palestinian leader, and that Palestinians would vote for him in a presidential election ahead of the current Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas or Hamas leaders.

Barghouti remains a senior figure in the Fatah faction that dominates the PA, which governs parts of the occupied West Bank not under Israeli control.

Saadat, leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), was sentenced to 30 years after being convicted in 2008 of heading an “illegal terrorist organisation” and involvement in attacks, including the assassination of an Israeli minister in 2001.

Among the 250 prisoners set to be released is Iyad Abu al-Rub, an Islamic Jihad commander convicted of orchestrating suicide bombings in Israel that killed 13 people in the early 2000s.

According to the Israeli justice ministry, he will be released either to Gaza or deported abroad.

The BBC understands that Hamas is also pushing for some possible additional prisoner releases. These relate to Palestinian prisoners who were released years ago as part of an exchange for the hostage Gilad Shalit – and then were rearrested after 7 October.

Hamas argues that since they were part of a previous hostage exchange, they should not be included in the 250 figure.

In Israel, hospitals are preparing for the release of hostages as families await their return.

The first phase of the Israel-Hamas deal saw a ceasefire take effect on Friday and Israeli forces partially withdraw from parts of Gaza. Hundreds of aid trucks a day are now expected to enter. The next phases are still being negotiated.

Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have returned from southern Gaza to Gaza City, weeks after fleeing the Israeli offensive that destroyed much of the city.

Gaza’s Hamas-run civil defence agency has said it is conducting recovery operations and pulling bodies from the rubble, with Palestinians still missing across the territory.

Israel’s war on Gaza was triggered by the Hamas-led attacks on southern Israel on 7 October 2023, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 taken hostage.

Since then, 67,682 Palestinians have been killed in Israel’s military offensive in Gaza, the Hamas-run health ministry says.

Additional reporting by Mallory Moench

A former Strictly Come Dancing professional has revealed they wanted to return to the BBC One show after leaving in 2012 and being a part of the show for seven series.

Former Strictly Come Dancing professional Vincent Simone has revealed he wanted to return to the BBC One show but “it didn’t work out”. The dancer joined the show in 2006 for the fourth series and did seven series before leaving it behind in 2012.

Now he’s opened up about his exit as he said: “The year I left Strictly Come Dancing, there were going to be big changes.

“Bruce Forsyth was leaving, and the show was moving from Shepherd’s Bush where we were there for seven years, and we were moving to Elstree Studios, which was a big change. It got to a point where I got to the final, and although I didn’t win, I was fully satisfied with how I’d done in the show.”

However, Vincent only intended on taking a short break from the show but he got to busy doing his other work that it didn’t end up materialising.

READ MORE: Dianne Buswell hits back at claims Stefan Dennis’ illness is ‘a cover up’ for pregnancy strugglesREAD MORE: BBC Strictly Come Dancing fans fuming for George Clarke over show decision

He continued to Daily Star: “Ideally, what I wanted was to take a year or two out of the show, and then to come back, but we all know that’s rare.

“If I could’ve had that chance to leave Strictly for a few years and then come back, that would’ve been ideal. I would’ve gone back, but those years after Strictly, I was fully committed to West End shows and my own shows.

“Then I went onto I’m A Celebrity, which I wouldn’t have been able to do if I was on Strictly. My career in touring and performing has made me feel very blessed.”

During his first series, Vincent was partnered with EastEnders actress Louisa Lytton and the pair made it all the way to the final four and were eliminated two weeks before the final.

The following year, the dancer was paired with actress Stephanie Beacham with the two being eliminated on week two but in 2008 he made a triumphant return when he came second with S Club 7 singer Rachel Stevens.

His next partner was EastEnders actress Natalie Cassidy, who he came fifth with, followed by his partnership with Felicity Kendal resulting in them being voted off in week seven.

In 2011, it was disappointment all around as he and Conservative party politician Edwina Currie were the first pair to be eliminated from the competition.

In Vincent’s final year, the performer and his partner, Tracy Beaker star Dani Harmer got eliminated a week before the final, ending their run in fourth place.

After quitting the show, he and dance partner Flavia Cacace continued to perform with stage shows and live tours.

In 2013, he took part on the thirteenth series of I’m A Celebrity, arriving as a late entrant to camp with actress Annabel Giles.

He finished in tenth place, being the third celebrity to leave in a double elimination with Matthew Wright.

The current series of the BBC One show is airing at the moment, with celebrities including Vicky Pattison, Alex Kingston, Amber Davies and Chris Robshaw attempting to lift the glitterball trophy.

The Apprentice star Thomas Skinner and his partner Amy Dowden became the first pair to leave the competition after landing in the bottom two with Chris and Nadiya Bychkova.

In his exit interview with Tess Daly, he said: “Thank you, Amy – sorry that we haven’t done too good, ’cause you’re a different class.

“I’ve never danced before and my stay was short, but Amy’s amazing. It’s been great fun and I’ve enjoyed it. I can’t really dance that well but I’ve had fun!”

Strictly Come Dancing continues tonight at 6:05pm on BBC One and BBC iPlayer.

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .

If you’re thinking about investing in the stock market today, you may be wondering whether it’s a better idea to go with the big names in the “Magnificent Seven” or to simply hold a position in the entire S&P 500.

The Magnificent Seven refers to some of the most prominent growth stocks in the world: Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta Platforms, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Tesla. Investing in these companies has yielded strong returns for investors over the years. Meanwhile, the S&P 500 makes for a more balanced investment overall, as it gives investors broader exposure to the market while still growing over the long term. By having a position in the 500 best stocks rather than just the top seven, there’s much more diversification.

Which option should you go with today, if your focus is on long-term growth?

Image source: Getty Images.

The Magnificent Seven are magnificent, but they could be overdue for a decline

One way you can gain exposure to the Magnificent Seven is by investing in the Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF (MAGS -3.81%). The fund invests in just the Magnificent Seven and, thus, can be an easier option than investing in each stock individually. Since its launch in April 2023, the fund has soundly outperformed the S&P 500, rising by more than 165% while the broader index has achieved gains of around 64%.

Many of the Magnificent Seven have benefited from an uptick in demand due to artificial intelligence (AI) and have been investing heavily in next-gen technologies. However, many investors worry that a bubble has already formed around AI stocks and that spending could slow down, especially if there’s a recession on the horizon. If that happens, then these stocks could be susceptible to significant declines.

While these stocks have been flying high of late, back in 2022, when the market was in turmoil due to rising inflation and as investor sentiment was souring on growth stocks, each of the Magnificent Seven stocks fell by more than 26%. The worst-performing stocks were Meta and Tesla, which lost around 65% of their value. That year, the S&P 500 also fell, but at 19%, it was a more modest decline.

The S&P 500 is more diverse, but that doesn’t mean it’s risk-free

If you want to have exposure to the S&P 500, you can accomplish that by investing in an S&P 500 index fund, such as the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY -2.67%). Its low expense ratio of 0.09% makes it a low-cost, no-nonsense way of tracking the S&P 500. Its focus is to simply mirror the index, and it does a great job of that.

The problem, however, is that while the S&P 500 will give you exposure to more stocks than just the seven best stocks in the world, how those leading stocks do will still have a significant impact on the overall stock market. And the Magnificent Seven, because they are so valuable, are also among the SPDR ETF’s largest holdings.

But even if you were to go with a more balanced exchange-traded fund, such as the Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF, which has an equal position in all S&P 500 stocks, that may only offer modest protection from a wide-scale sell-off. In 2022, the ETF declined by 13%.

