short

TAMPA, Fla. — Jake Guentzel and Anthony Cirelli each scored twice and the Tampa Bay Lightning beat the Ducks 4-3 on Saturday to break a four-game skid.

Nikita Kucherov had an assist for his 1,000th career point as Tampa Bay got its first home win of the season. Victor Hedman registered his 800th career point and Brandon Hagel picked up career point No. 300.

Jonas Johansson finished with 37 saves for Tampa Bay, which ended an 0-2-2 stretch with just its second win of the season (2-4-2)

Troy Terry, Jacob Trouba and Ryan Poehling scored for Anaheim, which lost in regulation for the first time in four games. Lukas Dostal finished with 29 saves.

Cirelli scored the tiebreaking goal on the power play with his second of the night with 3:15 left in the third period with a quick shot from the low slot.

Guentzel and Cirelli scored 2:01 apart in the second period to take a 3-1 lead. Guentzel directed Brayden Point’s pass in off his skate with 7:41 left on a play Kucherov got his 1,000th point.

Cirelli made it a two-goal lead as he pounced on a rebound with 5:40 remaining. Hedman and Hagel each hit their milestones on the goal.

Poehling and Terry scored 59 seconds apart to tie it 3-3 at 8:10 of the third.

Guentzel opened the scoring for the Lightning 9:10 into the first period as a rebound found his stick in the low slot.

Anaheim tied it at 4:42 of the second after an offensive zone faceoff win landed on the stick of Trouba for a slap shot off the inside of the near post and in.

Every October, the Social Security Administration (SSA) announces the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for the upcoming year.

Up until recently, that announcement was supposed to be around Oct. 15 — right after the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) releases September’s inflation report. But with the federal government closed until further notice, it seemed as if that report wouldn’t be released anytime soon.

New information from the BLS, however, suggests we could be getting the COLA announcement sooner than expected. Here’s when it might be coming, what it might be, and how that might affect your retirement.

Image source: The Motley Fool.

When will the new COLA be released?

The SSA calculates the COLA by averaging Consumer Price Index data from July, August, and September. That average is compared to the figure from the same period the year prior, and if it’s higher, the percentage difference will be next year’s COLA.

Before the government shut down, the BLS was expected to release September’s Consumer Price Index data on Oct. 15. But with that office almost entirely furloughed, it was unlikely the report would be published before the government reopened.

However, on Oct. 10, the BLS published an update noting that September’s inflation report would be released on Oct. 24. Generally, the SSA announces the new COLA almost immediately after the BLS inflation report is published.

What might next year’s adjustment be?

We won’t know the official 2026 COLA until the SSA makes the announcement later this month, but nonpartisan advocacy group The Senior Citizens League has estimated that it will land at 2.7%.

That figure is based on already available inflation data, as well as the projected data from September. If September’s numbers are significantly different from the estimates, the COLA may be higher or lower than predicted.

The average retired worker collects just over $2,000 per month in benefits, according to August 2025 data from the SSA. A 2.7% COLA, then, would amount to a raise of around $56 per month.

While any boost in benefits is helpful to a degree, for many retirees, next year’s COLA may be underwhelming. Inflation has stayed stubbornly high throughout the year, and tariffs have also taken a bite out of many retirees’ budgets.

Medicare Part B premiums are also expected to increase from $185 per month this year to a projected $206.50 per month in 2026, according to this year’s Medicare Trustees Report. Because Medicare premiums are typically deducted from Social Security checks, that $21.50 monthly increase will eat up a significant chunk of the COLA raise for the average retiree.

What does this mean for retirees?

It doesn’t hurt to keep an eye out for the COLA announcement to help budget for 2026, but for the most part, retirees may want to avoid relying too heavily on this adjustment to make ends meet.

Again, any extra cash can help pay the bills, especially with many older adults stretched thin financially right now. But with Social Security not going as far as it used to, it may be wise to start finding ways to reduce your dependence on your benefits.

According to a report from The Senior Citizens League, Social Security benefits lost around 20% of their buying power between 2010 and 2024. If you can swing it, finding a source of passive income or going back to work temporarily could have a bigger impact on your budget than any COLA.

This won’t be possible for everyone, but if you can beef up your savings even slightly, you won’t need to worry quite as much about future COLAs falling short. No matter where the 2026 adjustment lands, it’s wise to keep realistic expectations about how far that money will go.

For most retirees, Social Security is more than just a monthly deposit into their bank accounts. It represents a financial lifeline that helps them make ends meet.

In 2023, Social Security lifted more than 22 million people out of poverty, according to an analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), and 16.3 million of these recipients were aged 65 and over. If Social Security didn’t exist, the CBPP estimates the poverty rate for adults aged 65 and up would jump nearly fourfold, from 10.1% (with existing payouts) to 37.3%.

Meanwhile, 24 years of annual surveys from Gallup show that 80% to 90% of aged beneficiaries lean on their payouts in some capacity to cover their expenses.

For retirees, few announcements have more bearing than the annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) reveal in October. Though Social Security payouts are on track to do something that hasn’t been witnessed in almost 30 years, next year’s “raise” appears set to give retirees the short end of the stick, yet again!

Image source: Getty Images.

What is Social Security’s COLA and why might the 2026 reveal be delayed?

The fabled “COLA” you’ve probably been hearing and reading about over the last couple of weeks is the tool the Social Security Administration (SSA) has on its proverbial toolbelt to keep benefits aligned with inflation.

Hypothetically, if a large basket of goods and services that retirees regularly purchase increases in cost by 2% from one year to the next, Social Security benefits would also need to climb by 2%. Otherwise, these folks would see their buying power decline. Social Security’s COLA attempts to mirror the inflationary pressures that program recipients are facing so they don’t lose purchasing power.

This near-annual raise is based on changes to the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), which has measured price changes for Social Security since 1975. It has more than 200 individually weighted categories, which allows the CPI-W to be chiseled down to a single figure at the end of each month. These readings can be compared to the prior-year period to determine if prices are collectively rising (inflation) or declining (deflation).

What makes the COLA calculation unique is that only CPI-W readings from July, August, and September (the third quarter) are used to determine the upcoming year’s raise. If the average third-quarter CPI-W reading in the current year is higher than the comparable period last year, prices, as a whole, have risen, and so will Social Security checks in the upcoming year.

The catch with Social Security’s 2026 COLA is that its expected reveal on Oct. 15 may be delayed. The September inflation report is the final puzzle piece needed to calculate the program’s cost-of-living adjustment. However, most economic data releases are delayed during a federal government shutdown, which, in turn, can postpone the Oct. 15 COLA announcement set for 8:30 a.m. ET.

A higher prevailing rate of inflation in recent years has led to beefier annual COLAs. U.S. Inflation Rate data by YCharts.

A first-of-its-century raise is eventually headed retirees’ way

Once the SSA does have the necessary data to calculate and reveal the 2026 COLA, it’s a virtual certainty that beneficiaries will witness history being made.

Over the last four years, Social Security recipients — retired workers, workers with disabilities, and survivor beneficiaries — have enjoyed above-average cost-of-living adjustments. From 2022 through 2025, their Social Security checks grew by 5.9%, 8.7%, 3.2%, and 2.5%, respectively. To put these figures into some sort of context, the average COLA increase over the last 16 years was 2.3%.

Based on two independent estimates that were updated following the release of the August inflation report, a fifth-consecutive year above this 16-year average is expected.

Nonpartisan senior advocacy association The Senior Citizens League (TSCL) has pegged their 2026 COLA forecast at 2.7%, while independent Social Security and Medicare policy analyst Mary Johnson is calling for a slightly higher boost of 2.8%. These two forecasts would imply a roughly $54 to $56 per-month increase in the average retired-worker benefit in the new year.

