future

Originally published in Spanish on Asdrúbal’s personal Substack

There are weeks that change a government. And there are weeks that change a country. This is one of them.

Until just a few days ago, the economic debate regarding Venezuela revolved around how much we would grow this year. Around whether the figure would be 4% or 6%, and at what point that growth would materialize in people’s daily lives: exchange rate stabilization, the reestablishment of relations with multilateral organizations, and the possibility of slowly beginning a recovery process.

On the morning of June 24th, a Financial Times scoop centered the discussion on the actual size of our foreign debt. That was the horizon. Today, the horizon no longer looks like that. The earthquakes that struck this week not only leave a human tragedy of dimensions still difficult to quantify; they also profoundly alter the country’s economic outlook. International evidence shows that a major earthquake can generate losses equivalent to between 3% and 10% of GDP, depending not only on physical damage but on the State’s capacity to respond.

Anyone who thinks the problem is limited to the cost of rebuilding highways, hospitals, or housing is seeing only a part of the picture. Earthquakes destroy infrastructure, but they also destroy productivity, employment, tax revenues, logistical chains, and confidence. Thousands of businesses interrupt operations, families postpone consumption and investment decisions, and economic activity loses momentum for months or even years. The expectations and decisions of economic agents are disrupted by a widespread sense of loss and uncertainty.

The economic literature is quite consistent on this point. Studies by the World Bank, the IMF, and numerous academic papers conclude that the impact of a natural disaster depends far less on the intensity of the phenomenon itself than on the institutional strength of the affected nation. Economies with solid States tend to absorb the initial shock and recover relatively quickly. Conversely, in fragile States, a natural disaster often mutates into a prolonged economic crisis because institutional weakness amplifies the damage and delays reconstruction.

The economic agenda will no longer be dominated exclusively by growth, but by reconstruction. We need to prevent the disaster from destroying a large part of Venezuela’s remaining physical and human capital.

That is precisely Venezuela’s primary challenge. Over the years, the country lost fiscal, technical, and operational capacity. This is not a political assessment, but an observable fact. The State’s capacity to design public policy has been significantly reduced. The prolonged economic crisis and hyperinflation led us to a state of “save yourself if you can.”

The difficulties in maintaining basic infrastructure, public utilities, or the hospital network were already evident before the earthquake. Rebuilding cities like La Guaira demands far more than financial resources: it requires planning, engineering, contracting capacity, technical supervision, and a public administration capable of coordinating thousands of projects simultaneously. Today, the Venezuelan State lacks a good portion of those capabilities.

Our recent history shows how society has demonstrated resilience where the State has lost capacity. The private sector, non-governmental organizations, churches, universities, and multiple civil society initiatives have, through years of crisis, developed a remarkable ability to organize, mobilize resources, and respond swiftly to emergencies. We saw it during the pandemic, during the landslides in Las Tejerías, and in so many other humanitarian crises. And we are seeing it now. This accumulated experience will be one of the most critical assets in confronting this tragedy, though on its own, it remains insufficient to undertake a reconstruction of this magnitude.

It would be a mistake to turn international aid into a battleground for confrontation. Venezuela doesn’t need speeches on sovereignty, but engineers, heavy machinery, hospitals, drinking water, electricity, and the capacity to rebuild.

That is why I maintain that this earthquake completely changes the economic conversation. Just a few weeks ago, we were discussing how to accelerate growth, attract investment, or deepen reforms. We argued that institutional reform was necessary for Venezuela to achieve sustained and inclusive growth. Today, the priority has shifted to preventing the disaster from destroying a large part of the country’s remaining physical and human capital. The economic agenda will no longer be dominated exclusively by growth, but by reconstruction.

An inevitable conclusion emerges from this: Venezuela cannot face this challenge alone. This is not merely a matter of securing financing. It will be indispensable to mobilize technical assistance, specialized teams, field hospitals, temporary infrastructure, fast-access credit, and international coordination mechanisms. International cooperation will cease to be a mere complement and will become a necessary condition for recovery.

There’s some good news, however: for the first time in many years, the conditions exist for such cooperation to be possible. The reestablishment of relations with international financial institutions opens a window that until a few months ago seemed firmly shut. It would be a mistake to turn this aid into a new battleground for political confrontation. Countries do not need speeches on sovereignty after an earthquake. They need engineers, heavy machinery, hospitals, drinking water, electricity, and the capacity to rebuild.

The country needs to design a roadmap to achieve broad political agreements, leading to a democratically elected government able to drive the necessary reforms.

Economic history demonstrates that major disasters can become turning points. Some countries seized these tragedies to modernize their infrastructure, strengthen their institutions, and build more resilient economies. Others remained trapped for decades in a cycle of destruction and precariousness. The difference was never solely the magnitude of the earthquake, but the quality of the collective response.

Beyond the immediate emergency, this tragedy also leaves a political lesson that is impossible to ignore. The reconstruction of Venezuela demands more than financial resources or international assistance. It requires leadership with democratic legitimacy and the capacity to build consensus. The country needs to design a roadmap to achieve broad political agreements, leading to a democratically elected government and providing it with the necessary backing to drive the economic and institutional reforms that recovery demands. No reconstruction program will be sustainable unless it rests upon legitimate institutions, clear rules, and a political pact that offers stability, generates trust, and allows for the mobilization of support from the international community and private investment.

That is why I believe this earthquake has not only moved the earth. It shifted Venezuela’s economic horizon. The projections we made just a week ago likely no longer describe the country we will have at the close of this year. The Venezuelan economy has just entered a new phase, and the speed with which we manage to combine the efforts of the State, the proven capacity of the private sector and civil society, and the decisive support of the international community will determine not only the economic performance of 2026, but the real possibilities for recovery over the next decade.

The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz has restored the flow of oil and natural gas after more than 100 days of disruption, but the crisis has already left a lasting mark on global energy markets. The prolonged closure exposed the vulnerability of the world’s energy supply chain and has prompted governments to reconsider how they secure fuel supplies.

Analysts say the crisis mirrors the impact of the 1973 Arab oil embargo, which transformed global energy policy by encouraging conservation, diversification, and strategic stockpiling. While today’s energy system proved more resilient, the Hormuz disruption may accelerate a broader shift away from fossil fuels.

What Happened?

The Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly 20 percent of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies normally pass, remained effectively closed for more than three months during the US Israeli conflict with Iran.

Despite the disruption, global markets avoided a severe supply crisis through rapid rerouting of cargoes, the release of strategic reserves, reduced Chinese imports, and shifting demand patterns.

However, analysts say these emergency measures were only temporary. Energy inventories fell sharply during the crisis, and markets were approaching a critical point before shipping resumed.

Why the Crisis Matters

The Hormuz disruption demonstrated that even today’s highly interconnected global energy system remains vulnerable to geopolitical conflict.

Unlike previous crises, the world avoided a complete energy collapse because governments, traders, and shipping companies quickly adapted. Nevertheless, the episode exposed the limits of those emergency responses and reinforced concerns about overreliance on a single strategic chokepoint.

The crisis is expected to influence long term energy investment decisions far beyond the Middle East.

Lessons From the 1973 Oil Embargo

The 1973 Arab oil embargo fundamentally changed global energy policy after oil producing nations restricted exports to countries supporting Israel during the Yom Kippur War.

The embargo caused oil prices to surge, triggering inflation and prompting governments to adopt fuel efficiency standards, develop domestic oil production, establish strategic petroleum reserves, and create the International Energy Agency.

Rather than ending fossil fuel use, the crisis encouraged countries to consume energy more efficiently while reducing dependence on imported oil.

A New Energy Strategy Emerges

The Hormuz crisis appears to be driving another major strategic shift, particularly across Asia.

Countries heavily dependent on Middle Eastern oil and gas are increasingly prioritizing energy security over low fuel costs. Governments are expected to expand strategic petroleum reserves while accelerating investment in domestic renewable energy, nuclear power, and alternative fuel sources.

India, Pakistan, Japan, and South Korea are among the countries reviewing long term strategies aimed at reducing exposure to overseas energy disruptions.

Europe Continues Its Energy Transition

Europe entered the Hormuz crisis after already reshaping its energy system following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

The loss of Russian energy supplies forced European countries to cut gas consumption, diversify imports, and rapidly expand renewable energy capacity.

The latest Middle East disruption is expected to reinforce that trend by encouraging further investment in clean energy and energy efficiency while reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels.

Investment Trends Support the Shift

Global investment patterns already suggest that energy markets are evolving.

According to the International Energy Agency, worldwide energy investment is projected to reach 3.4 trillion dollars this year, with much of the growth directed toward renewable energy, electricity infrastructure, battery storage, and grid resilience rather than new oil production.

Electric vehicle sales continue to rise rapidly across Europe, Latin America, and Asia Pacific, while Chinese solar panel exports have surged across Africa and Southeast Asia.

Governments are also increasing spending on energy efficiency, with around 20 countries introducing new conservation measures directly in response to the Hormuz crisis.

Why It Matters

The Hormuz crisis has reinforced that energy security is becoming just as important as energy affordability.

Rather than relying solely on global oil markets, governments are increasingly pursuing diversified energy systems that combine fossil fuels with renewables, nuclear power, strategic reserves, and domestic production.

This transition is expected to influence investment, industrial policy, and international trade for years to come.

Future Outlook

Oil and natural gas are expected to remain central to the global economy for decades, particularly in transportation, manufacturing, aviation, and power generation.

However, future growth in fossil fuel demand may become significantly slower as governments invest more heavily in renewable energy, electric vehicles, battery storage, and efficiency improvements.

The Hormuz crisis may ultimately be remembered not as the event that ended the oil era, but as the moment many countries accelerated preparations for a more diversified energy future.

Implications

The Hormuz crisis is likely to have consequences that extend far beyond the immediate recovery in oil and gas flows. Governments that experienced supply disruptions are expected to place greater emphasis on energy security, even if it comes at a higher economic cost. This could accelerate the expansion of strategic petroleum reserves, diversify import sources, and increase investment in domestic energy production, including renewables, nuclear power, and critical energy infrastructure.

For oil exporters in the Gulf, the crisis may strengthen the case for developing alternative export routes that bypass the Strait of Hormuz, reducing dependence on a single maritime chokepoint. Import dependent economies, particularly across Asia, are also likely to rethink long term procurement strategies by securing more flexible supply contracts and expanding storage capacity.