You’re always going to face some risk when investing in the stock market, especially if your focus is on growth stocks, which can be particularly volatile.

What’s the better strategy for growth investors?

If your priority is growth, then going with the Magnificent Seven can still be the best option moving forward. These stocks will undoubtedly have bad years, but that’s the risk that comes with growth stocks. However, given their dominance in tech and AI, the Magnificent Seven still have the potential to vastly outperform the S&P 500 in the long run, and their gains are likely to far outweigh their losses.

FOR SIX YEARS, Gov. George Deukmejian has successfully run a state bigger than most nations. But to the po litical elite of his own country, he couldn’t be much less visible than if he were the mayor of California’s insular state capital.

Interviews with more than two dozen Republican political consultants, Reagan Administration officials, California congressmen, and independent national policy analysts found that Deukmejian, for the governor of the nation’s largest state, has a remarkably low profile in national political circles–even as his name appears on lists of potential running mates for George Bush. The Iron Duke to his supporters, Deukmejian is virtually the Invisible Duke in national political terms. At best, with Massachusetts Gov. Michael S. Dukakis poised to accept the Democratic presidential nomination in Atlanta this month, Deukmejian has acquired an identity as the Other Duke.

“There are people I’ve run into in the higher reaches of the federal government who don’t even know who the governor of California is,” says Martin Anderson, former chief domestic policy and economic adviser to President Reagan and now a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. “He is largely unknown in Republican circles,” agrees Republican political consultant John Buckley, press secretary for New York Rep. Jack F. Kemp’s presidential bid. “There is no perception of him,” says Roger J. Stone, another leading Republican political consultant.

Not all governors, of course, are national figures. But it has become increasingly common for the governors of major states to wield national clout. Many governors–from Republicans Thomas H. Kean of New Jersey and John H. Sununu of New Hampshire to Democrats Mario M. Cuomo of New York and Bill Clinton of Arkansas–are influential in shaping both the political agenda of their parties and the policy agenda of Congress, particularly on issues confronting the states.

By and large, Deukmejian hasn’t been among them. Deukmejian has not been a force on Capitol Hill. His relations with the California congressional delegation are cordial but distant, several members and aides say, and he has never testified before Congress. Nor has he been a significant participant in the Republican Party’s intramural ideological debates; he remained distant from the presidential primaries this year until the result was long decided. He rarely interacts with the national press corps or national conservative activists.

This parochialism is remarkable considering the lineage in which Deukmejian stands–one that traces back not only to such nationally prominent California governors as Ronald Reagan and Earl Warren, but also in a sense to New Yorkers Franklin D. Roosevelt and Thomas E. Dewey. In the first half of this century, when New York was the nation’s most populous and powerful state, its governors consistently shaped the national agenda. In the 12 presidential elections from 1904 to 1948, a New York governor headed the ticket for one or the other party nine times.

Since then, California has muscled its way to clear economic pre-eminence among the states, the economic boom fueling an explosion in population. Inexorably, if unevenly, political influence has followed. California now sends as many representatives to Congress as New York did at the height of its power; after the next congressional reapportionment (which will follow the 1990 Census), California will command a larger share of the Congress than any state in history. In the four decades before Deukmejian took office, every California governor save one made at least an exploratory run at the presidency. Earl Warren sought the Republican presidential nomination in 1948 and 1952. In 1960, Democrat Edmund G. (Pat) Brown seriously examined challenging John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson and the rest of the Democratic field before deciding not to make the race.

Once California passed New York as the most populous state in 1964, it cemented its reputation as the launching pad for political trends, and its governors emerged as national figures almost as soon as they finished taking the oath of office. At the 1968 Republican convention, Ronald Reagan, just two years into his tenure as governor, offered himself for the presidency as the hero of the nascent anti-government conservative revolt. In 1976, Jerry Brown, also just two years into his term, declared the dawning of the “era of limits” and rocketed into the political stratosphere with a string of late primary victories over Jimmy Carter.

After Brown came Deukmejian, and as far as the spotlight of national attention was concerned, the heavy drapes fell around Sacramento. “I just sort of sensed the public at the time I came in was looking for a governor who would not be off running for some other office, and in fact, was going to be carrying a hands-on approach to state government,” Deukmejian says in a relaxed, wide-ranging interview in his small office in the state Capitol. “Also at the beginning we had some very severe financial difficulties (namely a $1.5-billion budget deficit he inherited from Brown). And when I won in my first election, it was by a very, very narrow margin, and I felt that I really had to concentrate on . . . what goes on in the state capital and building a much greater degree of support from the public before . . . taking some steps out toward more exposure on the national scene.”

Since then, though, Deukmejian has come a long way politically, which makes his low national profile remarkable for a second reason: None of his recent predecessors have been more popular or politically successful within the state than Deukmejian. His crushing reelection over Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley in their 1986 rematch was a more decisive victory than Pat Brown, Ronald Reagan or Jerry Brown ever managed. Two years into his second term–when most of his predecessors had been hobbled by nicks and bruises–Deukmejian’s job approval ratings from Californians remain buoyant; his latest numbers in the Field Institute’s California Poll exceed Reagan’s highest marks at any point during his two terms. “He’s been a far better governor than Reagan,” says conservative Rep. Robert K. Dornan (R-Garden Grove).

Sometimes governors get into trouble for paying too much attention to Washington and the bright lights of national politics. But Deukmejian has so secured his position in the state that no one would be likely to grumble if he examined the national terrain more purposefully. If anything, some Republicans are puzzled about Deukmejian’s passivity in pushing the cause of the party, the state and, not incidentally, himself. “Deukmejian is the first governor of the state that is the largest who is not a national factor,” Dornan says.

Politics, as much as nature, abhors a vacuum that immense, and events may be pulling Deukmejian, inch by inch, toward the national stage. Even though most Republican leaders have only vague impressions of Deukmejian, the popular governor cannot entirely escape notice. When the party gathers for its convention Aug. 15-18 in New Orleans, Deukmejian is bound to appear on the short list of Republicans positioned to compete not only for the vice presidency in 1988, but also for the party’s presidential nomination in the 1990s. And for all of his reticence, Deukmejian in recent months has become more willing to expose himself to audiences outside of the state. It is much too early, many national Republicans agree, to write off George Deukmejian as a force in the future of his party, well beyond the borders of California.

TODAY, however, Deukmejian stands on square one in national Republican circles. “People have no sense of him,” says political consultant Edward J. Rollins, who ran Reagan’s presidential reelection campaign and served as his chief political adviser in the White House from 1981 to 1985. “There is no question when he was first elected six years ago the potential was there for him to have a very big national profile, and I think a lot of people turned to him. There were a lot of comparisons between him and (New York Gov.) Cuomo, who was elected the same year. But he has sort of stayed where he’s at, and Cuomo has gone on to be a big national player.”

Cuomo has emerged partly because of his restless ambition, but also because he seems genuinely fascinated with public debate over the most fundamental social and moral issues. That’s a fascination Deukmejian, the diligent manager, doesn’t appear to share. He has always operated on the assumption that politicians who seek attention often find problems instead.

Whether for lack of interest or lack of time–as aides note, a governor of California has more to manage than a small-state governor such as Sununu or Clinton–Deukmejian simply hasn’t done the drill necessary to achieve national notice for himself and for issues affecting the state. Not much for mingling with the media at home, he has been aloof from the national media. His June appearance on ABC’s “This Week With David Brinkley” was his first on one of the national Sunday-morning interview shows, and his lack of experience in the fast-moving format showed. “It has been a mystery to those of us who are national conservatives why he will turn down appearances on the ‘Today Show,’ ‘Good Morning America,’ ‘CBS Morning News’ (and) ‘Nightline,’ ” Dornan says.