More importantly, a 2.7% or 2.8% COLA would result in an event that hasn’t been witnessed in almost three decades. From 1988 through 1997, Social Security COLAs vacillated between 2.6% and 5.4%. If the 2026 COLA comes in at 2.5% or above, which looks like a virtual certainty based on independent estimates, it would mark the first time in 29 years that benefits will have risen by at least 2.5% for five consecutive years.

Image source: Getty Images.

The purchasing power of a Social Security dollar isn’t what it used to be

Unfortunately, this potentially history-making moment won’t be fully felt or enjoyed by aged beneficiaries. Though nominal payouts have notably climbed in recent years, the painful reality is that the buying power of Social Security income simply isn’t what it once was.

For example, you might be surprised to learn that the CPI-W isn’t doing retirees any favors. While this index is designed to mirror the inflationary pressures that Social Security’s retired workers are contending with, it has built-in flaws that keep this from happening.

The CPI-W is an index that tracks the cost pressures faced by “urban wage earners and clerical workers,” who, in many cases, are workers under the age of 62. By comparison, 87% of Social Security beneficiaries are 62 and above, as of December 2024.

Aged beneficiaries spend their money differently than workers under the age of 62. Specifically, retirees spend a higher percentage of their budget on medical care services and shelter than younger folks. Even though seniors make up 87% of all Social Security recipients, the CPI-W doesn’t account for the added importance of shelter and medical-care service costs in the COLA calculation.

Furthermore, the trailing-12-month inflation rate for shelter and medical care services has pretty consistently been higher than the annual COLAs beneficiaries have received. According to TSCL, this disparity has played a role in reducing the buying power of Social Security income by 20% from 2010 to 2024. A 2.7% or 2.8% cost-of-living adjustment isn’t going to offset or halt this decline in purchasing power.

To make matters worse, dual enrollees — those receiving Social Security income who are also enrolled in traditional Medicare — are expected to see sizable COLA offsets due to a projected double-digit percentage increase in the Part B premium in 2026.

Part B is the portion of Medicare responsible for outpatient services, and the premium for Part B is commonly deducted from a Social Security recipient’s monthly benefit. An estimate from the 2025 Medicare Trustees Report calls for an 11.5% jump in the Part B premium to $206.20 next year. For lifetime low earners, this increase might gobble up every cent of their projected 2026 COLA.

Regardless of whether or not Social Security’s 2026 COLA is delayed, it’ll mark another year where retirees get the short end of the stick.

WASHINGTON — President Trump was passed over for the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday despite jockeying from his fellow Republicans, various world leaders and — most vocally — himself.

Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado was awarded the prize. The Norwegian Nobel Committee said it was honoring Machado “for her tireless work promoting democratic rights for the people of Venezuela and for her struggle to achieve a just and peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy.”

Machado, however, said she wanted to dedicate the win to Trump, along with the people of her country, as she praised the president for support of her cause.

The White House responded bitterly to the news of the award Friday, with communications director Steven Cheung saying members of “the Nobel Committee proved they place politics over peace” because they didn’t recognize Trump, especially after the Gaza ceasefire deal his administration helped strike this week.

“He has the heart of a humanitarian, and there will never be anyone like him who can move mountains with the sheer force of his will,” Cheung wrote on social media.

The White House did not comment on Machado’s recognition, but Trump on social media shared Machado’s post praising him.

Her opposition to President Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela aligns with the Trump administration’s own stance on Venezuela, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio previously praised her as “the personification of resilience, tenacity, and patriotism.”

Trump, who has long coveted the prestigious prize, has been outspoken about his desire for the honor during both of his presidential terms, particularly lately as he takes credit for ending conflicts around the world. The Republican president had expressed doubts that the Nobel committee would ever grant him the award.

“They’ll have to do what they do. Whatever they do is fine. I know this: I didn’t do it for that. I did it because I saved a lot of lives,” Trump said Thursday.

Although Trump received nominations for the prize, many of them occurred after the Feb. 1 deadline for the 2025 award, which fell just a week and a half into his second term. His name was, however, put forward in December by Republican Rep. Claudia Tenney of New York, her office said in a statement, for his brokering of the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states in 2020.

A long history of lobbying for the prize

Jørgen Watne Frydnes, chair of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, said the committee has seen various campaigns in its long history of awarding the peace prize.

“We receive thousands and thousands of letters every year of people wanting to say what for them leads to peace,” he said. “This committee sits in a room filled with the portraits of all laureates, and that room is filled with both courage and integrity. So we base only our decision on the work and the will of Alfred Nobel.”

The peace prize, first awarded in 1901, was created partly to encourage ongoing peace efforts. Alfred Nobel stipulated in his will that the prize should go to someone “who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

Three sitting U.S. presidents have won the Nobel Peace Prize: Theodore Roosevelt in 1906, Woodrow Wilson in 1919 and Barack Obama in 2009. Jimmy Carter won the prize in 2002, a full two decades after leaving office. Former Vice President Al Gore received the prize in 2007.

Obama, a Democrat who was a focus of Trump’s attacks well before the Republican was elected, won the prize early in his tenure as president.

“They gave it to Obama for doing absolutely nothing but destroying our country,” Trump said Thursday.

Wars in Gaza and elsewhere

As one of his reasons for deserving the award, Trump often says he has ended seven wars, though some of the conflicts the president claims to have resolved were merely tensions and his role in easing them is disputed.

But while there is hope for the end to Israel and Hamas’ war, with Israel saying a ceasefire agreement with Hamas came into effect Friday, much remains uncertain about the aspects of the broader plan, including whether and how Hamas will disarm and who will govern Gaza. And little progress seems to have been made in the Russia-Ukraine war, a conflict Trump claimed during the 2024 campaign that he could end in one day.

As Trump pushes for peaceful resolutions to conflicts abroad, the country he governs remains deeply divided and politically fraught. Trump has kicked off what he hopes to be the largest deportation program in American history to remove immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. He is using the levers of government, including the Justice Department, to go after his perceived political enemies. He has sent the military into U.S. cities over local opposition to stop crime and crack down on immigration enforcement.

He withdrew the United States from the landmark Paris climate agreement, dealing a blow to worldwide efforts to combat global warming. He touched off global trade wars with his on-again, off-again tariffs, which he wields as a threat to bend other countries and companies to his will. He asserted presidential war powers by declaring cartels to be unlawful combatants and launching lethal strikes on boats in the Caribbean that he alleged were carrying drugs.

The full list of people nominated is secret, but anyone who submits a nomination is free to talk about it. Trump’s detractors say supporters, foreign leaders and others are submitting Trump’s name for nomination for the prize — and announcing it publicly — not because he deserves it but because they see it as a way to manipulate him and stay in his good graces.

The office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who this summer said he was nominating Trump for the prize, on Friday reposted Cheung’s response with the comment: “The Nobel Committee talks about peace. President @realDonaldTrump makes it happen.”

“The facts speak for themselves,” Netanyahu’s office said on X. “President #Trump deserves it.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin, who sent troops to Ukraine in 2022 and has sought to show alignment with Trump, told reporters in Taijikistan on Friday that it’s not up to him to judge whether Trump should have received the prize, but he praised the ceasefire deal for Gaza.

He also criticized the Nobel Committee’s prior decisions, saying it has in the past awarded the prize to those who have done little to advance global peace.

Putin’s remarks nearly echoed the comments Trump made about Obama, and the U.S. leader responded to his Russian counterpart’s praise by posting on social media: “Thank you to President Putin!”