Financial markets are also expected to assign a higher geopolitical risk premium to energy prices. Even after shipping has resumed, investors may continue to price in the possibility of future disruptions, increasing volatility across oil, gas, shipping, and insurance markets. The crisis could also accelerate capital flows into technologies that reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels, including electric vehicles, battery storage, hydrogen, and energy efficiency.

Analysis

The Hormuz crisis may ultimately prove more significant for what it revealed than for the physical disruption it caused. Although global energy markets demonstrated remarkable resilience, that resilience depended on temporary measures such as drawing down inventories, rerouting cargoes, reducing consumption, and relying on spare production capacity. These mechanisms bought time rather than solving the underlying vulnerability of the global energy system.

Unlike the 1973 Arab oil embargo, which primarily forced consuming nations to improve efficiency while expanding fossil fuel production elsewhere, today’s crisis occurred at a time when commercially competitive alternatives to oil and gas already exist. Renewable energy, electric vehicles, battery storage, and advanced power grids have matured into viable strategic assets rather than purely environmental investments. As a result, governments are increasingly viewing clean energy not only as a climate policy but also as a national security priority.

Another important distinction is the shift in investment behavior. Historically, supply disruptions often encouraged greater investment in oil exploration and production. Following the Hormuz crisis, however, a growing share of capital is moving toward energy diversification instead of simply increasing fossil fuel output. This suggests policymakers increasingly see reducing oil dependence as a more sustainable way to improve resilience than expanding strategic reserves alone.

The crisis also exposed a structural imbalance in global energy markets. While production remains concentrated in politically sensitive regions, demand growth is increasingly centered in Asia, leaving major importers highly exposed to geopolitical instability. Countries such as India, Pakistan, Japan, and South Korea may therefore pursue parallel strategies of securing diversified hydrocarbon supplies while rapidly expanding domestic renewable generation, nuclear power, and energy storage.

Perhaps the most important takeaway is that energy security has overtaken cost as the dominant driver of policy decisions. For decades, governments largely optimized their energy systems for affordability and efficiency. The Hormuz disruption demonstrated that the cheapest energy source can quickly become the most expensive if geopolitical events interrupt supply. That realization is likely to reshape government policy, corporate investment, and global energy trade for years to come.

The crisis does not signal the immediate end of the oil era. Oil and natural gas will remain indispensable for transportation, petrochemicals, aviation, heavy industry, and electricity generation in many regions. However, it may represent an inflection point where the trajectory of fossil fuel demand begins to flatten as countries systematically reduce their strategic dependence on imported hydrocarbons. In that sense, the Hormuz crisis could be remembered less as an energy supply shock and more as the catalyst that accelerated the next phase of the global energy transition.

With information from Reuters.

Daryl Hall recently underwent a kidney transplant and he’s already feeling better.

The 79-year-old musician — formerly of the iconic rock duo Hall & Oates — took to social media Tuesday to share the news.

“I thought you should know that I recently received a kidney transplant from a very kind and generous living donor,” Hall wrote in an Instagram post. “It happened a couple of weeks ago, and I’m already starting to feel better. It was, according to my doctors, a complete success!”

The “Dreamtime” singer-songwriter added that he expects to be “back to normal in a few months” and promised “more music and lots of Daryl’s House shows” in the future. Hall has been hosting “Live from Daryl’s House,” a web series where he and his band perform with guest artists, on and off since 2007.

A living-donor kidney transplant is when a healthy living person donates their kidney. The recipient is usually experiencing kidney failure. According to the National Kidney Foundation, “kidneys from a living donor may last longer and are more likely to start working right away than a kidney from a deceased donor.”

Hall did not share any additional details regarding his kidney transplant.

The “Bring It On Home” singer has opened up about other health issues in the past. In 2005, Hall & Oates had to postpone a series of shows after Hall was diagnosed with Lyme disease.

Lyme disease is a bacterial infection that is spread through the bite of infected black-legged ticks — also known as deer ticks. Symptoms can include fever, rash, facial paralysis, an irregular heartbeat and arthritis, according to the CDC.

He’s no longer a cute little kid.

He’s a $185-million man.

He’s no longer a quintessential underdog routinely pardoned for his bad defense, his questionable durability and his tendency to tighten up in the playoffs.

He’s a big dog who needs to own it.

Austin Reaves, the most beloved Laker, became the most scrutinized Laker on Wednesday with the news that he agreed to a maximum four-year, $185-million contract to remain with the team.

Kudos to him for becoming the highest-paid undrafted player in league history.

Props to him for declining a rich extension offer last summer to play out the season and bet on himself.

Congrats to the Lakers for turning a homegrown talent into a budding superstar.

Seriously, it makes you just want to hug that unkempt, headband-wearing dude and let him know how his everyman story resonates with the masses.

Except that story is finished. That book has been closed. A new volume has begun.

It’s called, “Is Austin Reaves Worth It?”

Thus far, the answer has been no.

Flash back to May, the opener of the Western Conference semifinals against the Oklahoma City Thunder, a week after he had returned to the court following a monthlong absence with an oblique injury.

Lakers guard Austin Reaves chases after a loose ball ahead of Rockets guard Amen Thompson during Game 5 of their playoff series in May.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

The Lakers needed Reaves to set the tone. He instead laid an egg, shooting three for 16 from the field and zero for five from beyond the arc, his body knocked clear to Tulsa by a physical Thunder defense.

Two games later, same thing, he shoots five for 13 and one for five from deep, allowing the Thunder to pound him to a pulp.

With Luka Doncic out and LeBron James exhausted, the Lakers desperately needed Reaves to pick up the slack. He dropped it, again and again, and the Lakers were swept.

It was the same thing in the spring of 2025, when Reaves crumbled in the first-round series-clinching loss to the Minnesota Timberwolves, shooting five for 14 and two for 10 in a performance that was, as usual, generally overlooked because he tried so hard and accepted his shortcomings so honestly.

That’s not going to work anymore. That’s not going to be enough anymore.

With this new deal, Reaves becomes the Lakers’ second cornerstone along with Doncic. They are now officially a one-two punch. They are now a twin-engine scoring machine that can rival any similar duo in the NBA.

Guards Austin Reaves and Luka Doncic are the new one-two punch of the near future for the Lakers.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

Doncic has lived up to his end of the bargain. Will Reaves?

And what about defense? For $185 million, you’d think you could get some defense. Doncic needs his running mate to compensate for his questionable defensive skills, and Reaves has yet to do that.

Simply by earning his way onto the Lakers roster five years ago, Reaves has been a great role model for everyone who has ever been ignored or shunned or marginalized. But did the Lakers fall in love with his legend and ignore his frailties?

Yes, he averaged 23 points per game last season. But he only played in a career-low 51 games because of calf and oblique injuries, and will he add the muscle required to fend off such problems in the future?

Yes, he has been a great interview while admirably and publicly holding himself and his teammates accountable. But he’s always been able to lead from the shadows. How will he react when 185 million microphones are pointed at him?

In a postgame interview after the Lakers’ final loss against Oklahoma City this spring, Reaves was at his aw-shucks best.

“I take life day by day and I’m just blessed to have an opportunity to play for this organization, play a kid’s game,” he said, “I make good money. But like I said, I don’t think about what I’m really going to do in the future, just day by day.”

Lakers guard Austin Reaves consults with coach JJ Redick during a break in the action during Game 3 of the series against the Oklahoma City Thunder in May.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

That tone has to change. He now has to think about the future because he is the future, of this team, of this organization, of the hopes of this city.

With all of Reaves’ shortcomings, one can almost see the unsentimental Dodgers officials looking at Wednesday’s news and saying, “Wait, they did what?”

But in the end, the Lakers didn’t really have a choice. There wasn’t a free agent available who could match Reaves’ prolific shooting, and nobody who could match the Laker-centric story of his personal journey.

Renowned softie Rob Pelinka, who should count Reaves as one of his greatest successes, was so moved by the opportunity to bring him back that he mentioned the Lakers colors when answering a question about him.

“He started his journey here as a Laker and has made it very clear to us that he wants his journey to continue as a Laker,” Pelinka said during exit interviews this spring. “We want his odyssey to continue to unfold in the purple and gold.”

And so it will, for at least several more years, Reaves now occupying a Lakers leading sidekick role made famous during their championship years by the likes of Anthony Davis and Pau Gasol.

How sweet. How scary.

Those close to the Dutch national team speak of a unified squad and, after a difficult domestic season, Gakpo has started the tournament impressively.

His World Cup record – including the 2022 tournament – is impressive, with five goals in seven games. Twenty-three goals across 52 international caps in total since his debut five years ago bears further testimony to his quality.

For now, his focus is entirely on the national team, where he also plays an important role off the pitch too in helping fellow Christians within the squad.

“Cody is our pastor – he leads the prayers,” said Crysencio Summerville.

Netherlands and Liverpool captain Virgil van Dijk needs no convincing of Gakpo’s qualities on the pitch.

“He is an outstanding footballer,” he said after the 5-1 win over Sweden. “He works so hard for the team, he’s disciplined and his quality stands out – his crosses, his assists, his goals.”

Continuing to impress at the World Cup may well enhance Liverpool‘s desire to retain Gakpo for at least another season.

One need only consider the relative struggles of Isak and Wirtz in their debut campaigns at Anfield to be reminded of just how challenging it can be for new signings.

But as Iraola and Liverpool‘s recruitment team reshapes an attack that laboured last season, the Gakpo conundrum is one to keep an eye on this summer.

Casualty fans have been left divided over Stevie Nash’s future on the BBC medical drama

It’s been a turbulent period in Casualty for beloved character Stevie Nash (Elinor Lawless) as BBC audiences discovered her role at Holby ED hangs in the balance.

After her colleague and mate Dylan Keogh (William Beck) uncovered she’d been conducting a clandestine romance with his son and junior medic Matty Linlaker, he informed Clinical Lead Flynn Byron (Olly Rix).

Explaining that the accusations levelled against her ‘amount to sexual coercion’, Matty, Dylan and Stevie were all required to attend hearings with HR panel members during Saturday’s instalment (June 20).