Deukmejian says he considers it “important, particularly on issues that affect California” to influence national-policy debates. “That’s why we have become very, very active in areas” such as national trade policy, he says. “Little by little, but in a very determined way, we’ve been trying to indicate our presence in that field of trade policy.” But almost all the outside observers interviewed had difficulty naming a front-burner national issue–trade or otherwise–on which Deukmejian has been a force.

“He has not become a national spokesman for quality education as an investment of the foundations of our economy; he hasn’t become a national spokesman on our relationship with Asia, which as a California governor he could do,” says Derek Shearer, a professor of public policy at Occidental College who has advised several Democratic presidential candidates.

Similarly, Deukmejian has had relatively little contact with the Republicans in the California congressional delegation. He has occasionally offered them opinions on pending legislation–he opposed, for example, protectionist amendments in the recent trade bill–but “there aren’t many such examples,” acknowledges his chief of staff, Michael Frost.

One California Republican representative, who asked not to be identified, complains that Deukmejian has virtually ignored Washington. “He has no dynamic presence, he hasn’t really pitched for anything, he hasn’t testified on stuff, he hasn’t looked for a role to play,” the representative says. “There are things the governor could do if he was looking to build a national base. Instead he comes back here quietly, has a quiet dinner and then quietly slips out of town. There has never been a closed-door, discuss-the-issues meeting with him and the delegation. He has come back a couple of times, but they have been very formal, overly organized, stilted lunches.”

Rep. David Dreier (R-La Verne), by contrast, defends Deukmejian, noting that “it bodes well” that the governor nominated a member of the congressional delegation, Rep. Daniel E. Lungren (R-Long Beach), to replace the late state treasurer, Jesse M. Unruh.

Nor has the Deukmejian Administration unveiled the dramatic initiatives that would bring Washington to him. Although Frost cites programs to combat AIDS and to commercialize research performed in state university labs, Deukmejian hasn’t turned many heads among Washington’s policy junkies–the analysts, authors and think-tank fellows who watch new ideas percolating in the state and bestow intellectual credibility on the creative politicians in the provinces. “In the 1980s, California has been in a state of governmental stagnation compared with previous decades,” says Jerry Hagstrom, author of “Beyond Reagan,” a recent book examining politics and policies in the 50 states.

To the extent Deukmejian has a national reputation, it is as a steadfast fiscal conservative, a skilled and dogged manager. “On the state level,” Deukmejian says, “I think people first of all expect us to run government in an efficient manner.” In his first term, Deukmejian withstood pressure to raise general taxes and used his line-item veto repeatedly to resist spending increases. From 1982 to 1986, the share of personal income claimed by state taxes in California declined slightly, whereas it increased in the states overall. That resistance to spending provides the one hook on which many national Republicans hang their vague images of Deukmejian. “The perception I find in many of my colleagues (outside of California) is that George Deukmejian exudes a kind of quiet competence,” Dreier says.

Deukmejian’s hesitant response to the recent state revenue shortfall–first proposing revenue-raising measures, then dropping them after Republicans rebelled–may stain that image, particularly if budget problems continue through the remainder of his term. But Deukmejian’s decision to back away from his tax proposal also enabled him to loudly reaffirm his opposition to new taxes. And that should serve him well over the long haul since anti-tax sentiments remain strong not only in the GOP but throughout the electorate. “I don’t think the average person feels as though they are overtaxed now,” Deukmejian says, “but they also aren’t asking for a tax increase.”

THIS SPRING’ Spersistent discussion about Deukmejian as a potential running-mate for George Bush has provided the governor with his first serious national attention. No matter how the rumor mill treats his prospects in the weeks leading up to the Republican convention, some Republican strategists believe the importance of California–which alone provides 17% of the electoral votes needed for victory–guarantees that Deukmejian “is absolutely permanently fixed in the top three vice-presidential choices,” as conservative political consultant David M. Carmen put it.

In the fall campaign, California may be not only the largest prize, but the pivotal one. Since World War II, the Republicans have owned this state in presidential politics, losing only twice. But they have almost always had the advantage of a native son on their ticket. In eight of the past 10 campaigns, the Republicans have nominated a Californian for President or vice president: Earl Warren was the GOP’s vice-presidential nominee in 1948; Richard M. Nixon was the party’s vice-presidential choice in 1952 and 1956, and its presidential nominee in 1960, 1968 and 1972; Reagan carried the GOP banner in 1980 and 1984. Only Warren, running with Dewey against Harry Truman, failed to bring home the state for his party.

No Democrat has carried this state in a presidential campaign since Lyndon Johnson. (Even without a Californian on the ticket, Ford edged Carter in 1976.) But Bush faces a surprisingly uphill battle. Independent polls show Dukakis leading Bush by double digits in California–a spread slightly larger than Dukakis’ margin in most national surveys. If Bush continues to trail so badly by the time the Republicans gather in New Orleans, he will undoubtedly face pressure for a dramatic vice-presidential selection. Those options are few: his chief rivals, Kansas Sen. Robert Dole or New York Rep. Jack F. Kemp perhaps, a woman such as Elizabeth Dole or Kansas Sen. Nancy Kassebaum to fight the gender gap, or Deukmejian to try to sew up California and block the Democrats from assembling an electoral college majority.

Deukmejian has said repeatedly he couldn’t take the vice-presidential nomination because, if the ticket won, he would have to turn over the statehouse to Democratic Lt. Gov. Leo T. McCarthy. Deukmejian has insisted about as firmly as he plausibly can that he does not want to take the job and hand over the reins to McCarthy. “I just can’t see any situation–I really can’t see any situation–where I would be able, even if I were asked . . . to accept it,” he says. “I honestly don’t expect to be asked. I really think he can carry California without . . . me on the ticket, and there will probably be either some other areas of the country Bush will want to shore up. I’ve said for a long time if they see there is a very major gender gap, he might very easily pick a woman.”

But Deukmejian’s certainty in June and July may be irrelevant in August. Even such a close adviser as former chief of staff Steven A. Merksamer agrees that, for all the governor’s firmness today, it is impossible to predict what Deukmejian would say if Bush actually offers him the position. If Bush’s advisers decide that he can win only by carrying California and only do that by picking Deukmejian, most national Republicans doubt that the governor would hesitate for long. In those circumstances, how could Deukmejian argue that maintaining control of the statehouse is more important than holding the White House? “It would be” difficult to make that case, Deukmejian acknowledges, “but I hope I don’t have to.”

Few analysts today expect it to come down to that. To some extent, Bush’s advisers have accepted the conventional wisdom that choosing Deukmejian would so roil local Republicans that his selection could hurt the campaign here. And if Deukmejian joined the ticket, his recent problems with an unexpected budget deficit would complicate Republican efforts to criticize Dukakis for the similar shortfall he faces in Massachusetts.

In all likelihood, though, neither of those arguments are compelling enough to disqualify Deukmejian. The Massachusetts revenue shortfall is unlikely to be a decisive issue in any case. And as Bush’s problems deepen, local opposition to Deukmejian as vice president diminishes. Instead, the key question is whether Deukmejian’s presence on the ticket really could ensure Bush victory in California. If Deukmejian can’t deliver California, there’s no reason to nominate him since he is unlikely to help much anywhere else.