Others who formally submitted a nomination for Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize — but after this year’s deadline — include Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet and Pakistan’s government, all citing his work in helping end conflicts in their regions.

Pesoli and Price write for the Associated Press. AP writers Chris Megerian in Washington, Geir Moulson in Berlin and Vladimir Isachenkov in Moscow contributed to this report.

The U.S. Air Force will not add eight-bladed NP2000 propellers to any more of its aging C-130H Hercules transport planes, curtailing a previous upgrade plan as it continues to transition more fully to the newer C-130J variant. The NP2000s, which give H models a boost in thrust and fuel efficiency, and help reduce maintenance demands while increasing reliability, are among several upgrades that have been helping to keep the older Hercules aircraft going.

The Pentagon recently released a budget reprogramming document, dated September 29, 2025, detailing the movement of various funds into a general-purpose modernization account. This included nearly $24 million that had been set aside for upgrading C-130Hs with NP2000 propellers. Congress must approve any such reallocation of money from one part of the defense budget to another.

“Funds are available for transfer to the Defense Modernization Account, Defense-Wide, from a congressional increase for the C-130H NP2000 Eight Bladed Propeller due to the completion of the modification effort for the fleet,” the document states. “Efficiencies in quantity were achieved due to additional C-130J procurement, which reduced the number of C-130H NP2000 Eight Bladed Propeller modifications required as remaining unmodified C-130Hs will be divested.”

The Air Force “completed [NP2000] installations on 90 C-130H aircraft in June 2025,” according to the service’s most recent budget request for the 2025 Fiscal Year, but it is unclear if that represents the total number of aircraft upgraded to date. However, it would seem that this figure is at least close to the total, given that the Air Force expects to only have 92 C-130Hs left in inventory at all by the end of Fiscal Year 2026. This includes examples assigned to Air National Guard units. As of 2021, the service planned to upgrade the propellers on around 140 H models. The Air Force first began flying H variants of the C-130 in the mid-1970s.

The Air Force also has 10 LC-130Hs, which are specially configured for operations in and around the polar regions, and have received NP2000 propellers. A portion of the U.S. Navy’s fleet of C-130T transport and KC-130T tankers, which are derived from the H model, also now sport the new propellers.

The NP2000 has long been standard on the Navy’s E-2C and E-2D Hawkeye airborne early warning and control aircraft and C-2 Greyhound carrier on-board delivery (COD) planes, as well.

Work to replace the four-bladed propellers on the Air Force’s C-130Hs with NP2000s, coupled with new electronic control systems, dates back to the mid-2010s. The propellers can give H model Hercules aircraft up to 20 percent extra thrust, reducing the distance needed for takeoff by around 984 feet (300 meters), depending on various factors, according to Collins Aerospace, the current contractor behind the upgrade package. The increase in thrust also translates to a bump in fuel economy.

In addition, the NP2000s vibrate less than the four-bladed propellers originally found on the C-130H, contributing to reduced maintenance requirements. They also have the benefit of being quieter and more reliable.

The Air Force had further combined with NP2000s with additional upgrades to the Rolls-Royce (formerly Allison) T56 series turboprop engines that power the C-130H, offering further performance and maintenance benefits, as you can read more about here.

As the budget reprogramming document notes, the Air Force’s priority now is on acquiring more C-130Js. New Rolls-Royce AE 2100-series turboprops and six-bladed propellers are among the improvements found on the J models compared to earlier variants.

By 2029, the Air Force expects the C-130H fleet to have dropped in size to just 61 aircraft, according to its Fiscal Year 2026 budget request. When the service expects to retire the very last of its H variants, including the remaining specialized LC-130Hs, is unclear. Work is now moving forward to at least supplement the latter fleet with new LC-130Js.

If nothing else, the NP2000 upgrade program for the Air Force’s C-130H fleet has come to an end.

Contact the author: [email protected]

Natalia Bryant has made her debut as a creative director with a short film that features a subject matter with which she’s very familiar.

The 70-second piece is called “Forever Iconic: Purple and Gold Always,” and it’s all about the worldwide impact of the Lakers — something Bryant has experienced throughout her life as the oldest daughter of one of the Lakers’ great icons, Kobe Bryant.

The film, posted online Wednesday by the Lakers, is a fast-paced tribute to the team and its fans. It features a number of celebrity cameos — Dodgers superstar Shohei Ohtani takes batting practice wearing a Lakers cap; current Lakers star Luka Doncic yells “Kobe!” as he shoots a towel into a hamper; fashion designer Jeff Hamilton creates a number of Lakers jackets; actor Brenda Song obsessively watches and cheers for the team on her computer; Lakers legend Magic Johnson declares, “It’s Showtime, baby!”

Mixed in are shots of regular fans paying tribute to the team in their own ways.

“This project was an amazing, collaborative environment with such creative people and we all came together to try and portray the Lakers’ impact, not only in L.A. but around the world,” Natalia Bryant said in a statement released by the Lakers. “Everyone has their own connection to the Lakers. I hope those who already love this team watch this project and remember what that pride feels like. And if you’re not a Lakers fan yet, I hope you watch this, and it makes you want to be.”

Natalia Bryant’s first short film as a creative director is “Forever Iconic: Purple and Gold Always.”

(Los Angeles Lakers)

Bryant, who graduated from USC’s School of Cinematic Arts in May, included some famous Lakers clips, such as LeBron James arguing, “It’s our ball, ain’t it?” and her father hitting a buzzer-beating shot against the Phoenix Suns during the 2006 playoffs.

“Such an honor to be apart of this project!” Bryant wrote on Instagram. “Thank you @lakers for having me join as creative director💛lakers family forever”

Lakers controlling owner and president Jeanie Buss also posted the video on Instagram.

“Cheers to the millions of fans around the world who make the Lakers the most popular team in the NBA!!” Buss wrote. “You are the best fans in the league. Congratulations and huge thanks to the amazing @nataliabryant who helped bring this film to life for her creative director debut.”

Lakers superfan Song also posted a number of photos related to the project on Instagram, including one of herself with Bryant.

“Lake show for life,” Song wrote.

Bryant responded in the comments, “For life!”

China’s new target for cutting greenhouse-gas emissions has been branded “disappointing” and “underwhelming” by climate experts, who warn the pledge falls far short of the action needed to avert climate catastrophe.

But the goal also raised hopes that China, which until now has only promised to stop emissions from rising, may be underpromising the level of cuts it can deliver amid a massive expansion in the country’s renewable energy capacity.

In a video address to the United Nations on Wednesday, Chinese President Xi Jinping said China would lower its emissions by 7-10 percent from their peak by 2035.

It was the first time that China, the world’s biggest polluter, outlined a goal for cutting emissions outright.

Xi, who called the shift away from carbon “the trend of our time”, also pledged to raise the share of non-fossil fuel sources in energy consumption to more than 30 percent, and increase wind and solar capacity sixfold compared with 2020.

While a significant moment in the global fight against climate change at a time when the United States is abandoning efforts to cut emissions, China’s target fails by some distance to align with the goals of the Paris Agreement, said some analysts.

“It’s unfortunately very disappointing: This target will not drive down emissions – it is below what China is likely to achieve already under its current climate policies,” Bill Hare, CEO of Berlin-based policy institute Climate Analytics, told Al Jazeera.

“China can do a lot better than this, and it hardly reflects its highest possible ambition.”

The Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) has estimated that China would need to cut emissions by about 30 percent to be consistent with the Paris accord.

The agreement, adopted by 195 countries in 2015, calls for the rise in the average global temperature to be limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels.