Throughout the medical drama, the three clashed yet again as Stevie subsequently apologised to Matty for the entire situation.

Nevertheless, Matty responded: “You’re not sorry, Stevie. You’ve realised I’ve got the power to end your career and you’re worried what I’m going to say, right?”

When she questioned what he intended to tell the HR panel, he remained silent, while Stevie was subsequently shown in floods of tears confiding in Flynn, confessing she didn’t wish to lose her position, reports the Daily Star.

As the episode drew to a close, audiences witnessed Stevie facing the panel members as she declared: “Look, before we get started. I just wanted to apologise unreservedly for my behaviour.

“I have no doubt whatsoever that I’ve made mistakes. But, I’m a bl**dy good doctor. I deserve to be here, and I’ll fight tooth and nail to make sure I stay.”

Can Stevie preserve her position at the hospital? Or will Matty destroy her career for spurning him?

It didn’t take long for viewers to react to the episode, with many divided over Stevie and her future on the long-running medical drama. One viewer wrote: “WE CAN’T LOSE STEVIE.”

While another urged: “Fight for your job, Stevie.” A third chimed in: “THE WAY STEVIE ENDED THE EPISODE. I’m so happy.”

With one fan commenting: “Stevie is going to fight for her job. Hopefully, she isn’t leaving now.”

Yet not everybody shared the same excitement about Stevie’s decision to fight for her position, with a number of viewers keen to see her go.

One wrote: “Don’t like this storyline. Add in real life, Stevie would be on suspension, I would’ve thought.” While another simply declared: “So tired of Stevie.”

Casualty is available to watch on BBC iPlayer.

For decades, satellites have provided critical data for military activities in active and non-active combat zones. One of the most significant integration of space-based technologies emerged in missile defense systems during the Cold War. Satellite constellations provided critical data on the launch sites and trajectories of ballistic missiles. The US Defense Support Program (DSP) was the first program to launch satellite constellations to detect heat signatures of Soviet ICBMs with infrared sensors. The Soviet Union launched the first generation of early warning systems under OKO satellite constellations against US missile threats. These systems of satellite constellations allowed both the US and the USSR to maintain a close watch over each other’s strategic capabilities and allowed for much needed early warning that upheld mutual deterrence between the two powers.

Fast forward to the current era, today’s missile defense systems have shown a very limited success rate against hypersonic missiles. The tracking and interception capabilities of current missile defense systems have remained effectively limited due to speed, maneuverability, and depressed flight of hypersonic missiles. Traditional missile defense systems have been outmaneuvered by hypersonic missiles, which increases the threat level due to their capability to reach and hit targets with a high success rate. Modern hypersonic missiles can still be detected with infrared sensing during their boost phase, but Hypersonic Glide Vehicles (HGVs) are extremely difficult to track and intercept primarily due to their maneuverability. The radar-evading capabilities of HGVs affect the strategic calculus by shrinking detection and reaction time duration during crises and conflicts.

As a remedy, the US has introduced the Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking Space Sensors (HBTSS) to counter the threat of HGVs and Hypersonic Cruise Missiles (HCMs). The HBTSS will be a major component of the US Golden Dome missile defense project. It is a layered network of command-and-control systems, interceptors, and space-based sensors to build an advanced layer of missile defense system. What makes HBTSS different from traditional missile defense systems is the satellite constellation, which provides real-time tracking data of missiles. Traditional defense systems like Space Based Infrared System (SBIR) could detect the launch of missiles, but HBTSS can detect, track, and possibly predict the target of the missile.

Because HGVs present a unique challenge due to low flight path and maneuverability and often operate under the coverage of conventional radars, which make it difficult for traditional defense systems to detect. HBTSS relies on space-based sensors, which can detect and track continuously from space. Theoretically, it can be called a space-based missile defense system reflecting the growing strategic importance of space in the military domain. It relies on an interconnected satellite network that can work as a kill web across the globe against the threat of hypersonic missiles.

HBTSS is an emerging strategic shift as it starts a new era of space weaponization with a layer of satellites for enhanced detection and tracking. A reliable space-based tracking system bolsters a state’s capabilities to deal with the threat of hypersonic missiles with improved early warning and missile tracking systems, and reduces the threat of surprise attacks from an adversary. Although missile forces hold great impact on deterrence stability, the induction of HTBSS will question the effectiveness of missiles during crises and conflicts if a more advance missile defense system is introduced. This will provide a wider view from space with more accuracy and precision, and increase the vulnerability of missile forces of states.

Because ground-based nuclear forces are considered vulnerable, many countries have developed second-strike capabilities, particularly at sea, to preserve deterrence even after absorbing an initial attack. But the development of HBTSS undermines the survivability of a state’s missile forces with an enhanced detection and tracking system. Even though the United States and Russia continue to maintain certain crisis management and risk reduction mechanisms, including hotlines and military deconfliction channels, the suspension of New START has weakened the broader framework of strategic stability. While in conflict-prone regions like South Asia, India and Pakistan possess a more limited and less institutionalized set of confidence-building measures (CBMs), making crisis management in South Asia particularly challenging due to emerging technologies.

The peaceful use of outer space depends on the intent and actions of major powers. Sometimes measures taken for self-defense can also prompt a proportionate reaction in the form of countermeasures. The strategic impact of HBTSS on the missile forces may lead to more advance, fast, and lethal missiles for survivability. The development of HBTSS will not end the arms race, it will intensify the arms race with countermeasures.

Iran’s government has portrayed the interim agreement with the United States as a victory that ended months of conflict and prevented further escalation. The deal halted a war that saw U.S. and Israeli airstrikes, disruptions to trade, and severe economic damage across Iran.

However, interviews with ordinary Iranians reveal a starkly different picture. Many citizens say years of sanctions, combined with the recent conflict, have left them struggling with rising prices, declining living standards, and deep uncertainty about the future. While the fighting may have stopped for now, many remain unconvinced that the agreement will bring meaningful economic relief or lasting stability.

Economic Hardship Continues to Dominate Daily Life

For many Iranians, the ceasefire has not changed the reality of daily economic struggles.

Business owners, students, and workers interviewed across the country described a population focused on survival rather than recovery. Many reported cutting household spending, reducing social activities, and adjusting to higher living costs. Small businesses continue to face weak consumer demand, while young people increasingly worry about their economic prospects.

The war added another layer of pressure to an economy already weakened by years of international sanctions, inflation, and limited foreign investment. As a result, many citizens see little immediate prospect of improvement even if the ceasefire holds.

Divided Views on the Outcome of the Conflict

The agreement has exposed a clear divide between the government’s narrative and public sentiment.

Supporters of the Islamic Republic view the deal as proof that Iran resisted external pressure and preserved its political system. Some hardliners argue that the country emerged stronger and demonstrated resilience despite military and economic pressure.

Many ordinary citizens, however, are less focused on geopolitical outcomes and more concerned about living standards. For them, the key measure of success is whether the agreement leads to lower prices, economic opportunities, and greater stability. So far, few appear convinced that such changes are imminent.

Concerns Grow Over Political Freedoms

Beyond economic concerns, many Iranians fear that the post war environment could lead to tighter political controls.

Some citizens believe the government may use the conflict and national security concerns to justify stronger oversight and restrictions. These fears are particularly pronounced in regions populated by ethnic minorities, where previous protests have often been met with heavy security responses.

There is also uncertainty about whether public frustration over economic conditions could trigger future demonstrations. While many people remain cautious after previous crackdowns, underlying grievances over jobs, inflation, and political freedoms remain unresolved.

The ceasefire may have reduced the immediate threat of war, but it has done little to address the deeper challenges facing Iran. Public opinion appears increasingly shaped by economic realities rather than political declarations of victory.

The government may benefit in the short term from ending the conflict and avoiding further military escalation. However, lasting stability will depend on whether authorities can deliver tangible economic improvements and restore public confidence.

The biggest challenge for Tehran is that expectations remain extremely low. Many Iranians do not see the ceasefire as a turning point but rather as a temporary pause in a broader cycle of economic hardship and political uncertainty. If future negotiations fail to produce sanctions relief, investment, and economic recovery, public frustration could continue to grow despite the end of active conflict.

Stakeholders

• Iranian government and political leadership
• Iranian citizens and businesses
• United States
• Israel
• Ethnic minority communities in Iran
• International investors and energy markets
• Regional governments monitoring stability in the Middle East

What’s Next

Attention will now shift to negotiations aimed at turning the interim agreement into a permanent settlement. Iranian leaders will seek economic benefits and sanctions relief, while Washington is expected to push for further commitments on security and nuclear issues.

Domestically, the government faces the challenge of managing economic expectations and maintaining stability. Whether the ceasefire translates into meaningful improvements for ordinary Iranians may ultimately determine how the agreement is judged inside the country.

With information from Reuters.

In this week’s episode of “The De Los Podcast,” hosts Fidel Martinez and Suzy Exposito sat down with actor Xolo Maridueña to chat about his East L.A. upbringing, the importance of Latino representation in his career and a litany of projects he has in the works.

Born and raised in El Sereno, Maridueña was exposed to the arts at a very young age through local community arts hubs Casa 0101 and the Boyle Heights Art Conservatory, where his mother, Carmelita Ramírez-Sánchez, now serves as executive director.

The 25-year-old actor credited his mom, who also previously worked as a radio DJ for decades in L.A., for encouraging him to explore a creative career.

“She was in the music world at a time when that wasn’t really a thing as a Latina woman,” Maridueña said. “She met so many roadblocks and overcame those that when it came time to for her to eventually raise her own family, she understood the want to try something that was outside of what the education system would deem successful. As a Latina, she also instilled these values of remaining curious, questioning certain traditions and the ways our experiences are affected by some systems that are larger than ourselves.”

He also touched on what it was like being the first Latino lead in a live-action superhero film in “Blue Beetle” — and the importance of continued Latino representation in Hollywood.

Xolo Maridueña is featured on “The De Los Podcast.”

(L.A. Times Studios)

“It was such a wild ride doing something like ‘Blue Beetle,’ that was the first in a lot of categories… But once the movie came out, it was so heartwarming to see that there were already like 10 other Latino superheroes that were making their debuts on the screen,” Maridueña said. “[Filming the movie] was the first time I had witnessed some much of the crew being Latino, or just being diverse — there were a lot of women and queer folks on that set.”