Early polls differ on how much Deukmejian would help Bush. Pollster Mervin Field believes Californians are unlikely to vote for a ticket just because it has a local office-holder on it, though the state’s recent electoral history certainly suggests otherwise. On a more tangible level, Deukmejian may not have enough appeal for the crucial blue-collar suburban Democrats to put Bush over the top. “I think it is unlikely he will be chosen because I don’t think you would see any numbers where George Deukmejian would add that much to the ticket,” says one Bush adviser. Still, the talk of Deukmejian won’t die down soon because it may not take that much to turn the result in California–and the nation.

EVEN IF Deukmejian comes out of New Orleans with nothing on his plate but some gumbo and a return ticket to Sacramento, many local and national Republicans believe the governor could yet become a significant factor within the GOP, if he decides to work at it. As governor of a state this large, Deukmejian can always make himself heard. “It is inevitable,” predicts former Reagan aide Anderson, “that Deukmejian will become a major, if not the major, figure in the party in future years.”

If Bush doesn’t succeed this fall, and Deukmejian wins reelection in 1990, the objective factors for a Duke-in-’92 presidential bid are intriguing, some Republicans believe. Deukmejian’s name usually appears on the early lists of potential contenders, though admittedly more because of where than who he is. “He gets mentioned because The Great Mentioner turns to Republicans (and says) California is a big state and you have to mention Deukmejian,” says Washington-based Republican media consultant Mike Murphy.

In 1992, the Republican field mobilizing against a President Dukakis could be much like the Democratic field in 1988, with no clear front runner and no candidate with a deep national base of support. Texas-based Republican pollster V. Lance Tarrance, who advises Deukmejian, thinks that if Bush loses, some candidates (for example Sens. Phil Gramm of Texas and William L. Armstrong of Colorado) would run as issue-oriented ideological revolutionaries and another group would run as capable, tested administrators. As governor of this sprawling nation-state, Tarrance argues, Deukmejian brings to the table solid administrative credibility.

Deukmejian would bring another significant advantage to such a hypothetical nomination contest. As Dukakis demonstrated this year, in such a murky atmosphere, a candidate who can raise the large sums it takes to cut through the clutter is difficult to stop. With a huge and prosperous home state on which to draw, and a skilled team led by Karl M. Samuelian, Deukmejian’s fund-raising potential matches that of any Republican.

Before we pull this Deukmejian train out of the station, a few reality checks might be in order. Reality check No. 1: This is not a man who sets hearts aflutter. Deukmejian’s detractors–and even some of his friends–point out that as far as charisma goes, he makes “Dukakis look like the Beatles.” But if charisma was the key to national success, Dukakis and Bush would be looking for other work. Besides, Deukmejian’s campaign presence is usually underrated. It’s not hard to imagine Deukmejian performing at least at the level of this year’s nominees. Somewhat prosaic and uninspiring, Deukmejian is far from the best campaigner in the world, but he’s not the worst either–with an easygoing, unassuming amiability that wears well on voters. With the press he is personable and unaffected, and though he is sometimes defensive, Deukmejian can defuse tension with unexpected flashes of self-deprecating humor.

Second reality check: This is not a man who suffers from a visible need to make himself a household name. Deukmejian has always enjoyed governing more than campaigning, and many Republican strategists believe he lacks the fire to push himself through the demanding course that any effort to emerge nationally would require.”I just don’t know if the energy and the ideas and the intensity is there,” said an adviser to another Republican angling for the presidency in the 1990s.

While some of those around him would probably like the governor to seek the White House, Deukmejian clearly isn’t consumed with ambition to move up. Seeking the presidency someday now seems to him, “out of the question,” he says. “When I started in the Assembly and later in the Senate, I could say, yes, in my mind that if the opportunity presented itself I’d like to be governor. But I’ve never really had as a goal that I would want to seek the presidency.” He speaks with a combination of amazement and scorn of politicians “who seem to live and breathe and eat politics.”

On the other hand, Deukmejian only became governor by winning an arduous primary against Lt. Gov. Mike Curb, the choice of the California Republican establishment, and then hanging tough against Los Angeles’ popular Mayor Bradley. That is not the profile of a man impervious to ambition’s insistent tug. “He is modest in his demeanor,” says state Republican chairman Bob Naylor, “but there is ambition there.”

Midway through his second term, Deukmejian has shown flashes of interest in examining the world beyond Sacramento. The governor has not pursued opportunities as systematically as Kean and some others, and insists the recent increase in his out-of-state activity “has been primarily just to be of help to the national ticket.” Deukmejian denies any interest in raising his own profile for its own sake. “I’m not out looking for things to do,” he says, “but we do get requests, and I feel a little more comfortable in accepting some of those.” Whatever the motivation, his recent activity and upcoming schedule add up to a typically cautious effort to broaden his horizons.

In April, Deukmejian visited Texas to address a Republican party fund-raiser and drew high marks for a speech in which he gleefully bashed Dukakis. Deukmejian has scheduled four more out of state appearances at Republican fund-raisers through the campaign–including speeches in New York City and Florida. And in recent months he has become more active in governor’s activities. This winter, he assumed the chairmanship of a National Governors Assn. subcommittee on criminal justice–the first time he’s accepted such a responsibility. He’s currently vice chairman of the Western Governors Assn. and is scheduled to become chairman of the group next year. In the second term, he has also seasoned himself with international trade missions to Japan and Europe; later this month he’s scheduled to visit Australia, Hong Kong, the Philippines and Korea. He has formed a political action committee, Citizens for Common Sense, to build a statewide grass-roots political organization and fund his travel.

Deukmejian still isn’t looking for excuses to visit Washington. “I’m not anxious to make that trip back and forth anymore often than I have to,” he says. Earlier this year, he turned down an invitation to attend the Gridiron dinner, the annual closed-door gathering of the capital’s journalistic and political elite. But he did make a well-received address to the conservative Heritage Foundation last fall, and aides say his recent ABC appearance may signal a more open attitude toward the national press.

Third reality check: Even if he’s willing to hit the road, does Deukmejian have anything to say? Now that the Reagan era is ending, the GOP is groping for new direction. But unlike Reagan with his anti-government insurrection, or Kemp with his supply-side economic populism, or New Jersey’s Kean with his brotherly “politics of inclusion” aimed at broadening the party’s base, Deukmejian has offered no overarching vision of the Republican future. Asked to define the fundamental principles that have informed his administration, Deukmejian first listed “a common sense approach to running government.” Try constructing a banner around that. In Jesse Jackson’s terms, this is a jelly-maker not a tree-shaker.

The brightest ideological line running through Deukmejian’s politics is suspicion of government expansion. In that, he’s closer to Reagan than most of the emerging GOP leaders. In office, Deukmejian, like Reagan, has generally been more successful at saying no than yes. His first term, dominated by his unyielding resistance to Democratic spending, had a much sharper focus than his second term. That could be because the times are subtly changing. The polls have shifted, with more people demanding more services from government, and Deukmejian has been somewhat uncertain in his reaction– hesitancy demonstrated by his ultimately passive response to the revenue shortfall. (After he dropped his tax plan, the governor essentially told the Legislature to solve the problem.) He has pushed bond issues to pay for transportation and school construction needs, and increased education spending faster than his predecessors. But unmet needs are accumulating too; huge enrollment growth, for instance, is consuming the increases in school funding and driving the state back below the national average in per capita spending on elementary and secondary school education.