China’s actions on climate are viewed as especially critical following the US’s exit from the Paris accord under President Donald Trump, who used his UN speech this week to call the scientific consensus on climate change the “greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world”.

“China’s underwhelming headline target misses a chance to deliver real leadership,” Li Shuo, director of China Climate Hub at the Asia Society Policy Institute, told Al Jazeera.

“Beijing is choosing to tiptoe forward when science calls for a full sprint. The pledge would, unfortunately, still put the world on a pathway to catastrophic climate impacts.”

Xi’s announcement left key questions about the emissions target unanswered, including how Beijing would define peak emissions.

Many climate experts believe that China’s emissions have already peaked or will do so this year, though some observers caution that the trend has been driven as much by the decline in business activity during the COVID-19 pandemic as the rollout of renewable energy.

China has had a paradoxical influence on global efforts to address climate change.

While responsible for roughly one-third of global emissions, the country is also a leader in green energy.

China produces about 80 percent of the world’s solar panels and 70 percent of its electric cars, according to the International Energy Agency.

The country also manufactures about 60 percent of wind turbines worldwide, according to London-based energy think tank Ember.

At the same time, China has continued to invest heavily in coal.

Last year, construction began on nearly 100 gigawatts (GW) of new or suspended coal power projects, the most in a decade, according to the CREA.

“China’s new pledge clearly falls short of expectations. Despite President Xi’s earlier promise to strictly control new coal power, the country has just approved more projects than at any point in nearly a decade,” Andreas Sieber, the associate director of policy and campaigns at 350.org, told Al Jazeera.

“The targets announced today, which are vague on the base year and conservative on renewables, leave ample room for continued emissions growth from coal-heavy sectors.”

Still, climate experts expressed hope that China’s target could be a signal of more transformative change to come.

While China’s announcement fell short of expectations, Beijing has a tendency to set targets that it can “confidently deliver”, said Yao Zhe, a Beijing-based policy adviser to Greenpeace East Asia.

“What’s hopeful is that the actual decarbonisation of China’s economy is likely to exceed its target on paper,” Yao said in a statement responding to the target, adding that her organisation’s latest analysis showed that emissions from China’s power sector could peak this year.

In a world “increasingly driven by self-interest”, China is in a stronger position than most to spur climate action, the Asia Society’s Li said.

“The country has emerged as a global clean tech superpower, and its dominant role in this sector could enable it to surpass current targets,” he said.

“Over time, this could push China toward a more proactive role on the international stage.”

Perhaps the easiest way to mainland Europe is by ferry. Simply walk, cycle or drive off the landing ramp and you’re immediately ready to explore another country. Have you enjoyed a historic ferry port, such as Saint-Malo; explored a nearby gem such as Honfleur, Bruges or Antwerp; or pottered around the countryside of northern France, Belgium or the Netherlands within an hour or so of the coastal ports? We want to know about your short hops and what you discovered at the end of them.

The best tip of the week, chosen by Tom Hall of Lonely Planet wins a £200 voucher to stay at a Coolstays property – the company has more than 3,000 worldwide. The best tips will appear in the Guardian Travel section and website.

Keep your tip to about 100 words

If you have a relevant photo, do send it in – but it’s your words we will be judging for the competition.

We’re sorry, but for legal reasons you must be a UK resident to enter this competition.

“Long Story Short,” premiering Friday on Netflix, is the sweet, melancholy, satirical, silly, poignant, hopeful, sometimes slapstick cartoon tale of a middle-class Jewish family, told nonchronologically from the 1990s to the 2020s. For all its exaggerations — and unexaggerated portrayals of exaggerated behaviors — it is remarkably acute, and surprisingly moving, about relations between parents and children and brothers and sisters and about the passage of time and the lives time contains. The eight-episode season is bookended with funerals.

On a plane ride home, Avi Schwooper (Ben Feldman), his last name combining his parents’ Schwartz and Cooper, plays new girlfriend Jen (Angelique Cabral) a recording of Paul Simon’s “The Obvious Child,” in which a character goes from a baby to a married man in the space of a verse. “That’s time, right?” he says, setting a theme and a strategy. In the episodes that follow, we’ll see relationships begin and end; children born and grown, not necessarily in that order. Things change, things fall apart, things last.

Created by “BoJack Horseman” creator Raphael Bob-Waksberg — Avi is drawn to resemble him — and designed by Lisa Hanawalt (who inspired and designed the “BoJack” characters and created “Tuca & Bertie”), it has the look of a children’s book, bright, colorful and busy, aggressively two-dimensional, with wobbly bold lines and squiggly patterns. Deceptively sophisticated and wonderfully expressive, it is full of lifelike details, without being made to resemble life.

Avi’s parents are Naomi Schwartz (Lisa Edelstein), intense and serious, and Elliot Cooper (Paul Reiser), laid-back and humorous. Avi, who writes about music, will go on to marry Jen (blond, gentile); Hannah (Michaela Dietz) is their smart, socially isolated daughter. Avi’s sister Shira (Abbi Jacobson), the angry middle child, will start a family with Kendra (Nicole Byer), a Black woman who is Jewish by choice. Younger brother Yoshi (Max Greenfield) is a bit of a lost soul — “sometimes I just feel like the extra one,” he’ll say — diagnosed as an adolescent with ADD, dyslexia and executive function disorder. (“I never gave him enough attention,” Naomi says, rushing to claim the guilt. “Now he has a deficit.”)

Created by Raphael Bob-Waksberg and designed by Lisa Hanawalt, the series has the look of a children’s book, bright, colorful and busy, aggressively two-dimensional, with wobbly bold lines and squiggly patterns.

(Netflix)

Though each episode is a piece in the mosaic, each has its own story to tell: Yoshi selling mattresses that come in a tube; Avi mixed up with self-righteous parents as he campaigns to remove wolves from Hannah’s school (the wolves, by contrast, are drawn realistically); Kendra at work at a birthday arcade called BJ Barnacles; Yoshi on a nocturnal adventure in San Francisco — the show is set around the Bay Area — with a former friend of his sister, attempting to retrieve a lost bag; Shira attempting to make her mother’s knishes; an improvised shabbat in a desert motel. There are inside family jokes (“Is not a schnook,” Cousin Moishe) that will pay off after a while; a school holiday pageant (“Hanukkah, Ramadan, Kwanzaa too / We tolerate them all, but there’s nothing like Christmas,” runs a song in the background). Yoshi has a bar mitzvah; Naomi is honored for her charitable work. Occasional weird inventions are folded in: a “hambulance” delivering ham; food trucks selling potato ice cream and soup on a stick; something called Pacifier Shirt Syndrome, caused by rubbing a dropped pacifier on a short.

Although I suspect this subject is interesting only to (us) Jews, it took a long time for any sort of Jewish specificity to make it to the screen, especially given who built the movie business. (Assimilation was the name of the game for a people blamed for a scapegoated race.) Even now, it doesn’t happen all that much. You could sense it on “Seinfeld,” see it on “Curb Your Enthusiasm” a lot. There are the current Netflix rom-com “Nobody Wants This,” with Kristen Bell in a relationship with Adam Brody’s rabbi, and the recent Adam Sandler-produced “You Are So Not Invited to My Bat Mitzvah.” And there is the odd Holocaust drama.

But in this moment, with its confounding mix of classical antisemitism, fake anti-antisemitism brandished as a weapon against universities and what gets called antisemitism simply because it’s critical of Israel, it’s not a bad thing to get a relatively straightforward look at a contemporary American Jewish family. Together, the characters represent the spectrum of religious attitudes — from atheist to convert, selectively to very observant — but all are steeped in the culture.