Having worked on hit series like “Parenthood” and the Netflix phenomenon “Cobra Kai” in addition to his theatrical roles, Maridueña wants to help provide an avenue for fellow Latino artists to succeed.

“I just hope [that] with this body of work, I can help open the door and prop it open for everyone else,” he said.

The conversation with Maridueña wrapped with him discussing the litany of projects he has coming out in the near future, including a leading role in the film “Dog Years” alongside Xochitl Gomez, a part in the Al Pacino-led movie “Killing Castro” and a spot in the upcoming season of Netflix’s live-action adaptation of “One Piece.”

He will also feature alongside Sandra Bullock and Nicole Kidman in the upcoming sequel to the witchy 1998 film “Practical Magic,” which is set for release Sept. 11.

“It’s been a blessing to expand not only the types of people I’ve gotten to work with, but [also] the genres and types of characters I’ve gotten to bring on to the screen,” said Maridueña. “Projects like ‘One Piece’ are so wonderful for the reach and then movies like ‘Dog Years’ and ‘Killing Castro’ are just as fulfilling in the sense that because they get to be smaller productions, the cast and crew have a bit more ownership of what they’re doing.”

The Franco-German KNDS company has presented a new main battle tank, which it is offering to France as an interim replacement for its Leclerc fleet. The development comes as France recognizes that it will need a Leclerc successor before the next-generation Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) becomes available. This joint French and German program is complicated and already delayed, while Europe at large is increasingly alert to the need for capable tanks and other armored vehicles as the threat from Russia grows, and trust around U.S. military backing diminishes.

The proposed CAPINT tank was unveiled at the Eurosatory defense show on the outskirts of Paris this week.

Europe currently has four major lines of development effort for future main battle tanks (excluding the United Kingdom), ranging from multinational programs to national developments. The landscape has become much more fragmented over the past two years, as nations have increasingly understood the urgency of fielding new-generation armored vehicles.

Arguably the most ambitious of these programs is the now-delayed Franco-German MGCS, which began in 2017 and is now expected to arrive in service some time in the mid-2040s. With the MGCS delayed by roughly a decade, both France and Germany have a looming capability gap. In the case of France, its Leclerc tanks are due to be taken out of service by 2038.

As well as the main battle tank that is supposed to be its centerpiece, the MGCS program, as a ‘system of systems,’ is expected to field other crewed and uncrewed vehicles. These will likely be tasked with electronic warfare, air defense, or as platforms from which to launch drones or loitering munitions or fire directed-energy weapons.

Alongside this effort, around a dozen European nations (excluding France) are currently working on research and development under the MARTE (Main ARmored Tank of Europe) program, which is looking at tank requirements for the post-2040 period.

Against this complicated backdrop, France and Germany have both come to the realization that they will need new tanks before the MGCS arrives in service.

As a result, Germany is now working on the Leopard 3, also known as the Leopard 2AX, expected to provide a service-ready fighting vehicle around the early 2030s.

Back in April of this year, French Armed Forces Minister Catherine ​Vautrin told parliament that Paris had decided to launch an “intermediate” tank program to mitigate delays affecting MGCS.

To meet the French requirement for a stopgap tank, KNDS is now proposing its CAPINT (CAPacité INTérmédiaire, or Interim Capability).

This will combine a French turret and main gun on the hull of a German Leopard 2, a tank that is already in production for a variety of customers. Should this solution be chosen, a new Leopard 2 would likely be set up in France to manage the demand.

Interestingly, another new tank on show in Paris this week, the New Main Battle Tank (NMBT) concept demonstrator, from the Leonardo Rheinmetall Military Vehicles (LRMV) joint venture, also uses a Leopard 2 hull as its starting point, although that may change in the future. Derived from the Rheinmetall Panther KF51, the new tank is being offered to the Italian Army, which is also looking for a successor to its current Ariete main battle tank.

Returning to the CAPINT tank, the turret will be uncrewed and armed with the 120mm ASCALON smoothbore gun from KNDS France. The plan is to have the turret able to accommodate a 140mm cannon in the future. The 120mm ASCALON has already undergone firing trials using an uncrewed turret on a moving vehicle. Meanwhile, the 140mm version of the ASCALON is planned for the MGCS.

#ASCALON

Unlike larger-caliber guns that have been proposed for future tank programs in the past, the 120 mm ASCALON offers the advantage of being fully compatible with all NATO-standard 120 mm ammunition. This means operators can maintain and leverage their existing ammo stockpiles.

The three crew of the CAPINT will be carried in an “armored citadel” at the front of the vehicle, which will be defended by passive composite armor as well as reactive and active protection systems.

The active protection system will be developed by KNDS and will be distributed around the turret and hull, so its defensive effectors provide more complete coverage.

In the meantime, it is interesting to note that a Leclerc outfitted with an anti-drone “cope cage” on top of its turret is part of the dynamic demonstration of military equipment at Eurosatory this week.

KNDS says it will complete a CAPINT demonstrator tank as early as 2030 and, should France choose to go with it, it could deliver the first series-production examples in 2035, leading to frontline deployment in 2037.

There is also a plan to incorporate into the CAPINT some of the advanced systems that are intended for the MGCS.

These elements are likely to include fully integrated AI, the aforementioned passive/reactive/active protection systems, counter-drone warfare, and beyond-line-of-sight engagement capability.

Another feature of the MGCS program that would likely be brought forward for the CAPINT tank is accompanying uncrewed ground vehicles (UGVs). According to MGCS, one or two types of “robotic wingmen” are planned for the interim tank. These UGVs will be able to keep up with the tank, but will be small enough to be affordable. Their cost will also be governed by offering different levels of passive protection.

The renewed focus on tank programs reflects a broader resurgence of armored warfare across Europe, driven largely by lessons from Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. While that conflict has highlighted the vulnerability of tanks to drones, loitering munitions, and precision anti-tank weapons, it has also underscored that heavily protected, mobile firepower remains indispensable for combined-arms operations. As a result, European militaries that once downsized or delayed armored modernization are now investing heavily in new main battle tanks and upgrades.

While the need for interim tanks in both France and Germany is becoming increasingly urgent, the current push for the CAPINT and for the German Leopard 3/Leopard 2AX does risk putting the MGCS program under threat.

“We are already working to create what will be the combat of tomorrow,” KNDS CEO Jean-Paul Alary said during a press conference at Eurosatory yesterday. “Maybe the combat of tomorrow, the ambition of MGCS, will come a little bit earlier than the project itself.”

Meanwhile, according to Reuters, a German government spokesperson raised doubts about the future of MGCS, saying that the project would be focused on “platform-independent” technologies, adding that it was not clear whether a joint tank would still be built.

Depending on how capable these stopgap tanks prove to be, the decision of France and/or Germany to walk away from the more complex MGCS program could become easier. Much will likely also depend on the path that the MARTE program takes, with the possibility that MGCS requirements could be superseded. Meanwhile, recent experience with the Franco-German-led pan-European Future Combat Air System (FCAS) has highlighted just how difficult it can be to keep programs like these on track, regardless of how badly they may be needed.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

With its recent Foreign Ministers’ meeting in Delhi, the Quad has again shown it remains active, defying widespread rumours of collapse.

While the Japanese and Australian foreign ministers highlighted their countries’ strong relations with India and the Quad’s central role in shaping the Indo-Pacific security architecture, Marco Rubio’s four-day visit to India was the most noteworthy aspect, as he repeatedly emphasized the significance of Indo-US relations.

Speculations about the Quad’s potential dissolution, reminiscent of developments in the 2000s, were fuelled by the postponement of the leaders’ summit, President Trump’s apparent lack of interest, and a more conciliatory approach toward China. Even so, the meeting reaffirmed the US’s ongoing engagement in the region and its support for the Quad.

The Quad’s momentum currently faces its principal challenge not from India’s or the US’s relations with Australia and Japan, but from a complicated Indo-US relationship.

Two factors show why India-US relations are central to the Quad’s minilateral framework.

Over the past year, India has faced unprecedented criticism from the US administration, particularly from President Trump, who has been critical of India on trade and security fronts. Issues such as tariff disputes, H-1B visa restrictions affecting Indian professionals, deepening US relations with the Pakistan Army, and increased US involvement in Bangladesh and Nepal have contributed to growing distrust about the US’s willingness to cooperate with India and promote stability in the Indo-Pacific.

In response to several contentious statements by President Trump directed at India, Rubio’s visit served as a diplomatic effort to restore bilateral relations. His repeated emphasis on India’s role as a strategic partner signalled a commitment to improving ties. While a single visit cannot resolve all tensions from the past year, it reassures India and reduces the risk of further deterioration.

The Quad Foreign Ministers’ meeting became feasible only after India and the US undertook concerted efforts to revive bilateral relations. Notable examples include India’s invitation to the US to attend the AI Impact Summit in February 2026, ongoing trade agreement negotiations, and the US decision to invite India to the Pax Silica initiative. The meeting occurred only after a certain level of normalization had been achieved. Even so, a leaders’ summit is unlikely unless President Trump and Prime Minister Modi demonstrate a clear commitment to advancing India-US relations.

Second, without proactive American engagement, Japan, Australia, and India may develop their own trilateral regional strategies, perhaps with some Southeast Asian countries such as Indonesia, the Philippines, and Singapore. However, the impact of such an alternative would be limited and localized. Japan could take a greater role in sustaining and rebuilding regional economic frameworks, replicating the Trans-Pacific Partnership experiment. Still, due to constitutional and capacity constraints, Tokyo is unlikely to replace Washington as the region’s primary security guarantor soon.

Although the Quad’s resilience is maintained by the agency and commitment of Australia, India, and Japan rather than by exclusive US leadership, strong US involvement in the Indo-Pacific security mechanism will remain a cornerstone of the Indo-Pacific architecture.

China’s persistent assertive behaviour remains the central factor. It continues to employ coercive tactics and expand its influence in regions critical to the US and its partners, so the original motivations for revitalizing the Quad remain relevant. Although the US approach to China is evolving, the fundamental dynamics of US-China relations remain unchanged. In the long term, Washington will require frameworks such as the Quad to maintain stability in the Indo-Pacific and prevent the erosion of its strategic influence. Consequently, the Quad is likely to remain central to regional strategy, with India as a key partner.