Those concerns about infrastructure and education, Deukmejian acknowledges, could threaten the state’s economic future. But so too, he maintained, would a tax hike that might make firms less likely to settle or expand here. “Our two main challenges are growth and the competition we’re faced with from other states for business investment,” he says. “So you have to try to strike a balance so you can meet the needs of the people in terms of growth, and at the same time be aware . . . that all the other states are out there competing very strongly for jobs, and foreign nations are out there competing.”

Democrats believe Deukmejian has struck too penurious a balance and hope the 1990 gubernatorial race will pivot on Deukmejian’s tough line against expanding government in a period of expanding needs. “They are too trapped in the present, worrying about this budget year, how much is it going to cost, and they are not thinking through in a systematic way how to plan for the future,” charges State Supt. of Public Instruction Bill Honig, who may challenge Deukmejian in 1990 as a Democrat.

Those accusations may ultimately cause Deukmejian problems, and the law of political gravity–which holds that everyone eventually comes down–virtually guarantees that his approval ratings will sag at least somewhat. Some Democrats believe Deukmejian has never really been tested because in his 1978 election as attorney general and his two gubernatorial races he bested liberal black Democrats–a tough sell statewide. His opposition in 1990 should be more formidable, with Honig, Atty. Gen. John van de Kamp, former San Francisco Mayor Diane Feinstein and Controller Gray Davis all considering the race.

But his position is solid, especially for a governor so long on the scene. After the June defeat of the Honig-backed proposition to loosen restrictions on state spending, the Democrats may have trouble constructing a campaign around the argument “that the government isn’t spending enough tax dollars,” says chief of staff Frost. With the economy roaring, public opposition to taxes undiminished, and his government free from scandals, even many Democrats and independent analysts believe Deukmejian must be favored for a third term. He says he will decide whether to run again “by the end of this year or early next year.”

If Deukmejian punches through that historic third-term barrier–something only Earl Warren has done–he may be in a much better position to emerge as a national Republican leader than it now appears, particularly if Bush falls this November. Though Deukmejian hasn’t produced the bold initiatives that attract the national press and political elite, his political identity rests on positions consonant with the mainstream Republican electorate: a tough stand against crime, taxes and government spending. “He fits the Republican party like a glove,” says Anderson.

And he has, in California’s blistering economic performance, a powerful calling card. Dukakis’s experience may be suggestive of Deukmejian’s possibilities. Unlike his California counterpart, Dukakis had the advantage of some innovative policies (welfare reform, and a tax amnesty program) to sell, and much more exposure to the national elite, which gave him early credibility. But ultimately Dukakis based his presidential campaign on a story of state economic success. Deukmejian has at least as compelling an economic success story.

Deukmejian’s tough stand against taxes and conservative approach to government regulation may or may not explain California’s success, but questions about Dukakis’ role haven’t hurt his efforts to identify with the Massachusetts miracle. (In both places, Reagan’s defense build-up deserves a significant share of the credit.) And if Massachusetts is a miracle, what’s the right word to describe California, which created 2.1 million new jobs–almost five times as many as Massachusetts, and nearly one of every six non-agricultural jobs in the nation–from 1983 through 1987? In the last five years, California has created almost half of the nation’s new manufacturing jobs, according to the state Department of Commerce. For Deukmejian, the path to prominence could be built on nothing more complicated than promising “to do for the nation what he did for California,” insists pollster Tarrance.

True, Deukmejian faces the risk that the state’s problems in education, infrastructure and growth will tarnish that claim. But if this stubborn governor can demonstrate the flexibility to confront those challenges without violating his conservative principles–the key open question looming before him–he can convincingly hold up California as the prototype of a state that’s racing pell-mell into the future. In a recent speech before a business group, Deukmejian offered what might become his slogan: “Each day our state gives the rest of the nation a glimpse of tomorrow–of the progress that is within our reach.”

Although he’s done little to cultivate them, California’s success has placed possibilities within Deukmejian’s reach, too: Now the question is, does the Duke have the right stuff to reach out and grab them?

The Rams are playing an opponent on Sunday that will be without its star quarterback and other noteworthy starters.

Sound familiar?

A week after the Rams lost to the seemingly undermanned San Francisco 49ers, they will travel to play the Lamar Jackson-less Baltimore Ravens and M&T Bank Stadium. It’s the start of an extended road trip that will see the Rams remain in Baltimore to prepare for their Oct. 19 game against the Jacksonville Jaguars in London.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

Gary Klein breaks down what to expect from the Rams as they prepare to face the Baltimore Ravens on Sunday before flying to London ahead of their Week 7 contest against the Jacksonville Jaguars.

“You can never go into a game and be like, ‘Oh man, we’re about to walk over somebody,’” Rams defensive lineman Kobie Turner said. “It’s all NFL guys. You don’t bring your A-game for one time and you’re going to get cooked.”

The Rams found the hard way in a 26-23 overtime defeat by the 49ers. Backup quarterback Mac Jones carved up the defense with quick passes that staved off the pass rush and challenged linebackers and defensive backs.

Jackson is out because of a hamstring injury, so Cooper Rush is expected to start.

“You have to remind yourself it’s any given Sunday,” safety Quentin Lake said. “You’re sometimes like, ‘Oh man, Lamar’s out or whoever their top-tier players are.’ But now the guys coming in are even more hungry because they have to prove themselves. They’re going to give it their all and they have nothing to lose.”

The last time the Rams visited M&T Bank Stadium, they lost when the Ravens returned a punt for a walk-off touchdown.

Special teams are once again an issue for the Rams.

They have had four kicks blocked this season, including an extra-point attempt in the loss to the 49ers.

This decisive decade demands unprecedented action to address humanity’s greatest challenge. With global access, this three-part series examines the real consequences of climate change for our civilisation, through the rest of the 21st century and beyond.

Irish journalist Philip Boucher-Hayes visits climate hotspots, from Greenland’s melting glaciers to sub-Saharan Africa’s weather extremes, from the flooding of agricultural land in Bangladesh to the thaw of the Siberian permafrost. He meets experts and witnesses who explain the interconnectivity of the world’s fragile ecology, as we reach tipping points from which there may be no return.

The series looks at new climate science and faces the harsh realities of a changing world – collapsing ecosystems, marine die-offs and escalating extreme weather phenomena. But it also explores a positive vision for reimagining economies, landscapes and infrastructure – and practical solutions, ways of mobilising collective resolve, and challenging humanity to become a transformative force, harnessing innovation to safeguard the future of civilisation.

Episode 1, Into the Storm, highlights the immediate and escalating effects of climate change. It opens in Ireland, where extreme weather events are becoming increasingly common. In Greenland, it explores the rapid melting of the ice sheet, with potentially devastating consequences – rising sea levels and disruptions to the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), the main ocean current system in the Atlantic Ocean. It also touches on the effects of climate change in Malawi and Siberia, a grim picture of widespread damage.

Episode 2, Against the Tide, focuses on adaptation strategies. It explores how countries and communities are responding to rising sea levels, increased flooding and more frequent droughts. The Netherlands serves as a case study in proactive adaptation, coming up with innovative solutions in the form of sea barriers and climate-resilient infrastructure. This episode also examines the challenges faced by vulnerable communities in Wales, Bangladesh and Florida.

Episode 3, Decarbonising the Global Economy, addresses the urgent need to transition away from fossil fuels. It opens with the world’s dependence on carbon-based energy sources and then explores ways to a cleaner, more sustainable future. It travels to Ukraine, the United States, Sweden, Finland and Florida, presenting a range of approaches to decarbonisation.

Throughout the series, experts from different fields offer insights into the latest climate science and potential solutions. The series aims to challenge viewers to confront the realities of climate change but also to inspire collective action. It emphasises the need for bold policies, innovative technologies and individual responsibility in safeguarding the future of the planet.