Hannah, whose gentile mother makes her “not Jewish,” wonders if her wanting a bat mitzvah might be “cultural appropriation.”

“Look, if Adolf Hitler saw you, I don’t think he’d be doing the math on technically how halachically Jewish you are,” says her father. “He’d throw you in the oven with the rest of us. … If you’re Jewish enough for Hitler, you’re Jewish enough for me.”

That the show can be a little obscure from time to time — I had to look up “Moshiach” to get one joke — just deepens its world. But anyone who’s ever shared a family joke, or wanted to ask a question of someone no longer around to answer it, or compared notes with a sibling on a parent never fully understood will recognize themself here.

The glass partition wall in Lisa Hanawalt’s office is lined with reference sheets dedicated to the members of the central family in “Long Story Short.”

Each page lists a character’s name, birth month and year — along with their zodiac sign — and a dated timeline of full body images that tracks how they look at different ages. Depending on the character, this includes their designs as children, teens and middle-aged adults.

During a mid-August morning at ShadowMachine studio, Hanawalt sits at her desk, pulling up different looks of earlier incarnations of the characters that she did before their final designs were set along with newer works in progress. Raphael Bob-Waksberg sits just behind her as they point out little details that they’re fond of and bounce their thoughts back and forth on whether certain characters might drastically change their appearance one year, as people tend to do.

“It’s a fun thing you don’t get to do on a lot of animated shows,” says Bob-Waksberg, the creator and showrunner of “Long Story Short.” “To evolve with our characters and dress them up and have so many different looks for them.”

On most animated sitcoms, characters are trapped in time: perpetually the same age, usually wearing the same clothes, rarely even getting a haircut — no matter how many holiday episodes they get through the years. Not so on “Long Story Short,” where the passage of time is a feature.

“It’s really fun to get to know the characters and to think about their aesthetic,” says Hanawalt, the show’s supervising producer. “We have to draw a lot of different versions of everybody.”

Siblings Shira, left, Yoshi and Avi Schwooper in “Long Story Short.”

(Netflix)

Launching Friday on Netflix, “Long Story Short” follows the Schwoopers, a Bay Area family whose portmanteau last name is a blend of the parents’ Schwartz and Cooper, through the ups and downs of their lives. The show’s cast includes Lisa Edelstein and Paul Reiser, who voice the parents Naomi and Elliot, respectively, and Ben Feldman, Abbi Jacobson and Max Greenfield as the Schwooper children, Avi, Shira and Yoshi.

Their story unfolds over time across both everyday happenings and milestones, with each self-contained episode jumping between moments that reverberate from anywhere in the 1950s to 2020s.

“It feels cumulative, even though the episodes themselves are not necessarily connected directly,” Bob-Waksberg says. “We thought a lot about emotional arcs more than narrative arcs. Can we feel like these characters have gone on a journey, even though we’re seeing the [story] out of order?”

“Long Story Short” is Bob-Waksberg’s first new show since the conclusion of “Bojack Horseman,” the acclaimed adult animated series that ended in 2020, about a washed up former sitcom star and his struggles set in an alternate Hollywood where humans lived alongside anthropomorphic animals. While “Bojack” didn’t shy away from showing how terrible parents were the root cause of various characters’ troubles, “Long Story Short” is a more nuanced take on dysfunction where it’s not as easy to place blame.

“As you get older, you kind of realize, we’re all screwed up in different ways and most of us didn’t have parents that bad,” Bob-Waksberg says. “We had parents who were trying and in some ways succeeding, and in other ways, not quite giving us what we needed.”

The show marks the pair’s third animated series together. Hanawalt served as the production designer and producer on “Bojack” before developing her own series, “Tuca & Bertie,” on which Bob-Waksberg served as an executive producer. But their easy rapport as they comment on a short clip of sauce exploding and whether a character is the type of person to only own one suit — as well as when the conversation detours into listing actors they insist the other likes after a missed film reference — makes it obvious that their friendship runs much deeper.

Longtime friends Raphael Bob-Waksberg and Lisa Hanawalt have previously worked together on “Bojack Horseman” and “Tuca & Bertie.”

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Bob-Waksberg and Hanawalt explain that even during their high school years in Palo Alto, where they crossed paths as theater kids and became friends, they would talk about working on projects together and dream up TV show ideas. Describing Hanawalt as one of his favorite people and artists, Bob-Waksberg says she is the first person he thinks of whenever he needs someone for artistic work.

After hearing Bob-Waksberg’s idea for “Long Story Short,” “I just immediately felt like I knew what it should look like,” says Hanawalt. “That it should look like Sunday funnies, comics and ‘Peanuts.’ … I thought this should be more hand-drawn and loose. The warmth of the show, but also playing against how serious some of the subject matter is, I thought [that style] would help warm it up a bit.”

Though Hanawalt says backgrounds are not her forte, she had a vision of what she saw for the world and started drawing houses and buildings that resembled those they grew up in. Bob-Waksberg credits that as the reason for the show being set in Northern California.

Another reason Hanawalt wanted to work on the show was because it involved designing humans — something she’s leaned away from in the past.

“All the other stuff I get sent is for animals [and] animal people,” she says. “People see me as the animal lady, which I am — I do love anthropomorphic animals and plants. But I was actually leaning toward something more realistic. … I don’t want to get pigeonholed. And doing the same thing over and over, it gets really boring to me. So this was a fun challenge, drawing humans that are as cute as animals.”

Hearing this, Bob-Waksberg is amused by how aspects from their past have come to define them.

“I was just thinking about how 13, 14 years ago, I was developing a whole bunch of TV shows,” he says. “The one that went was the animated one and now I’m a cartoon guy, which I don’t resent. It’s been very good for me. But it’s so funny, [to think that] there’s another universe in which this other show went and then I’d be known as that kind of writer.”

The Schwooper family in an episode of “Long Story Short.”

(Netflix)

Both Bob-Waksberg and Hanawalt acknowledge it’s still a tough time for the industry, including for writers looking for work and creatives trying to get things made. Both mention having pitched different ideas that they were certain would be their next projects that ultimately went nowhere.

“I’m glad to work on this because I’m happy to not be a showrunner right now,” Hanawalt admits. “‘Tuca & Bertie’ wiped me out [and] I didn’t have enough juice to keep pitching.”

Still, Bob-Waksberg believes animation is one of the few places were shows based on original ideas have a chance, and for that he and Hanawalt are both grateful because they’d rather work on their own ideas than play in someone else’s sandbox. In other spaces, studios appear to only show interest on ideas based on existing IP like a book, news article or podcast. They also remain hopeful that, in time, things will get better.

“The appetite for original, good shows and animated shows is always there,” Hanawalt says. “That’s consistent. The audience is there. It’s just a matter of getting it to them.”

Although the show centers a Jewish family in Northern California and includes nods to his upbringing, Bob-Waksberg has been clear that “Long Story Short” is not autobiographical. But it is deeply personal. He explains that discussing the novel “Interior Chinatown,” which confronts the interplay of representation and identity, with author Charles Yu was one of the things that made him think about what it would be like to address his own identity in his work.

“It felt like it opened up this new door of story possibility that I hadn’t considered before,” Bob-Waksberg says. “One of the interesting things about working on this show is unpacking [how], especially in conversation with my other writers and the actors and other people, some things that I attributed to being Jewish is just my family.”

“Long Story Short” showrunner Raphael Bob-Waksberg and supervising producer Lisa Hanawalt.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

While the series addresses the “trauma” — in quotes depending on which character you ask — rooted in people’s upbringing, it’s also filled with plenty of humor and heart. Most episodes are zoomed in on whatever more personal issue the Schwoopers are facing, and the passage of time is conveyed through characters’ ages and appearances rather than by referencing specific happenings and headlines that might be associated with that story’s era.