The US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau’s statement that the US is not going to make the same mistakes with India that it made with China 20 years ago must not guide Indo-US relations. The US needs India as much as India needs the US, and unlike China, India-US relations rest on shared values – democracy, freedom of speech, multiculturalism, and a common vision of maintaining a rules-based liberal international order. Both countries require mutually beneficial cooperation to advance their strategic objectives. Other Quad members and Indo-Pacific stakeholders also depend on collaboration between Washington and New Delhi to maintain strategic equilibrium and preserve the bloc’s cohesion.

The US regards India as a responsible stakeholder and a regional counterweight to China, especially after the limited outcomes of President Trump’s recent visit to China. Conversely, India depends on the US for advanced technology, strategic investments, and long-term defense needs. This mutual dependence makes both countries indispensable to each other, and significant short-term trade diversification is unlikely. Even if achieved, it would likely harm both parties.

The US must strengthen its engagement in the Indo-Pacific by leveraging the Quad and its member states to develop an effective regional strategy. Closer strategic coordination among Quad partners, particularly with India, is essential to this effort.

Coronation Street fans are worried that actress Sydney Martin is about to leave her role as Betsy Swain on the ITV soap after two years of melodramatic twists and turns

Coronation Street fans are worried that Betsy Swain is about to leave the ITV soap. The Speed Daal waitress, who has been played by Sydney Martin since 2024, has been through an awful lot during her two years in Weatherfield.

Just over a year ago, Betsy lost boyfriend Mason in a knife attack, was then shot by her own mother DS Lisa Swain, who faced no consequences for her actions, and was landed in a freak situation when her other mother Becky came back from the dead, having faked it as part of a corrupt police coverup.

Following on from all that drama , Betsy recently discovered a dead body that turned out to be that of Theo Silverton (James Cartwright) at the end of the much-hyped Murder Week.

In scenes set to air in the coming days, Betsy confides in best friend Laure (Cait Fitton) that she’s been offered a place at the London College of Fashion but she’s worried about leaving Dylan. It’s yet to be seen just how Dylan will react and, on top of that, Betsy explains that she is yet to inform her mother.

Fans of the world’s longest-running TV soap have instantly started to speculate that Sydney, who appeared in Assassin’s Guild before joining Coronation Street, is set to make a dramatic exit from the ITV soap.

Taking to X, one fan said: “betsy off to london? [sad face emoji],” whilst another posted a picture of Carla, Lisa and Betsy and said: “Don’t spilt them up please #corrie I think Lisa will take this hard and Carla will help both Betsy and Lisa to see it from each others perspective.

Another said: “You can just imagine Carla saying something like oh you’ll be fine Betsy in London I could tell you stories about what me and Michelle got up to, and Betsy saying something like and even to this day they involve the police.”

Another wondered if this meant some sort of spin-off was on the cards. In the past, the programme has done various spin-offs such as Just Rosie, which followed Rosie Webster (Helen Flanagan) on her quest for a modelling career, whilst a string of DVD releases like A Knight’s Tale and Out Of Africa were issued in the late 2000s.

Posing the theory, the fan wrote on X: “Is there any indication that Betsy going to London could be a limited summer off-shoot series like Hollyoaks Later where all the teens shared a summer house (obviously without the serial killer). But it will be Betsy’s adventures in the big city?”

It all comes after actress Sydney Martin, 24, was revealed to have been cast in a short film titled Favourite earlier this year. Filmmaker Georgia Leigh-Taylor said: “I’m so thrilled to announce the incredible Sydney Martin and the brilliant Isabelle Smith will be playing Mel and Ashley in my upcoming short film called Favourite.

“After graduating from the same acting school, Sydney and Izzy have both been working professionally in television since 2024, building exciting careers for themselves, taking on powerful storylines, and earning well-deserved recognition.

“Favourite is a dual-timeline drama exploring the lives of best friends Mel and Ashley both as teenagers, and as adults.”

Coronation Street airs Monday to Friday at 8:30pm on ITV1 and is available to stream from 7am on ITV X.

* Follow Mirror Celebs and TV on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram ,Twitter ,Facebook , YouTube and Threads .

World governing body Fifa has struck a landmark deal with global players’ union Fifpro that means players will be represented when major decisions affecting the game are agreed.

Faced with a number of separate legal claims around player welfare, Fifa has agreed a memorandum of understanding with Fifpro, which it says “marks [a] paradigm shift in governance of professional football, with transfer system and player welfare standards”.

For the first time, Fifpro will have a veto over key areas of the game’s governance and also observer access, with speaking rights, at the powerful Fifa Council, the decision-making body of global football.

Fifa says it has struck the deal on the condition that all legal proceedings against it, initiated by Fifpro, are withdrawn.

In October 2024, Fifpro filed an “abuse of dominance” claim against Fifa around the overcrowded match calendar.

Earlier this week, former France midfielder Lassana Diarra reached a settlement, external in his damages claim, initially for 65 million euros (£56.1m), against Fifa and the Belgian Football Association after his contract was cancelled by Russian club Lokomotiv Moscow and he was subsequently denied a transfer to Charleroi in 2014.

One of the key elements of the agreement is that players will have greater protection from what are regarded as abusive practices, including forcing them to train on their own, withholding passports or abusing registration procedures.

In those circumstances, players will be able to cancel their contracts and still receive the payments they are due under those contracts, claim compensation for justifiable expenses and potentially demand an extra six months’ pay in damages.

Clubs that fail to respect their contractual obligations will face swifter and more effective sporting and financial consequences.

Fifpro president Sergio Marchi said: “This agreement represents an important step forward for football. Ensuring that players and their representatives have a meaningful voice in decisions affecting their careers is not only beneficial for footballers, but for the game as a whole.”

Speaking at the Azteca Stadium in Mexico City a day before the World Cup begins, Fifa president Gianno Infantino hailed the agreement.

“It’s about unity, about bringing everyone together,” he said.

“We’ve always been having dialogues. Now, sometimes you don’t agree, when you don’t agree, well, you can go and say it to everyone, or you can sit down and discuss and see what makes sense.

“So, we signed a memorandum of understanding with Fifpro, everything is agreed.”

The troubled pan-European Future Combat Air System (FCAS) appears to have lurched to an undignified — but predictable — end, at least in its current form. A flurry of media reports today indicate that France and Germany, the two major partners in the program, have abandoned their program to develop a crewed New Generation Fighter (NGF) aircraft together, a conclusion supported by a French diplomat who spoke to TWZ today.

According to sources including the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has urged French President Emmanuel Macron to pull the plug on the NGF. The German newspaper cited unnamed government sources in Berlin. Reportedly, the French and German leaders concluded that the companies involved — Dassault and Airbus — have been unable to reach agreement on key aspects of the project, specifically relating to the jointly developed fighter jet.

At this stage, it is reported that Merz and Macron cannot see a future for the NGF, although it is apparently still unclear whether the French government fully shares this assessment and is prepared to accept its consequences.

At this point, it should be recalled that there are at least three separate FCAS initiatives in Europe.

As well as the pan-European version headed up by France and Germany, with Spain and Belgium as junior partners, there is a rival British-led FCAS. This has the Tempest crewed fighter as its centerpiece, involves Italy and Japan, and is now more commonly referred to as the Global Combat Air Program (GCAP). Finally, the Swedish next-generation combat aircraft program, led by Saab, is also known as FCAS.

Returning to today’s developments, French officials are reportedly surprised by what they viewed as uncoordinated messaging from Berlin. From Paris’s perspective, it is the responsibility of political leaders to provide industry with clear direction.

The French government is also said to be frustrated over what it sees as Germany’s increasing preference for national solutions, which threatens to sideline its own industrial input.

A French diplomat told TWZ: “The President of the Republic and the Federal Chancellor have held extensive and frequent discussions on ways to move forward with this important project for European defense. Both leaders expressed regret that the industrial partners have been unable to reach an agreement on the continuation of the project. The German authorities considered that it was not possible to exert further pressure on the companies involved. France remains convinced that Franco-German cooperation is essential both for our two countries and for our European partners in the fields of defence and security.”

The diplomat added: “The French authorities will continue to encourage our industries and armed forces to explore avenues for ambitious European projects that are consistent with our national security interests.”

According to reports, Macron and Merz discussed the future of FCAS last week, in the latest of several recent efforts to keep the program on track. At the same time, however, Merz had become increasingly vocal about his skepticism regarding the project’s prospects.

The FCAS program was launched back in 2017, with the primary aim of replacing France’s Rafale fleet and Germany’s Eurofighters.

FCAS was envisioned as a next-generation European combat air system entering service around 2040, spearheaded by the NGF crewed fighter. As of 2022, it was envisaged that “in-flight demonstrations” would be achieved by 2028 or 2029. 

Before long, however, the project was overshadowed by arguments over workshare agreements, and it is unclear how far the partners had got in terms of agreeing on NGF requirements and starting its design.

For a while now, there have been reports that Germany is exploring alternative paths, including the possibility of separating itself from France within the program entirely.

By February of this year, Merz was publicly raising doubts about the program’s viability, arguing that key issues had never been fully resolved during the planning phase. According to the German leader, Germany and France have fundamentally different operational requirements for a future combat aircraft.

Merz pointed to the specific French requirements that call for aircraft to be capable of carrying nuclear weapons and operating from aircraft carriers. Merz argued that Paris is seeking to shape the aircraft around French military requirements, which do not necessarily align with Germany’s needs.

“This is not primarily a political disagreement,” Merz said. “The real issue lies in the requirements profile. If we cannot reconcile those differences, the project cannot continue.”

Within France, Dassault CEO Éric Trappier recently declared the FCAS project dead if Airbus refuses to cooperate, while Macron continued to make efforts to resuscitate the program.

There are indications that Paris will still try to do its best to keep the program alive, and it remains possible that the broader FCAS architecture, or parts of it, could continue even without the NGF. FCAS has always intended to field families of drones, air-launched weapons, and potentially other aerial platforms, within an overarching ‘combat cloud.’