Allied forces launch joint patrols near Russia after reports of drone incursions into allied airspace.

The United Kingdom has said two Royal Air Force (RAF) aircraft joined a 12-hour NATO patrol earlier this week near Russia’s border, following a series of Russian drone and aircraft incursions into alliance airspace.

“This was a substantial joint mission with our US and NATO allies,” Defence Minister John Healey said on Saturday, as concerns rise that Russia’s war in Ukraine will spill over into Europe.

“Not only does this provide valuable intelligence to boost the operational awareness of our Armed Forces, but sends a powerful message of NATO unity to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and our adversaries,” he added.

The mission involved an RC-135 Rivet Joint surveillance jet and a P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft flying from the Arctic region past Belarus and Ukraine, supported by a US Air Force KC-135 refuelling plane.

British officials said the operation followed several incursions into the airspace of NATO members, including Poland, Romania, and Estonia.

Growing airspace tensions

In recent weeks, Poland and its allies have reinforced air defences amid increasing Russian drone activity. Earlier this month, Warsaw deployed additional systems along its border with Ukraine – which stretches about 530km (330 miles) – after unidentified drones briefly entered Polish airspace.

Poland temporarily closed part of its airspace southeast of Warsaw in late September during a major Russian assault across Ukraine. It was the second such incident this year, with Polish and NATO forces previously intercepting Russian drones that crossed the border – marking their first direct military engagement with Moscow since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine began in 2022.

Elsewhere, airports in Germany, Denmark, Norway and Poland have at times also temporarily suspended flights due to sightings of unidentified drones. Romania and Estonia have directly accused Russia, which has dismissed the claims as “baseless”.

Putin has pledged a “significant” response to what he called “Europe’s militarisation”, rejecting suggestions that Moscow plans to attack NATO as “nonsense”.

“They can’t believe what they’re saying, that Russia is going to attack NATO,” he said on Thursday at a foreign policy forum in Sochi. “They’re either incredibly incompetent if they truly believe it because it’s impossible to believe this nonsense, or they’re simply dishonest.”

Putin said he was closely monitoring Europe’s military build-up and warned that Russia would not hesitate to respond. “In Germany, for example, it is said that the German army should become the strongest in Europe. Very well. We hear that and are watching to see what is meant by it,” he said. “Russia will never show weakness or indecisiveness. We simply cannot ignore what is happening.”

Relations between Moscow and the European Union have continued to deteriorate since Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, driving the bloc to strengthen its collective defences amid fears the war could spill across NATO borders.

Marc Benioff has become the latest Silicon Valley tech leader to signal his approval of President Trump, saying that the president is doing a great job and ought to deploy the National Guard to deal with crime in San Francisco.

The Salesforce chief executive’s comments came as he headed to San Francisco to host his annual Dreamforce conference — an event for which he said he had to hire hundreds of off-duty police to provide security.

“We don’t have enough cops, so if they [National Guard] can be cops, I’m all for it,” he told The New York Times from aboard his private plane.

The National Guard is generally not allowed to perform domestic law enforcement duties when federalized by the president.

Last month, a federal judge ruled that Trump’s use of National Guard soldiers in Los Angeles violated the Posse Comitatus Act — which restricts use of the military for domestic law enforcement — and ordered that the troops not be used in law enforcement operations within California.

Trump has also ordered the National Guard to deploy to cities such as Portland, Ore., and Chicago, citing the need to protect federal officers and assets in the face of ongoing immigration protests. Those efforts have been met with criticism from local leaders and are the subject of ongoing legal battles.

President Trump has yet to direct troops to Northern California, but suggested in September that San Francisco could be a target for deployment. He has said that cities with Democratic political leadership such as San Francisco, Chicago and Los Angeles “are very unsafe places and we are going to straighten them out.”

“I told [Defense Secretary] Pete [Hegseth] we should use some of these dangerous cities as training for our military, our national guard,” Trump said.

Benioff’s call to send National Guard troops to San Francisco drew sharp rebukes from several of the region’s elected Democratic leaders.

San Francisco Dist. Atty. Brooke Jenkins said she “can’t be silent any longer” and threatened to prosecute any leaders or troops who harass residents in a fiery statement on X.

“I am responsible for holding criminals accountable, and that includes holding government and law enforcement officials too, when they cross the bounds of the law,” she said. “If you come to San Francisco and illegally harass our residents, use excessive force or cross any other boundaries that the law prescribes, I will not hesitate to do my job and hold you accountable just like I do other violators of the law every single day.”

State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) also took to X to express indignation, saying “we neither need nor want an illegal military occupation in San Francisco.”

“Salesforce is a great San Francisco company that does so much good for our city,” he said. “Inviting Trump to send the National Guard here is not one of those good things. Quite the opposite.”

San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie’s office offered a more muted response, touting the mayor’s efforts to boost public safety in general, but declining to directly address Benioff’s remarks.

Charles Lutvak, a spokesperson for the mayor, noted that the city is seeing net gains in both police officers and sheriff’s deputies for the first time in a decade. He also highlighted Lurie’s efforts to bring police staffing up to 2,000 officers.

“Crime is down nearly 30% citywide and at its lowest point in decades,” Lutvak said. “We are moving in the right direction and will continue to prioritize safety and hiring while San Francisco law enforcement works every single day to keep our city safe.”

When contacted by The Times Friday night, the office of Gov. Gavin Newsom, who vociferously opposed the deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles, did not issue a comment in response to Benioff.

Benioff and Newsom have long been considered friends, with a relationship dating back to when Newsom served as San Francisco’s mayor. Newsom even named Benioff as godfather to one of his children, according to the San Francisco Standard.

Benioff has often referred to himself as an independent. He has donated to several liberal causes, including a $30-million donation to UC San Francisco to study homelessness, and has contributed to prior political campaigns of former President Barack Obama, former Vice President Kamala Harris, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), and Hillary Clinton.

However, he has also donated to the campaigns of former House Speaker Paul Ryan and Sen. John McCain, both Republicans, and supported tougher-on-crime policies and reducing government spending.

Earlier this year, Benioff also praised the Elon Musk-led federal cost-cutting effort known as the Department of Government Efficiency.

“I fully support the president,” Benioff told the New York Times this week. “I think he’s doing a great job.”

IT is set to be one of the most momentous occasions in soap history.

For the first time ever, ITV‘s landmark shows will be combining for an epic hour of soap drama that is being teased as changing the course of both programmes forever.

6

6

This January, Coronation Street and Emmerdale will join forces for the aptly titled Corriedale to herald the stars of the new ‘soap power hour’.

It’s a clever, bold and HUGE move by ITV with both programmes having faced mass cast axings, job cuts, dwindling ratings and general backlash from fans over the past few years.

It is hoped by executives that the special show will help to revitalise both shows and kickstart a new era for the programmes – as well as being a clever way to conceal the fact they’ve both lost 30 minutes of screen-time a week.

From next year, both shows will air for just 30 minutes per night – the equivalent of five episodes per week unlike the current six.

But with the epic stunt set to take place, which is currently being filmed on long night shoots and being kept tightly under wraps, there promises to be the deaths of fan-favourite characters from both programmes.

Being such a historic moment in TV means that it should come with an utterly unforgettable death that will go down in the soap history books.

With only one chance to get it right, here is who I think ITV should kill off now.

Eric Pollard

6

Yes, you read that right.