But one global event the series does acknowledge is the COVID-19 pandemic. For Bob-Waksberg, it was important to do so because it’s a collective trauma that affected everyone and should be remembered as such.

“This was a real dividing point for our world and for us all as individuals,” Bob-Waksberg says. “I feel like it’s been underrepresented in pop culture in a weird way [and] we all were very quick to move on.”

“Let’s not pretend that it never happened,” he continued. “I do feel like, as a storyteller, it is in some ways my job to be a document of the world.”

Recalling how important it was for him to hear stories from Holocaust survivors about their experiences when he was younger, Bob-Waksberg adds: “I don’t want to forget about these things.”

“Splitsville” lands at a moment when every comedy released to theaters feels like a battle cry, an attempt to defend audiences’ rights to have a good time at the movies.

Directed by Michael Angelo Covino, who also produces, co-writes and co-stars alongside Kyle Marvin, the film continues the duo’s comic exploration of bad choices, in which men predictably make poor decisions and are depicted as vain, infantile and often motivated by their worst impulses. (It’s funny because it’s true.)

As the movie begins, Carey (Marvin) is married to Ashley (Adria Arjona), who tells him she has been seeing other people and wants a divorce. He seeks solace from his best friend Paul (Covino) and his wife, Julie (Dakota Johnson), who tell Carey they are in an open relationship. Soon Carey sleeps with Julie and all sorts of jealousies and complicated feelings arise among the four of them.

“Splitsville” — the title appears briefly onscreen as the neon sign of a dessert stand — is outwardly a satire of bourgeois aspirations, modern marriage and how no one really understands the dynamics of what goes on with other couples. But the film is actually more concerned with the absurdities of male friendship, to the extent that Covino and Marvin are perennially enamored of themselves and can’t help from centering their own antics.

Their previous movie, “The Climb,” was also about two friends locked into an up-and-down relationship alternating between of moments of betrayal and gestures of support. While they are not playing the same specific characters from “The Climb,” they are very much playing the same type. Covino is seemingly more smooth and together, though riddled with insecurities, while Marvin initially appears hapless and vulnerable, with an emotional intelligence that reveals him to be savvier than he first appears. So they basically meet in the middle.

The entire movie has a disappointing air of smug self-regard about it, with an expectation the audience will adore everything about the characters as much as they do. What at moments feels like a nascent interrogation of contemporary masculinity ultimately suffers from the very impulses it seems to want to parody. (We hear numerous times that one of them is generously endowed.)

Both Arjona and Johnson are asked to play variations on personas they have depicted elsewhere. Arjona has the same earthy warmth she did in “Hit Man,” while Johnson exhibits a placid air of controlled chaos similar to what she showed earlier this year in “Materialists.” They undoubtedly elevate the movie, though too often their characters feel like game pieces manipulated on a board controlled by the film’s male leads.

Johnson and Arjona are movie stars, beguiling and captivating. Covino and Marvin seem like a couple of guys who somehow wandered onscreen. The tension is never reconciled and is constantly throwing the story off balance.

In “The Climb,” there is a moment where Covino and Marvin briefly wrestle, a ludicrous sight of two grown men tussling on the ground. Here that beat expands into a full-blown fight scene that goes on for more than six minutes, as Paul attacks Carey after learning he slept with Julie. Smashing furniture, breaking drywall, destroying a fish tank (while saving the fish) and somehow singeing off Carey’s eyebrows, the fight scene is the movie’s centerpiece, one of its major selling points and indicative of everything that both works and doesn’t. It is funny, escalating ridiculously, but it is also too outlandish for the characters and the story and only really exists as something that Covino and Marvin simply wanted to do for themselves.

They’re good at jokes but much weaker on meaning, stumbling when it comes to making it all add up to something. With a background in advertising, Marvin and Covino are strong on short, punchy ideas conveyed through strong visuals. They may eventually be better served by making work they do not appear in — their performances are the weakest thing about their movies so far. Even as they remain a promising duo, “Splitsville” never quite fully comes together.

Tonight, fans saw Christine McGuinness leave Celebs Go Dating after a rollercoaster week of emotions – as a PR expert explains why it was a great decision for the mother of three

Earlier this year, Christine McGuinness signed up for E4 dating series, Celebs Go Dating, almost three years after her shock split from TV host, Paddy McGuinness, 52.

Before the series aired – it was revealed Christine had left the series, but despite her short stint, PR expert Rebecca May, founder of RM Publicity, says the star “won’t be short of offers” due to the strength and resilience she showed throughout.

From the first episode, it was evident that the 37-year-old mum of three was uncomfortable dating in the public eye – as she struggled to decide on who to take to Ibiza after the first mixer.

However, the star pushed through and ended up having a great date with mother of three Leanne, although she admitted she wasn’t sure if the relationship could flourish.

READ MORE: Kerry Katona slams Brooklyn Beckham in scathing rant amid family feudREAD MORE: Christine McGuinness was ‘so nervous’ on Celebs Go Dating as she speaks out

In emotional chat with dating experts Anna Williamson and Paul C Brunson, Christine made the decision that it was time for her to leave the process.

Despite only being onscreen for a week – Christine made a huge impact in the agency, as she opened up about the reasoning behind her divorce with Paddy for the first time. In her emotional deep dive with agents Anna Williamson and Paul C Brunson, Christine confirmed there had been a “breach of trust” with Paddy, and she was the one to end things.

After the episode aired last week, the star’s social media was filled with positive comments.

And PR expert Rebecca May, founder of RM Publicity, says this is just the beginning. “Christine has seen her profile soar because she wears her heart on her sleeve in a very authentic and natural way, which is why people can relate to her.

“Fans are rooting for her and brands will be drawn to her because they see she is real. Her strength and resilience also shines through, and after recent events she has gained even more followers. She has great TV presence – and after Celebs Go Dating she certainly won’t be short of offers.”

Appearing to suggest Paddy had made ‘mistakes,’ during her deep dive, Christine said: “Anyone can make mistakes but I think the trust was broken,” she explained. “I’ll always love him, he’s the father of my children and I think he’s the only man that I’ll ever love.

“A lot of people make mistakes and mess up, and when you’re in a couple who is quite well known in the industry, obviously then everyone knows your business. He was getting a really, really difficult time in the press,” she continued – although she didn’t expand on the ‘mistakes’.

After meeting in 2007, at the Liverpool International Tennis Tournament where Christine was modelling, the couple went from strength to strength.

Christine was just 19 at the time, and described meeting Paddy as “perfect timing” as she “struggled a lot” as a teenager, not knowing where she fitted or belonged.

They tied the knot just four years later, and went on to have three children, twins Leo and Penelope, 12, and eight year old daughter Felicity.

However, things came crashing down in 2022, when the couple released a shock joint statement informing the public on their split.

The couple have remained amicable, and are still living under the same roof. Recently, the couple jetted off on a family holiday with the kids, while Christine’s stint on the dating show airs on E4.

On the timing of the holiday, PR expert Rebecca added: “Interestingly, the timing of the holiday suggests it may have been tactfully timed just before the episode airs.

“This underlines that family is important to her and she wants to show a strong bond still with her ex husband by going on a big family holiday together.

“It suggests she most certainly wants that narrative to stand out before the episode drops, highlighting that they remain amicable and that co-parenting is a real priority for them.

“Ultimately – it is this balance of vulnerability and strength that makes her not only relatable, but deeply admired by her fans.”

Despite the two remaining amicable, and even still living together, it hasn’t stopped Christine from dating after the split.