The German government considers that the “true essence of FCAS” should be continued as a European system of systems, according to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

FCAS System of Systems

Whatever happens next, the program appears to be at a crossroads, and facing its biggest existential challenge yet.

It is highly questionable whether either France or Germany (even with Spanish industrial support and finance) could develop a fighter without the other major partner.

This could open the door to a radical reshaping of European combat air programs.

There have already been suggestions at the highest military levels that the British-led and Franco-German FCAS efforts could be fused in some way. However, it seems highly unlikely that all these partners could come together with agreement. Just as questionable is whether the GCAP effort would be able to admit new major partners at this late stage.

Then there is the issue of Sweden.

Last month, we reported on Airbus having raised the possibility of teaming with Saab on the manned tactical component of FCAS. That was one of the clearest indications yet that Airbus is actively exploring post-FCAS alternatives, or, at the least, a major overhaul of the program’s structure.

Potentially, Airbus and Saab could now team up to develop a joint next-generation fighter, with their requirements likely to be more closely aligned than those of France. Germany and France also have a less urgent need for a sixth-generation combat jet, with Sweden only now introducing the Gripen E, and with Germany looking forward to receiving F-35s as well as more Eurofighters.

For France, losing its partners for NGF could be more critical, although it continues to work on advanced versions of the Rafale. In 2024, France also unveiled plans to develop a new uncrewed combat air vehicle (UCAV) that will complement the forthcoming Rafale F5 crewed fighter. The industrial side of the drone program will be headed up by Dassault, drawing upon its previous nEUROn UCAV demonstrator, which has already been used in trials with crewed combat aircraft.

The F5 standard of the Rafale is planned to keep the multirole combat aircraft in frontline service until around 2060. That will at least give France some time to consider what to do about a future crewed fighter.

Drones are also increasingly part of the combat-air picture in Germany, too. Delays in fielding a sixth-generation fighter could be mitigated, to a degree, by Airbus developing combat drones. Airbus and Kratos are already pitching the stealthy XQ-58A Valkyrie drone to Germany, and Airbus has also been working on a stealthy CCA-like concept of its own, known as Wingman.

In the background, the U.S.-made F-35 continues to expand its customer base in Europe. There is also the prospect that, in the future, the sixth-generation F-47 might also be offered for export in the region, although this might only be in a watered-down form.

Overall, though, the latest development is a poor reflection on Franco-German cooperation, which has singularly failed to come to agreement about what should be a flagship program, providing a cornerstone of efforts to strengthen Europe’s defense capabilities.

With the ILA Berlin airshow starting on Wednesday, this news could hardly be worse-timed. On the other hand, we may well learn more about Germany’s vision for its future combat aircraft program before the week is out.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

In recent months, the iconic ticking stopwatch of the CBS News magazine “60 Minutes” began to sound like a time bomb.

The explosive detonated Tuesday as the prestigious program’s most high-profile correspondent, Scott Pelley, was fired after openly challenging the moves and motives of the news division’s leadership and questioning the credentials of new “60 Minutes” executive producer Nick Bilton.

Pelley accused CBS News Editor in Chief Bari Weiss of “murdering” the program and berated Bilton, a former New York Times journalist, for lacking TV news experience. His forced exit along with the departure of several other veterans is raising fears about the future of the most-watched TV news program that has managed to retain its vitality and importance in the face of major changes across the media landscape.

Weiss praised Pelley’s contribution to the network when she discussed his termination at the network’s morning editorial meeting Wednesday, but cited a loss of “trust and mutual respect” as the reason for moving on.

“We cannot do our work without it,” Weiss said. “That foundation was broken on Monday, and despite our attempts to engage with Scott Pelley and to find a way back, unfortunately we weren’t able to do so, and so we had to part ways.”

But industry veterans familiar with “60 Minutes” said the firings represented a notable shift in how the venerable program has been run by its predecessors.

Rome Hartman, a former longtime “60 Minutes” producer, said Wednesday in an interview that the termination of Pelley for forcefully expressing his views at a staff meeting is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the program has operated and thrived over 58 years. Spirited, and occasionally acrimonious, internal debate has always been a part of working at “60 Minutes.”

“Sharp words in defense of important ideas, whether they be in stories, or whether they be about the future of the broadcast, shouldn’t just be tolerated, they should be encouraged and inculcated, and they always have,” Hartman said.

The insularity of the “60 Minutes” operation — which has its own suite of offices across the street from the main headquarters of CBS News — has rankled the network’s executives in the past. But those dynamics were considered part of the price of having the most prestigious news program on television.

“Every single CBS News president in the history of CBS News has resented the independence of ’60 Minutes,’” Hartman said.”But the smart ones have come to understand that that independence is part of the secret sauce. I don’t know Bari Weiss, but she seems incredibly thin-skinned.”

The turmoil inside “60 Minutes” comes at an inopportune time for CBS. Weiss is now under the gun to replenish the program’s staff with three months to go before original episodes return to the prime-time schedule.

Pelley is the fourth correspondent to depart “60 Minutes” since Weiss took over as editor in chief. Last week, Weiss fired correspondents Sharyn Alfonsi — who accused Weiss of playing politics by holding a story on the government’s use of El Salvador prisons for undocumented migrants — and Cecilia Vega, who was also outspoken in her criticism of the changes at “60 Minutes,” saying she faced censorship. Anderson Cooper, the CNN anchor who spent nearly 20 years as a contributor to the program, chose not to sign a new contract.

Weiss also fired executive producer Tanya Simon, who has been with the program for 25 years, and her second in command. (Pelley said he was unable to get answers on the firings during his final meeting Tuesday with Weiss and CBS News President Tom Cibrowski.)

Bari Weiss hosts Senator Ted Cruz on her “Honesty” podcast on January 18, 2025, in Washington, D.C.

(Leigh Vogel / Getty Images for Uber, X and The Free Press)

And there could be more departures on the way, adding to the upheaval. Bill Whitaker, who joined the program in 2014 and was a Pelley ally, is said to be weighing whether to walk away from the two years left on his current contract. The program’s respected veteran , Lesley Stahl, is pondering her future as well amid the massive changes, according to people familiar with her thinking who were not authorized to speak publicly.

The call is out for new talent, according to one agent who said CBS News is talking to “dozens of people” for the openings.

But the company will also look within its ranks. Matt Guttman, hired away from ABC News by Weiss to become senior national correspondent, is one name being mentioned, along with Major Garrett, the network’s chief Washington correspondent. Both have emerged as favorites of Weiss.

Norah O’Donnell, already a contributor to the program, is also likely to have a larger presence.

While the “60 Minutes” patina has been tarnished by the recent events, there is no shortage of journalists who would be willing to step up and join the program. But whoever does sign on will be intensely scrutinized while the Nielsen numbers are closely watched.

Newcomers on the program are rare and would have an easier time gaining audience acceptance if they were joining a stable operation.

Although every long-running TV program can use an occasional refresh, a massive overhaul is destabilizing for “60 Minutes,” one of the last non-sports appointment programs for the traditional television audience that still provides broadcast networks with the bulk of their advertising revenue.

Notably, the program averaged 9.1 million viewers during the 2025-26 TV season according to Nielsen, up 9% over the previous year.

“Viewers liked the ’60 Minutes’ that they had,” said a former CBS News executive who worked on the program who was not authorized to speak publicly. “And if they don’t like it, they have many other places to go.”

One of Weiss’ mantras — echoed by Bilton — has been the need to pull “60 Minutes” into the digital future as traditional TV viewing declines. Insiders say she has yet to make clear how that will be achieved.

Under Weiss’ watch, clips and full segments of the program gained significant traction on platforms such as YouTube. The success on digital is an encouraging sign for the program’s ability to attract younger viewers who don’t watch traditional talent.

But veteran TV executives say that loyal “60 Minutes” viewers still expect to see seasoned correspondents delivering in-depth investigations and analysis. A diversion from that formula poses substantial risks.

“Its audience has certain expectations,” said Jim Murphy, a former executive producer for CNN and CBS News. “These guys built a literally nearly perfect program for the medium and for the audience. You’re not going to make it better just because somebody cooler does a story that’s, like, a little funkier. It just not going to work.”

Steve Capus, a veteran network producer who worked with Pelley at the “CBS Evening News,” said his former colleague was built for the meticulous work that goes into every “60 Minutes” segment.

“It’s hard to do week in and week out,” Capus said. “You have to be first-rate in your storytelling.”

What’s more, Weiss and Bilton will also have to fight the perception that their moves on the program have been guided by the desire of David Ellison, chief executive of CBS News parent Paramount, to please the Trump administration as he seeks regulatory approval of his deal to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery.

Trump sued “60 Minutes” over the editing of an interview with his 2024 presidential opponent, former Vice President Kamala Harris. The suit was settled just ahead of the Federal Communications Commission clearing the way for the takeover of Paramount by David Ellison’s Skydance Media.

Ellison acquired Weiss’ digital startup, the Free Press, which established itself as a voice critical of so-called woke politics.

Pelley said in a statement Tuesday that there has been pressure to shape CBS News coverage to please the Trump White House, a claim that both Vega and Alfonsi have made.

“I’ve been told to include assertions that are unverified,” he said. “To date, in every case, I have ignored these instructions or refuse them.”

In a statement, a representative of “60 Minutes” said that the exchanges with Pelley regarding editorial content were not out of the ordinary.

“There is no political interference at CBS News, not from ownership, not from Bari Weiss,” the representative said. “The only ‘interference’ is the normal back and forth between editor and correspondent that happens in every newsroom.”

Stephen Curry is a free agent no more.

A sneaker free agent, that is.

The four-time NBA champion has spent his entire playing career with the Golden State Warriors and is under contract through the end of next season.

He has been playing without a shoe deal, however, since parting ways with Under Armour in November.

That won’t be the case when Curry starts his 18th NBA season in the fall. The man who holds the NBA record for most career three-pointers announced on Monday that his Curry Brand is teaming with Chinese sportswear and athletic equipment company Li-Ning for a partnership that is “bigger than a shoe deal” and “bigger than a signature series.”

”This is the partnership of a lifetime. The future of Curry Brand is with Li-Ning,” Curry wrote in a post announcing the deal on his Thirty Ink site. “I couldn’t be more proud to build a long-term vision with Li-Ning that will fuel Curry Brand for years to come and unlock the full potential of this company on a global scale.”