Emmerdale bosses need to make an impact and as such, they should volunteer their longest-serving character ever as a sacrifice.

Not only would killing Eric off be the biggest unexpected twist that would have people gasping up and down the country, it would lay the foundations for the village to truly be changed forever.

Having been portrayed by Chris Chittell since 1986, he has become part of the foundation in the Dales.

But as an avid viewer, it hasn’t gone unnoticed that he has fallen into a rather bumbling repeated pattern of storyline in recent years.

Fans often see Eric disappear from screens for a number of weeks before popping back up to have a new brief crisis.

It quickly results in him snapping at anyone in sight and becoming public enemy number one with his grumpy old man act.

But just as quickly as the crisis arises, he soon realises the error of his ways and makes peace with his family and friends in true story-telling fashion.

Frankly, we’ve seen it multiple times and we really don’t need to see it again.

If bosses aren’t planning on placing Eric in a new mass murder plot or turn him into the Dales’ next gangster, I fear his potential plots have naturally come to an end.

Be brave Emmerdale and let go of your longest player if you truly want a memorable moment.

April Windsor

6

The other character I think Dales bosses should be offering up to meet their maker in the crossover could not be more opposite to Eric.

If they don’t make their big death the village OAP then yes, a wayward teen schoolgirl is the next best way to go.

Played by Amelia Flanagan, April has been one of Emmerdale’s biggest success stories in terms of transition from very young child performer to a teen actress who is able to hold her own when it comes to lengthy and gritty storylines.

However, her transition from wise-beyond-her-years 10-year-old to a reckless and easily-influenced 15-year-old has never sat right.

Over the past 12 months, goody-two-shoes April has become soap’s most troubled teen ever out of nowhere.

She went missing for months, became homeless, began underage drinking, went through a heartbreaking teen stillbirth whilst living on the streets and has now found herself a drug mule in a shocking county lines storyline.

I can’t help but think this unexpected character development could be for one bigger reason.

Having faced many brushes with death over her chaotic year, the soap stunt could be the perfect time to portray a real story of a teen tragedy.

Seeing a teenager killed off would have the shock factor to last years if done correctly.

April meeting a tragic end also allows for the soap to delve into family heartache and tragedy following her potential passing.

MY EMMERDALE VERDICT: Emmerdale needs to go to the extremes and for me, it’s either the show’s oldest character or on the flip-side, one of their youngest.

Sean Tully

6

When it comes to who Corrie could offer up for their soap death, the first person that comes to mind (and, let’s be honest, most fans’) would be Sean Tully.

How Sean has scraped through 22 years on the Street boggles the mind.

As both a TV journalist and viewer of the programme, I am yet to encounter anyone, either personally or professionally, who would make a campaign to save Antony Cotton’s character from getting the axe.

Of course, Sean does have many ties to the faces of Weatherfield and would likely see some moving performances from them in the aftermath of his passing.

But with the character having truly lacked a notable storyline for close to 10 years, his spot on the soap is purely taking away space from another character who could help provide a much-needed boost to the already fledgling soap.

And let’s be real, Corrie needs to be saving all the money it can amid the ongoing cash crisis.

Whilst killing Sean off would realistically go rather unnoticed in the long-run of the soap, marking the end of such a universally disliked character will have soap fans rejoicing in their droves and for that alone, Coronation Street will have achieved a milestone.

Dee-Dee Bailey

6

This is a tough one to say.

But with actress Channique Sterling-Brown having confirmed she has quit the soap for pastures new, killing her off in the New Year stunt may be the only thing that allows her to be remembered as a legacy character.

It is safe to say, amid a crowd of unnecessary and irritating new characters since the pandemic, Dee-Dee has been a true breathe of fresh air.

She exudes classic Corrie and Channique is a formidable actress.

But with her choosing to walk away after just four years, I worry that she’s about to fall into a bad trap.

We have seen it time and time again with incredible actresses leaving soap after just a few short years at the promise of breaking out into even bigger roles.

But despite their talent, they fade into the abyss and the characters are too forgettable to encourage bosses to ever bring them back.

Case and point Amy James Kelly, who played Maddie Heath on Corrie between 2013 and 2015.

She rocked Weatherfield to its core but with Amy quickly being predicted for bigger and better things on Corrie, she quit before she became too tied down to the role.

But her star power soon faded and she failed to be the big star everyone had hoped and Maddie became forgotten about much quicker than expected.

I’d hate this to happen to Channique but I fear it may be written in the stars.

But if bosses decide to place Dee-Dee at the forefront of their most anticipated episode since 2010’s Tram Crash (which did wonders for the legacy of Molly Dobbs played by the iconic Vicky Binns) then they will cement her in the history books for YEARS to come.

Whilst I don’t want to see Dee-Dee die, it could be her only hope of remaining a Corrie icon.

MY CORONATION STREET VERDICT: When it comes to the Corrie death, bosses either need to take one for the team and free audiences from an abysmal character or preserve the legacies of who could have been a Street Queen.

Eddie Howe was just a couple of days into an end-of-season break when the Newcastle head coach’s phone “exploded” last summer.

Sporting director Paul Mitchell had just announced that he was departing.

While there were initial tensions between the pair, Howe was the first to recognise that such a figure “protects the manager from a lot of things”.

That is why the arrival of Ross Wilson is so significant for Newcastle.

Rather than rushing into the appointment – despite the need for a sporting director during a draining transfer window – Newcastle have been keen to recruit the right person.

In Ross Wilson, who already has a good relationship with Howe, they feel they have that man.

It will fall to Wilson to help plot the medium to long-term strategy of the club.

And, after a period of boardroom upheaval, Newcastle will hope the Scot will stick around long enough to see that vision through.

Oct. 10 (UPI) — Israeli forces in Gaza began pulling back to pre-agreed positions Friday in line with the terms of the cease-fire and hostage release agreement requiring a partial withdrawal within 24 hours of the Israeli cabinet signing off on the deal.

The Israel Defense Forces posted a video on X of troops preparing to pull out and military vehicles moving under the cover of darkness.

“Southern Command in the midst of adjusting operational positions in Gaza,” it said, but warned that troops were still deployed in the area and would counter any threats that emerged.

IDF Radio said the IDF projected that its forces would have withdrawn to the agreed positions by noon local time.

The BBC said troops had started to pull out from the north-western areas of Gaza City while local residents in other locations reported similar maneuvers.

However, Israeli armor remained in place in locations from which forces were due to withdraw under the first phase of the plan, including the coastal road and parts of Khan Yunis in the south where Israeli air strikes were reported overnight.

Artillery and gunfire were also heard near the Netzarim corridor in central Gaza.

The cease-fire was supposed to take effect immediately after being approved by the Israeli government in the early hours of Friday, local time.

The three-phase pullout mandates IDF troops permanently withdraw to a so-called “yellow line” in U.S. President Donald Trump‘s peace plan that will leave Israel in control of about 53% of the Palestinian enclave within 24 hours of Israeli government approval of the deal, which came just before 2 a.m.

For its part, Hamas is required to hand back 48 hostages, 20 of whom are believed to be living, by noon on Monday, while at the same time Israel will release 1,700 Palestinians held in its prisons.

Flows of humanitarian aid was also due to recommence with all restrictions lifted immediately.

U.S. officials said the Pentagon was redeploying a force of as many as 200 troops from other Middle East missions to Israel to lead a multinational force to monitor the truce.

They stressed their presence would be in a coordinating role only and that there would be no U.S. boots on the ground in Gaza.