Christine, who dated women before and after Paddy, has been romantically linked to a number of high profile partners including singer Chelcee Grimes and model, rapper and DJ Roxxxan.

In June 2024, Christine revealed she had started dating someone and was the ‘happiest she’d ever been.’

Things didn’t quite work out, and Christine turned to reality TV to help her find love, however, the process of Celebs Go Dating was a completely new experience for the mother of three.

During her first date in Ibiza with Leanne, Christine mentioned that she’d never been on a date with someone completely new before, revealing that she’d already been familiar with everyone she’d been linked to prior to the split – before opening up about her autism and ADHD diagnosis

Christine informed her date Leanne that finds it difficult to make decisions, as we saw during the first mixer.

However, just a day before her exit, Christine was told she’d be going on a blind date. Although she didn’t have to make the decision herself, she revealed she also “hated surprises,” and it was evident she was having second thoughts about the process.

Christine was diagnosed with ADHD and autism in her early thirties, after her three children were also diagnosed with autism. She received the diagnosis in 2021, when she was 33 years old, and has been open about her diagnosis ever since.

“Routine is a huge part of our life. It gives them structure and comfort,” she said about her children. “Even small changes can feel really big for them, so we plan everything carefully.”

Before her own diagnosis, Christine told OK!: “I felt very distant, like I didn’t understand people – and like I didn’t really understand myself.”

“I now feel so connected, so in-tune, so intuitive… I understand myself completely.”

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

US President Donald Trump’s meeting with Russia’s Vladimir Putin ended in Alaska without a deal on halting Moscow’s war on Ukraine, but it did give the Russian president a “diplomatic win” after years of being shunned by the West, observers said.

The Russian president was greeted with a red carpet and a warm handshake from President Trump on arrival at a US airbase in Anchorage, Alaska, on Friday as both leaders arrived for talks aimed at ending the war in Ukraine.

It marked President Putin’s first time stepping on Western soil since he ordered the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and was notable in its welcoming atmosphere compared with the frosty reception a hostile Trump laid on for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House in February.

Taking to a stage to deliver remarks after they spoke behind closed doors for less than three hours, the two leaders said they had made progress on unspecified issues, offering no details and taking no questions from a phalanx of assembled international reporters and television cameras.

A visibly upbeat Putin was the first to speak, telling how he had greeted Trump on his arrival in Anchorage with the lines: “Good afternoon, dear neighbour”, owing to the geographic closeness of Alaska to Russia.

“We are close neighbours, and it’s a fact,” Putin said.

Putin said his meeting with Trump was “long overdue” and that he “hoped the agreement that we’ve reached together will help us bring close that goal and will pave the path towards peace in Ukraine “.

“We expect that Kyiv and European capitals will perceive that constructively and that they won’t throw a wrench in the works,” Putin said. “They will not make any attempts to use some backroom dealings to conduct provocations to torpedo the nascent progress,” he said.

Trump then thanked Putin for his “very profound” statement, adding that the two had a “very productive meeting “.

“There were many, many points that we agreed on. Most of them, I would say. A couple of big ones that we haven’t quite got there, but we’ve made some headway,” Trump said.

“So there is no deal until there is a deal,” Trump said, adding that he will now call up NATO as well as President Zelenskyy and others to brief them on the meeting.

“It’s ultimately up to them,” the president said.

“Many points were agreed to,” he continued, without providing any details.

“There are just a very few that are left; some are not that significant, one is probably the most significant,” Trump said without elaborating.

“But we have a very good chance of getting there. We didn’t get there, but we have a very good chance of getting there.”

There was no immediate reaction from Kyiv to the outcome of the summit, described as “anticlimactic”.

Ukraine’s opposition lawmaker Oleksiy Honcharenko said on the Telegram messaging app after the talks: “It seems Putin has bought himself more time. No ceasefire or de-escalation has been agreed upon.”

Al Jazeera’s Kimberly Halkett, reporting from Anchorage, Alaska, said President Trump is likely to come in for criticism for a summit that “all became much ado about nothing”.

“The only achievements that were actually made was that the Russian president has been able to continue his war, which we know is now a war of attrition and which each day favours the Russian side,” Halkett said.

“He has bought time,” she said.

Also reporting from the summit, Al Jazeera’s diplomatic editor, James Bays, said Ukraine’s European allies – who had been pushing for concrete steps to come out of the meeting, such as a ceasefire – will likely see the meeting as “a big win for President Putin”.

“And it does beg all sorts of questions about where the diplomacy on Ukraine goes,” Bays said.

Trump ended his remarks at the news conference on Friday by telling Putin, “I’d like to thank you very much, and we’ll speak to you very soon and probably see you again very soon.”

To which Putin quickly chipped back: “Next time, in Moscow.”

Trump then responded, saying that he might “get a little heat on that one” but that he could “possibly see it happening”.

US President Donald Trump says he and Russian President Vladimir Putin made progress during three hours of talks in Alaska to resolve the Russia-Ukraine war, but that there’s “no deal.”. Putin said they are “ready to work” on outstanding issues.

This stunning village has been named by The Times as one of the most picturesque destinations in the UK perfect for a mini getaway – and it’s just a short car ride from Cheshire

A charming Peak District village just a stone’s throw from Cheshire has earned recognition as one of Britain’s finest destinations for a mini break. The Times has compiled a list of 25 of the most stunning locations ideal for a quick getaway, featuring everything from quaint hamlets to vibrant boutique shopping streets.

Featured on the list is Ashford-in-the-Water in the Peak District – barely more than thirty minutes from Macclesfield – which sits astride the River Wye, reports Cheshire Live. The Times declares: “For peak village perfection in the Peak District head to Ashford, which lies on the banks of the River Wye.

“Envy-inducing aspects include the medieval Sheepwash bridge, a church that dates from the 12th century and a thriving cricket club that plays on the village green, as well as a collection of very charming limestone cottages with carefully tended gardens.

“Along with the posh restaurant with rooms, Riverside House Hotel, the Ashford Arms recently opened with nine funked-up rooms and cheery food aimed at hikers and other hearty, healthy types.” This news comes after images show the cheapest seaside spot in England is full of abandoned £40k homes ‘nobody wants’.

READ MORE: UK’s ‘most scenic summer drive’ named as ‘unforgettable’ 500-mile routeREAD MORE: Beautiful UK village named perfect seaside spot but it’s 94-miles from the sea

Derbyshire Live recently highlighted the village’s attractions, saying: “For a small village, Ashford-in-the-Water is surprisingly well-equipped for a delightful day in the countryside, boasting a range of independent businesses. At the heart of the village, Ashford General Store provides a delectable array of Bradwell’s ice cream flavours and an assortment of freshly baked treats like brownies, Bakewell slices, and sausage rolls.

“Those looking to quench their thirst might fancy a crisp pint at the renowned Bull’s Head pub; conversely, if a hot beverage appeals even on a sunny day, the Aisseford Tea Room has earned excellent acclaim from both residents and visitors alike. Should you desire a longer stay in Ashford-in-the-Water, there’s no shortage of B&Bs, including the charming Riverside House Hotel.”

It added: “Nestled just two miles north-west of Bakewell, Ashford-in-the-Water advises visitors that parking can be rather limited. It’s recommended to park further out and enjoy a scenic stroll into the village, thereby taking full advantage of the breath-taking views en-route through the stunning Peak District.”

Ashford-in-the-Water is truly a chocolate-box village – a term used to describe particularly picturesque cottages resembling those that used to front the iconic Cadbury boxes. Ashford is full of pretty limestone cottages and narrows lanes commonly associated with English charm.