ESPN reports that the deal is for 10 years. Terms were not released.

Curry signed with Nike for the first four seasons of his career before switching to Under Armour in 2013. After announcing his sneaker free agency early in the 2025-26 season, Curry wore shoes from a variety of companies during warmups and games. In April, Curry auctioned off more than 70 pairs of those shoes through Sotheby’s, raising more than $1.7 million for his charitable foundation.

While many of his shoe choices had special significance — like when he honored Kobe and Gianna Bryant by warming up in Nike Kobe 6 Protro “Mambacita” sneakers — Curry also was doing his due diligence as a businessman.

“Throughout my sneaker free agency, I was impressed by the quality, comfort and performance of Li-Ning’s shoes,” Curry said. “It was during that time playing in Dwyane Wade and Jimmy Butler’s sneakers, that I knew that Li-Ning could be the right partner that can deliver on the innovation and design that I want Curry Brand to stand for.”

Li-Ning (the company) was founded by Li Ning — the Chinese gymnast who won six medals, including three gold, during the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics — in 1990. A handful of NBA players have signed with the company , starting with then-Cleveland Cavaliers guard Damon Jones in 2006 and also including former Clippers guard Baron Davis and future Hall of Famers Wade and Shaquille O’Neal.

In addition to Curry’s Golden State teammate Butler, other current NBA stars signed with Li-Ning include Atlanta’s C.J. McCollum and Washington’s D’Angelo Russell.

According to Curry, Li-Ning will open Curry Brand stores in the United States and China.

“We’ll be proudly building Curry Brand into a future leading company that will leave its mark in Basketball, in Golf and across the lifestyle space,” Curry wrote.

“We’ll aim to create game-changing products, launch elevated platforms and bring storytelling that will inspire young boys and girls around the globe. My hope is for young athletes to find the same purpose, joy and drive through sports that I’ve long enjoyed throughout this journey.”

The Rams were six yards from the Super Bowl.

The Rams’ celebrated young defense needed only to smother immobile Seattle Seahawks quarterback Sam Darnold deep in his territory in the final five minutes to regain possession and have a real shot at winning last season’s NFC championship.

They couldn’t touch him.

For more than four minutes Darnold drove downfield, connecting on three of four passes, baffling the pass rushers, bleeding the clock, and by the time the Seahawks finally gave the ball back, the Rams had only 25 seconds to live.

Final score: Seahawks 31, Rams 27.

Final verdict: The Rams needed a closer.

The Rams needed somebody to chase Darnold into submission the way Aaron Donald once famously chased down Joe Burrow in the final seconds of Super Bowl LVI.

The Rams needed a closer the way the Dodgers needed Edwin Díaz.

The Rams needed … Myles Garrett?

Are you kidding me? They got him? He now plays for them?

The Rams needed an edge rusher and they acquired an edge destroyer? The Rams needed a veteran defensive lineman and they acquired a one-man defensive line?

The Rams needed a closer and here comes Mariano Rivera?

It’s all true. It’s hella crazy. It’s so Rams.

Myles Garrett points before a game between the Cleveland Browns and Pittsburgh Steelers on Dec. 28.

(Jason Miller / Getty Images)

In their first blockbuster deal since the last one won them a Super Bowl — remember Jared Goff for Matthew Stafford? — the Rams pulled off another heist Monday in acquiring two-time defensive player of the year Myles Garrett from the Cleveland Browns for younger defensive star Jared Verse and multiple draft picks.

The Rams will miss the inspirational Verse, and one of those draft picks is a 2027 first rounder, and they’re once again dangerously mortgaging the future but … c’mon.

It’s Myles Garrett, people.

He treats quarterbacks the way Rams general manager Les Snead treats draft picks.

Crumple, discard, next.

He took what Deacon Jones invented and has done it better than anyone in history.

He’s a Fearsome Onesome.

Considering where he ranks in NFL history, the Browns just gave him away. Thank you, Cleveland. While you’re at it, can you take back LeBron?

Last season Garrett, who is still only 30, set the NFL’s single-season record for sacks with 23. He also owns the NFL record with six straight seasons of at least 12 sacks.

His career is filled with monster moments. In one game he had five sacks. In another game he had nine tackles, two sacks, two forced fumbles and a blocked field goal. In one season he had an NFL record 33 tackles for loss.

He’s also been the subject of a monster suspension, when the NFL kicked him out for the six remaining games of the season in 2019 after he pulled the helmet off Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Mason Rudolph and swung it at him, hitting him in the head.

Garrett later apologized while accusing Rudolph of precipitating the fight with a racial slur. Garrett’s claims were never proven, and he quietly rejoined the Browns for the 2020 season.

He’s not known for violence except if you’re holding a football. He’s not known for taking any plays off, even though he was so unhappy he requested a trade out of Cleveland. He’s largely stayed off the gossip pages, an absence which is about to end as he is dating Los Angeles local and Olympic gold medalist Chloe Kim.

In all, Garrett is the one sweetheart of a player the Rams needed to complete their preparation for next Valentine’s Day 2027 Super Bowl at SoFi Stadium.

Matthew Stafford coming back? Check. He signed a contract extension.

Secondary help? Check. They added newly acquired All-Pro Trent McDuffie and his former Kansas City Chiefs running mate Jaylen Watson.

Nearly every other important player returning from a team that was arguably football’s best until that nail-biting loss to the eventual champion Seahawks? Check.

To all this, adding arguably the greatest edge rusher in history? Checkmate.

The Rams will miss Verse. The fans loved him, his teammates loved him more, and he was such a force after only two seasons he was considered the heir apparent to the retired Donald.

Two seasons ago he was the NFL’s defensive rookie of the year and last season he was widely lauded for his 7½ sacks.

But, um, Garrett had more than three times that many.

This sort of deal is what the Rams do when they think they are close to a championship. This is why they have become one of Los Angeles’ two most admired sports franchises.

They go for it. They push all their chips to the middle and they go for it. They realize this town won’t settle for anything less than championship effort so they go for it.

Rams general manager Les Snead walks on the field before a game between the Rams and New Orleans Saints at SoFi Stadium in November.

(Kyusung Gong / Associated Press)

Some football executives are wary of criticism for trading draft picks. Snead wears T-shirts cursing those picks. Some football executives plan for the distant future. With the support of owner Stan Kroenke, Snead never looks past the next Sunday.

Way back when, some folks wondered about the wisdom of trading young and popular Goff and three prime draft picks for aging Stafford in March 2021. But the Rams knew Stafford was the closer they needed to win a Super Bowl.

And, yeah silly, they won the next Super Bowl.

In that way, this is much of the same deal. The Browns realize they’re not winning anything immediately and want to build for the future. The Rams were all too happy to give them that future for the Browns’ present.

And what a present Garrett will be, the gift that keeps on crushing, the crown jewel of a revamped defense that should make the Rams the preseason favorites to unseat the defending Super Bowl champions.

One of whom is undoubtedly listening.

Sam Darnold, you there?

Anthropic, which operates AI chatbot Claude, did not disclose the size or the terms of the offering.

Artificial intelligence giant Anthropic has confidentially filed for an initial public offering (IPO) in the United States, teeing up what could become a watershed moment for Wall Street’s AI frenzy.

The move, announced on Monday, sets up a high-stakes test of whether investor appetite for the AI revolution that has reshaped white-collar work around the world can match the sky-high expectations surrounding the booming sector.

Anthropic, which operates AI chatbot Claude, did not disclose the size or the terms of the offering. Confidential submissions let companies advance IPO preparations while shielding sensitive financial details from rivals and the public.

Anthropic last raised $65bn at a post-money valuation of $965bn in late May, putting it ahead of rival OpenAI. The company said at the time it was making annualised revenue of $47bn from selling its technology to people and organisations using Claude to write code and do other work and personal tasks on their behalf.

The crucial step towards a listing comes on the heels of SpaceX’s mega-IPO, which is on course to rewrite the record books as the Elon Musk-led company pursues a $75bn offering at a $1.75 trillion valuation.

Anthropic was formed in 2021 by ex-OpenAI leaders, and now both AI firms, along with Elon Musk’s rocket and AI company SpaceX, are all expected to become publicly traded. All three are also still losing more money than they make, fuelling concerns of an AI bubble.

OpenAI and Anthropic have become the face of the AI boom that has redrawn corporate strategies, sparked a global arms race for computing power and talent, and turned AI-linked companies into some of the market’s most richly valued firms.

Anthropic’s rapid rise in early 2026 rattled markets, triggering sharp sell-offs in software and IT stocks as investors worried its increasingly autonomous AI tools could upend traditional business models and accelerate disruption across industries.

“OpenAI and Anthropic are in a race to go public before capital runs out,” said analyst Gil Luria from the investment firm DA Davidson.

“The other reason for Anthropic to try to beat OpenAI out to the public market is that they will get to set the agenda for how a frontier model reports financials and do so in a way that is favourable to their financial model.”

OpenAI is also preparing to confidentially file for a US IPO in the coming weeks, adding to a wave of blockbuster ‌listings anticipated in the year ahead.

A market milestone

As many blockbuster listings race towards public markets, companies from SpaceX to AI giants are competing for a finite pool of investor capital.

“The combined demand for capital from SpaceX, OpenAI and Anthropic will be so considerable that it is likely to create disruptions in the capital markets, so going early will be a great advantage,” Luria said.

The listing would represent one of the most consequential stock market debuts in years, potentially reshaping benchmark indexes, investor flows and the broader narrative driving US equities.

At close to a $1 trillion valuation, Anthropic would vault into the top tier of the S&P 500, alongside a handful of elite companies that dominate global equity markets.

An Anthropic debut would be a major boost for the long-sluggish IPO market, though experts and bankers warn an offering of such scale could drain liquidity and investor attention from smaller listings.

Before Ireland’s Six Nations win over Scotland in March, which secured the triple Crown, Farrell said he expected both Lowe and centre Bundee Aki to sign new contracts.

Aki has agreed a new one-year deal to stay with Connacht but there has not been any progress with Lowe, who is contracted by Leinster rather than an central contract with the Irish Rugby Football Union [IRFU].