The International Committee of the Red Cross said it stood by ready to assist in the hostage-prisoner swap, including reuniting families with the remains of their loved ones, as it had done in previous deals over the past two years since the Oct. 7 attacks.

The NGO said in a news release that its teams were prepared to deliver and safely distribute lifesaving aid to those who needed it most in Gaza.

The United Nations said it was standing ready to get to work implementing a 60-day plan 60-day comprehensive plan to deliver critical aid, including hundreds of thousands tons of food, medicine and other supplies.

“Our plan, detailed and tested, is in place. Our supplies, 170,000 metric tons, are in place. And our team, courageous and expert and determined, are in place,” U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Tom Fletcher told a news conference in New York.

“We will aim to increase the pipeline of supplies to hundreds of trucks every day. We will scale up the provision of food across Gaza to reach 2.1 million people who need food aid and around 500,000 people who need nutrition.

Famine must be reversed in areas where it has taken hold and prevented in others. So we will be distributing in-kind rations. We’ll be supporting bakeries, community kitchens. We’ll be supporting herders and fishers in restoring their livelihoods,” said Fletcher, who also serves as the Office of Humanitarian Affairs’ emergency relief coordinator.

About 200,000 families would also receive cash payouts to use to shop at public markets to cover their basic food needs.

Meanwhile, Israel was preparing to welcome Trump, who was expected to travel to Jerusalem on Sunday to address the Knesset. Hostage families also want him to come and speak in Dizengoff Square in Tel Aviv, which has been unofficially dubbed “Hostage Square.”

Speaking in the Oval office on Thursday, Trump said that he hoped to be in Israel for when the hostages were released “on Monday or Tuesday.

However, Israeli media were reporting that Trump’s visit will be short, with the president scheduled to fly out of Israel again late Sunday.

Al Jazeera’s Hani Mahmoud and Ibrahim al Khalili followed Palestinians making their way back to northern Gaza after a ceasefire deal was announced.

A year after tech firm OpenAI roiled Hollywood with the release of its Sora AI video tool, Chief Executive Sam Altman was back — with a potentially groundbreaking update.

Unlike the generic images Sora could initially create, the new program allows users to upload videos of real people and put them into AI-generated environments, complete with sound effects and dialogue.

In one video, a synthetic Michael Jackson takes a selfie video with an image of “Breaking Bad” star Bryan Cranston. In another, a likeness of SpongeBob SquarePants speaks out from behind the White House’s Oval Office desk.

“Excited to launch Sora 2!” Altman wrote on social media platform X on Sept. 30. “Video models have come a long way; this is a tremendous research achievement.”

But the enthusiasm wasn’t shared in Hollywood, where the new AI tools have created a swift backlash. At the core of the dispute is who controls the copyrighted images and likenesses of actors and licensed characters — and how much they should be compensated for their use in AI models.

The Motion Picture Assn. trade group didn’t mince words.

“OpenAI needs to take immediate and decisive action to address this issue,” Chairman Charles Rivkin said in a statement Monday. “Well-established copyright law safeguards the rights of creators and applies here.”

By the end of the week, multiple agencies and unions, including SAG-AFTRA, chimed in with similar statements, marking a rare moment of consensus in Hollywood and putting OpenAI on the defensive.

“We’re engaging directly with studios and rightsholders, listening to feedback, and learning from how people are using Sora 2,” Varun Shetty, OpenAI’s vice president of media partnerships, said in a statement. “Many are creating original videos and excited about interacting with their favorite characters, which we see as an opportunity for rightsholders to connect with fans and share in that creativity.”

For now, the skirmish between well-capitalized OpenAI and the major Hollywood studios and agencies appears to be only just the beginning of a bruising legal fight that could shape the future of AI use in the entertainment business.

“The question is less about if the studios will try to assert themselves, but when and how,” said Anthony Glukhov, senior associate at law firm Ramo, of the clash between Silicon Valley and Hollywood over AI. “They can posture all they want; but at the end of the day, there’s going to be two titans battling it out.”

Before it became the focus of ire in the creative community, OpenAI quietly tried to make inroads into the film and TV business.

The company’s executives went on a charm offensive last year. They reached out to key players in the entertainment industry — including Walt Disney Co. — about potential areas for collaboration and trying to assuage concerns about its technology.

This year, the San Francisco-based AI startup took a more assertive approach.

Before unveiling Sora 2 to the general public, OpenAI executives had conversations with some studios and talent agencies, putting them on notice that they need to explicitly declare which pieces of intellectual property — including licensed characters — were being opted-out of having their likeness depicted on the AI platform, according to two sources familiar with the matter who were not authorized to comment. Actors would be included in Sora 2 unless they opted out, the people said.

OpenAI disputes the claim and says that it was always the company’s intent to give actors and other public figures control over how their likeness is used.

The response was immediate.

Beverly Hills talent agency WME, which represents stars such as Michael B. Jordan and Oprah Winfrey, told OpenAI its actions were unacceptable, and that all of its clients would be opting out.

Creative Artists Agency and United Talent Agency also argued that their clients had the right to control and be compensated for their likenesses.

Studios, including Warner Bros., echoed the point.

“Decades of enforceable copyright law establishes that content owners do not need to ‘opt out’ to prevent infringing uses of their protected IP,” Warner Bros. Discovery said in a statement. “As technology progresses and platforms advance, the traditional principles of copyright protection do not change.”

Unions, including SAG-AFTRA — whose members were already alarmed over the recent appearance of a fake, AI-generated composite named Tilly Norwood — also expressed alarm.

“OpenAI’s decision to honor copyright only through an ‘opt-out’ model threatens the economic foundation of our entire industry and underscores the stakes in the litigation currently working through the courts,” newly elected President Sean Astin and National Executive Director Duncan Crabtree-Ireland said in a statement.

The dispute underscores a clash of two very different cultures. On one side is the brash, Silicon Valley “move fast and break things” ethos, where asking for forgiveness is seen as preferable to asking for permission. On the other is Hollywood’s eternal wariness over the effect of new technology, and its desire to retain control over increasingly valuable intellectual property rights.

“The difficulty, as we’ve seen, is balancing the capabilities with the prior rights owned by other people,” said Rob Rosenberg, a partner with law firm Moses and Singer LLP and a former Showtime Networks general counsel. “That’s what was driving the entire entertainment industry bonkers.”

Amid the outcry, Sam Altman posted on his blog days after the Sora 2 launch that the company would be giving more granular controls to rights holders and is working on a way to compensate them for video generation.

OpenAI said it has guardrails to block the generation of well-known characters and a team of reviewers who are taking down material that doesn’t follow its updated policy. Rights holders can also request removal of content.

The strong pushback from the creative community could be a strategy to force OpenAI into entering licensing agreements for the content they need, legal experts said.

Existing law is clear — a copyright holder has full control over their copyrighted material, said Ray Seilie, entertainment litigator at law firm Kinsella Holley Iser Kump Steinsapir.

“It’s not your job to go around and tell other people to stop using it,” he said. “If they use it, they use it at their own risk.”

Disney, Universal and Warner Bros. Discovery have previously sued AI firms MiniMax and Midjourney, accusing them of copyright infringement.

One challenge is figuring out a way that fairly compensates talent and rights holders. Several people who work within the entertainment industry ecosystem said they don’t believe a flat fee works.

“Bring monetization that is not a one size fits all,” said Dan Neely, chief executive of Chicago-based Vermillio, which works with Hollywood talent and studios and protects how their likenesses and characters are used in AI. “That’s what will move the needle for talent and studios.”

Visiting journalist Nilesh Christopher contributed to this report.