The local area is peppered with places to take in the area’s natural beauty, including a number of walking trails. While some trails are better for more seasoned hikers, many are perfectly primed for the entire family.

The Ashford-in-the-Water to Monsal Dale Circular Walk crosses through fields, woodlands, and open countryside while the Bakewell and Ashford-in-the-Water Circular offers scenic views of the River Wye, rolling hills, and many of Ashford’s notable historic sites, including the famous Sheepwash Bridge.

Aug. 6 (UPI) — Russia has announced it is ending its self-imposed moratorium on the development of short- and medium-range nuclear missiles, deepening a nuclear weapons stalemate between Moscow and Washingont.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry made the announcement Monday in a lengthy statement that blamed actions taken by the United States and other nations for its decision.

“Since our repeated warnings in this regard have been ignored and the situation is developing along the path of the actual emplacement of the U.S.-made ground-launched INF-range missiles in Europe and the Asia-Pacific, the Russian Foreign Ministry has to state that the conditions for maintaining a unilateral moratorium on the deployment of similar weapons have ceased to exist,” it said.

“The ministry is authorized to declare that the Russian Federation no longer considers itself bound by the relevant previously adopted self-restrictions.”

INF is the abbreviation for the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty between the United States and the then-Soviet Union in 1987 that required the destruction of ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers.

The United States, under the first Trump administration, left the Cold War-era accord in 2019, following years of allegations that Russia had repeatedly violated the deal. Russia has used intermediate-range ballistic missiles in its war with Ukraine.

Russia made the announcement days after Trump on Friday confirmed that the United States repositioned two nuclear submarines in response to Russian Security Council Chairman Dmitry Medvedev informing the American president to be wary of Moscow’s nuclear arsenal.

Following Russia’s Foreign Ministry statement, Medvedev said it was “the result of NATO countries’ anti-Russian policy.”

“This is a new reality all our opponents will have to reckon with,” he said on X.

“Expect further steps.”

Of the nine countries with nuclear weapons, the United States and Russia have by far the most. According to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, Russia has more than 5,500 nuclear warheads and the United States has 5,044, accounting for nearly 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons.

The Los Angeles Philharmonic’s departing music director Gustavo Dudamel will return to the Hollywood Bowl next week.

Dudamel, the face of the classical music world in L.A. since his 2009 debut as music director, is in his penultimate season here before departing to lead the New York Philharmonic. Given recent federal travel bans on Venezuelans, he was forced to cancel local dates with his Simón Bolivar Symphony Orchestra in August, and he only had one week planned for conducting during the Bowl’s summer season this year.

The season’s opening night at the Bowl was “a relatively somber occasion, which, despite the lovely atmosphere, fit the mood of the times,” as Times critic Mark Swed said.

So this one-week return with an exceptionally diverse bill will be a welcome occasion to see him in the twilight of his tenure in L.A.

On Aug. 5, Dudamel (with pianist Seong-Jin Cho) will lead a program pulled from jazz giant Duke Ellington and French composer Maurice Ravel, including Ellington’s “Harlem” and “Black, Brown and Beige” and Ravel’s Piano Concert for the Left Hand and Piano Concert in G. The pairing will show how American jazz and the Harlem renaissance influenced and expanded possibilities for Ravel and European music of the era.

He’ll follow that up on Aug. 7 with Mahler’s bombastic Symphony No. 1 “Titan,” with Vilde Frang playing Erich Korngold’s violin concerto (a fitting spotlight on a golden-era Hollywood score legend). On Aug. 8-9, Dudamel will conduct John Williams’ crowd-favorite “Jurassic Park” score over a live screening of the summer blockbuster.

Dudamel recently debuted with the L.A. Phil at Coachella, a long-awaited crossover event where the orchestra collaborated with pop stars including Dave Grohl, Zedd, Laufey and LL Cool J. For Los Angeles music fans who want to see Dudamel in the Bowl before he departs after next year’s season, these are some of the best chances to do so in 2025.

LAS VEGAS — Manny Pacquiao pushed back against his doubters, the odds and even Father Time on Saturday night — and nearly made some history.

But Pacquiao, in the end, fell just short on the judges’ scorecards as Mario Barrios escaped with a majority draw to retain the WBC welterweight championship. Two judges scored the bout a draw, and judge Max DeLuca awarded Barrios a 115-113 victory.

The Associated Press scored the fight 115-113 in favor of Pacquiao.

“I thought I won the fight,” Pacquiao said.

Barrios landed more total punches (120-101), according to Compubox, but Pacquiao had the edge in power shots (81-75).

Pacquiao, enshrined into the International Boxing Hall of Fame last month, was trying to break his own record for oldest welterweight champion. He was 40 when he emerged victorious in a 2019 split decision over Keith Thurman. This also was the first appearance in the ring in nearly four years for the 46-year-old Filipino, following a loss by unanimous decision to Yordenis Ugás.

Barrios, a 30-year-old from San Antonio, was a -275 favorite at BetMGM Sportsbook. He hoped to bounce back from a split-decision draw on Nov. 15 against Abel Ramos, but didn’t exactly come away with an emphatic victory in improving to 29-2-2. The heavily pro-Pacquiao crowd loudly booed the decision.

“It was an honor to share the ring with him,” Barrios said. “This is by far the biggest event I’ve had to date, and we came in here and left everything in the ring. I have nothing but respect for Manny.

“His stamina is crazy. He’s still strong as hell and his timing is real. He’s still a very awkward fighter to try to figure out.”

Mario Barrios, left, and Manny Pacquiao pose for photos in the ring after fighting to a majority draw in Las Vegas on Saturday.

(John Locher / Associated Press)

Pacman (62-9-2) moved swiftly around the ring from the beginning, often looking more like the younger champion who captured 12 world titles in eight divisions. He began to be take control in the seventh, landing several big left hands to win the following three rounds on two cards and two on the other.

But Barrios was the better fighter at the end, coming out more aggressive knowing he might be in trouble with the judges. All three, in fact, awarded Barrios each of the final three rounds.

“I didn’t think the fight was getting away from me, but I knew I had to step it up to solidify a win,” Barrios said.

Both sides said they would be interested in a rematch.

“I hope this is an inspiration to boxers that if you have discipline and work hard, you can still fight at this age,” Pacquiao said.

Sebastian Fundora (23-1-1, 15 KOs) retained his WBC super welterweight title when Tim Tszyu (25-3) didn’t come out for the eighth round in the co-main event. Fundora floored Tszyu with a left hand in the first round and dominated the action with 118 power punches, according to Compubox, by repeatedly backing down the Australian.

“I’m the bigger guy,” said Fundora, who led 69-63 on all three judges’ cards. “Everyone says I’m a bully in the ring, so I thought I should start really bullying these guys. I just kept working on aggression my whole career and we’ve just been adding.”

It was a big week for Fundora, who was accepted into Harvard and then won the rematch with Tszyu. The first fight on March 30, 2024, was much closer, with Fundora emerging with a split-decision victory.

The Coachella, Calif., resident also had been the WBO champion, but that organization stripped him of his belt for not fighting mandatory challenger Xander Zayas.

Anderson writes for the Associated Press.

South Africa’s Wiann Mulder declared on himself, passing up the opportunity to break Brian Lara’s record for the highest individual score in a Test innings.

Mulder, captaining South Africa for the first time, was 367 not out at lunch on the second day of the second Test against Zimbabwe in Bulawayo.

He was 33 runs behind the 400 not out West Indies legend Lara made against England in Antigua in 2004.

The 27-year-old opted against his shot at one of Test cricket’s most iconic records, instead declaring South Africa’s first innings on 626-5.