Lowe did not make the squad for the Champions Cup final defeat by Bordeaux despite having returned from a hamstring injury sustained in the Six Nations win over England.

However, his two record-breaking tries on Saturday show he is still a threat when fit and available.

While Cullen declined to comment on his future, he did praise the impact Lowe has made since he moved to Ireland nine years ago.

“He’s been a great character in the group. Very, very different, you know, what he brings, great energy,” Cullen said after the game.

“Internally, we had a video there just in terms of some of the stuff that he’s done in a Leinster jersey over his career.

“There’s not many James Lowes running around the streets that we’ve come across so far. He’s been a great addition to the group over the years.”

May 29 (Asia Today) — SK Group Chairman Chey Tae-won said generalist talent will become more important in the artificial intelligence era as workers need to develop abilities that remain uniquely human.

Chey, who also serves as chairman of the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said South Korea should accelerate the expansion of AI infrastructure based on speed, scale and safety.

SK Group said Friday that Chey appeared Thursday on KBS1’s “Documentary Insight – Talent War 2: Chey Tae-won’s Answer,” where he discussed what people should learn and what abilities they should develop as AI advances faster than humans.

“I wanted to share the perspective I have gained by speaking directly with many people in the AI industry and working with them in business,” Chey said.

Chey said the world is now moving through the era of “reasoning AI,” in which AI responds to human questions, and will enter the era of “agentic AI,” in which AI can make decisions and act on its own.

“In this period, the gap in ability between people who actively use AI and those who do not could become much wider than it is now,” Chey said. “The same polarization could deepen among individuals, companies and countries depending on how quickly and effectively they use AI.”

Over the longer term, however, Chey said the rise of artificial general intelligence could narrow gaps in knowledge and productivity among people.

He said that if two people now have ability levels of 10 and 100, their gap is 10 times. But in an AGI era, if everyone receives a baseline AI-powered ability of 1,000, those levels could become 1,010 and 1,100, sharply reducing the relative gap.

“In the future, what matters more than what job a person has will be how that person can use and connect humans and AI together,” Chey said.

He said generalists who can move across different fields and design new systems and societies where humans and AI coexist will become more important than specialists who deeply understand only one field.

Chey also said AI could perform a large share of work tasks, making it possible for people to take on multiple roles and jobs at the same time. He said the conventional “9 to 6” work structure and fixed ideas about occupations could gradually change.

Chey presented four core “muscles” that individuals should build in the AI era: a thinking muscle to ask fundamental questions, an adaptation muscle to respond to rapid change, an empathy muscle that reflects uniquely human compassion and “body skills” that create value through physical activity such as music, art and sports.

“The ability to quickly acquire knowledge and do well on tests will be replaced in large part by AI,” Chey said. “It is important to build the areas that only humans can do.”

Chey also presented a national strategy, saying South Korea needs “3S” — speed, scale and safety — to become a competitive “AI nation.”

He said South Korea should speed up technological development, expand large-scale AI infrastructure and investment and build an institutional foundation that allows citizens to use AI safely.

“AI talent does not simply mean engineering talent,” Chey said. “Education and social systems must also change quickly so future generations can naturally use AI and coexist with it.”

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260529010008715

Former captain Gary Mabbutt hopes Ben Davies will have a future at Tottenham Hotspur after the club avoided relegation to the Championship.

Wales skipper Davies, who turned 33 last month, sees his Tottenham contract expire next month.

The defender has not played since suffering a serious ankle injury in January, but Mabbutt believes he should be offered the chance to stay at a club he has represented for 12 years.

“Ben’s a great lad,” said Spurs great Mabbutt.

“What he has given to the club so far… it was just so unfortunate the injury he received. It was devastating for him and or us because Ben’s a player you can always rely on.

“Certainly I hope something will be done with his contract, whether it be still on the playing side or maybe looking a bit more to the future, but hopefully still with Tottenham Hotspur.”

At Jimmy Kimmel’s annual monologue to advertisers at Disney’s recent upfront presentation, the ABC late-night host offered sympathy to his ousted CBS cohort Stephen Colbert.

“First, it’s bad enough to lose your job,” Kimmel said. “Imagine getting replaced by the owner of the Weather Channel.”

Byron Allen, the media mogul whose holdings do include the Weather Channel, laughed when the gag was repeated to him during a recent phone conversation. “I like Jimmy Kimmel a lot,” he said.

Allen, never lacking in self-confidence, can afford to roll with the jokes. Episodes of his 20-year-old syndicated program “Comics Unleashed,” a half-hour show featuring mostly lesser-known stand-ups sharing routines and stories, are replacing “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” on CBS in the 11:35 p.m. time period starting Friday.

While it’s a triumph for Allen, 65, it’s also a sign of how the traditional late-night talk show — one of television’s most culturally influential formats — may no longer be sustainable in the era of streaming TV.

CBS said last year it canceled Colbert because it lost $40 million a year as the late-night viewing habit among audiences has eroded in the streaming era. Many in the TV industry are skeptical of the claim, believing Skydance Media wanted to silence the relentless Trump-bashing host in order to clear the government regulatory path for its acquisition of network parent Paramount. (The FCC’s approval of the deal came days after the cancellation was announced.)

Cedric the Entertainer, left, with Byron Allen on the set of “Comics Unleashed.”

(Allen Media Group)

But no one who has worked in late-night television in recent years can dispute how financial challenges are clouding the format’s future. Polished after-hours programs with a live audience, large teams of writers and producers and high-priced hosts are fighting off obsolescence as traditional TV audiences get smaller and ad revenues shrink. While CBS is the first to act, other networks have thought about getting out of the business altogether.

Since 2022, “The Late Show” lost 20% of its audience in the advertiser-coveted 18-to-49 age group, according to Nielsen data. Ad spending on all late-night television shows hit $209 million in 2025, down from $519.7 million in 2017, according to data from Guideline.

“Nothing is forever, especially in television,” said former network executive Ted Harbert, who oversaw the launches of “The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon,” and “Late Night with Seth Meyers” at NBC. “Digital tech is killing late night.”

The hosts of the programs and their funniest bits are arguably seen by more people than ever before thanks to clips replayed on social media platforms. But the revenue generated by digital viewing doesn’t approach what the networks get for audiences watching live on TV.

Over the last 10 years, late-night shows flocked to YouTube as a way to be a part of the national conversation and bring attention to the shows. Harbert believes the notion that the clips alone — which may feature a funny bit or a snapshot of a conversation with a guest — would help lure viewers to traditional TV was folly.

“The shows cannibalized themselves by making their show available in snack-size clips after the network airing,” he said. “And viewers obviously would rather watch a couple of five-minute clips than a whole show.”

Late-night shows were once among the most profitable programs on TV because of their ability to reach viewers in the 18-to-34 age group that attract premium prices for commercial time. But the same demographic was the first to gravitate to streaming platforms and abandon traditional TV which thrives on appointment viewing.

Daniel Kellison, a former producer for “Jimmy Kimmel Live” and “The Late Show with David Letterman,” noted that Kimmel — who has also been targeted by the Trump administration for his harsh barbs — has seen his TV ratings increase this year.

But the overall trend for the time period is still down. While Kellison believes Colbert’s cancellation is an effort by CBS to appease Trump, he agrees that the genre needs to evolve and adapt to the changing media landscape.

“There’s always going to be an audience for conversation around politics and life and these sort of shows will exist in different formats and I think it’s incumbent upon people to figure out how to present them,” he said.

CBS executives have said they want to develop a new network show in the late-night time period. But for the next year it will lease the slot to Allen. His company Allen Media Group pays CBS for the time, covers the cost of production and sells the advertising. He is also the host. The deal will erase whatever losses the network experienced in that TV block.

“Comics Unleashed” has been running in the 12:35 a.m. hour since CBS canceled “After Midnight” last year. When that show moves to the earlier time slot, it will be replaced by another Allen program, “Funny You Should Ask,” a comic quiz show hosted by John Kelley.

Allen said he has great respect for the late-night TV tradition. His mother was a tour guide at NBC in Burbank and he was able to hang out on the studio lot to watch Johnny Carson tape “Tonight.” Allen would get advice from Carson, whom he calls his hero and mentor, and eventually got a shot at doing stand-up on “Tonight” when he was 18 years old.

Allen even asked CBS to move the start date of “Comics Unleashed” to May 22 because it is the anniversary of Carson’s final show in 1992. But his sentimentality ends when it comes to the economics of programming in that time slot.

“We will be in profit,” Allen said of “Comics Unleashed,” which according to Nielsen has seen its audience grow in the 12:35 a.m. time slot by 26% since October.

Kimmel has accused CBS of dumping Colbert for “Comics Unleashed” because Allen’s show doesn’t partake in political humor that could alienate the White House as Skydance moves to close its next acquisition: Warner Bros. Discovery.

“I feel like CBS is turning 11:35 p.m. into a ‘least’ time slot,” Kimmel said at the Disney presentation. “Least as in least likely to offend the president with the rerun of ‘Comics Unleashed’ from 2007 featuring Paula Poundstone and Andy Dick.”

Poundstone and Dick are not among the 1,000 comedians who have appeared on “Comics Unleashed” over the years, many of whom went on to become stars. But not having the program dabble in political humor is a business decision.

The guests stick to storytelling and slice-of-life material that doesn’t date, which is why the episodes can attract an audience years after being taped. They don’t plug books, movies, concerts or any other elements that would be dated by future airings.

“Twenty years ago when we shot our first episode I said ‘we’re making it ‘I Love Lucy,’” Allen said. “I want these shows to be funny today and 20 years from today.”

Allen said his company will produce 130 new episodes of “Comics Unleashed” for the 2026-27 TV season.

But the reason the current set of late-night hosts leaned into politics so heavily in recent years is because it works.

When Colbert took over “The Late Show” from Letterman in 2015, the program’s ratings sputtered as the audience did not really know Colbert outside of the satirical figure he played on Comedy Central with his show “The Colbert Report.”

The night Trump scored his surprising win in the 2016 presidential race against Hillary Clinton, Kelly Kahl, then an executive vice president of CBS Entertainment, sent a text to Chris Licht, then executive producer of “The Late Show,” telling him it was “the best thing to happen to the show.”

Colbert found his voice on the program, which rose to No. 1 in the ratings and has been there ever since.