Latest news with #geopolitics
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Varex Imaging Corporation (VREX) Downgraded by S&P as Regulatory Outlook Remains Cloudy
S&P Global Ratings has downgraded its ratings on Varex Imaging Corporation (NASDAQ:VREX) because it believes the stock is surrounded by high levels of unpredictability and weaker credit metrics. Tariff drama has been lingering for quite some time now, and with uncertainty around policy implementation by the U.S. administration, the firm believes Varex's profitability and sales are under serious threat. A technician in a lab coat inspecting an X-ray imaging component. The slashing of the rating from 'B+' to 'BB-' also considers the refinancing risk of the company stemming from near-term maturities. With short-term capital structure, external factors, including capital market conditions and geopolitical risk, push the company into a vulnerable state. This isn't the first time the company has exhibited such performance. The credit assessor now expects a leverage above the downside threshold of 3.5x, with a free operating cash flow (FOCF) to debt below 12% for FY2025, much in line with last year's benchmark. No relief from the medical segment either, as the demand remains subdued. Despite the approval of a $1.4 trillion government stimulus package, the Chinese government is taking initiatives to support local vendors, putting further pressure on Varex Imaging Corporation (NASDAQ:VREX)'s sales. However, due to the company's competitive position and new contracts, S&P has extended a stable rating outlook. While we acknowledge the potential of VREX as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and have limited downside risk. If you are looking for an AI stock that is more promising than VREX and that has 100x upside potential, check out our report about the READ NEXT: 20 Best AI Stocks To Buy Now and 30 Best Stocks to Buy Now According to Billionaires. Disclosure. None.
The Guardian
9 hours ago
- Business
- The Guardian
Growing geopolitical uncertainty casts shadow over UK defence review
Britain may not be at war, but the backdrop to next Monday's strategic defence review is the greatest geopolitical uncertainty since 1945. A set of loosely interconnected conflicts – led by Russia's continued assault on Ukraine and its related shadow war in Europe, and Israel's seemingly unending war on Hamas, which may lead to an attack on Iran – have not at all been restrained by a skittish White House with little interest in helping to promote peace in Europe. One of the three-strong review team is Fiona Hill, who was briefly and famously an adviser to Donald Trump in his first term. She is so worried about the disintegration of postwar norms that she believes the world is drifting towards a 'scenario that you had in world war one' where, in the run-up to the war, 'suddenly all these different interests and these different conflicts became, you know, basically intertwined with each other, [and] it becomes extraordinarily hard to disentangle'. Solving problems like these is likely to be beyond the ability of the 130-page document, jointly written by Hill, George Robertson, a former Nato secretary general, and Richard Barrons, a retired British army general. But its remit has been helped by the fact that difficult decisions about which equipment programmes to invest in and to cut have been deferred to a separate command paper in the autumn. Meanwhile, headline budgets to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027 have already been announced by the prime minister, in February. 'What I'm expecting is that it's basically going to be an essay,' said Lawrence Friedman, a military strategy expert and emeritus professor at King's College London. Even so, the defence review has been rewritten several times since it was first completed in the spring, partly as a result of drafting battles across Whitehall. Another document – a national security strategy from Keir Starmer's national security adviser, Jonathan Powell – is due out in June. In the past, defence reviews have done a poor job of prediction. Boris's Johnson's 2021 integrated review, published in the aftermath of Brexit, emphasised a British tilt to the far-off Indo-Pacific, supported by occasional flag-flying visits from the Royal Navy's two new aircraft carriers that cost £6.2bn. But with Britain pouring more than £3bn a year of arms into Ukraine, the last review's goal to have a 'greater and more persistent presence' than any other European country in the Indo-Pacific looks irrelevant. This review's principal task is likely to be descriptive, though it runs into two difficulties: people and money. Statistics out this week show again that more people are leaving the military than joining. Army numbers are at a 300-year low of 70,860, down 2.3% over the past year, despite the backdrop of the war in Ukraine. The numbers of RAF and naval personnel have fallen by similar proportions, meaning that, according to one naval source, the navy can crew only four of its six Type 45 destroyers. The news flow around service life is dominated by stories about rape, sexual harassment and sexism across the military. Internal reviews over the last two years acknowledged misogyny and misconduct in the Red Arrows and the submarine service. In an inquest into the death of 19-year-old Gunner Jaysley Beck in February, the court found she killed herself after being assaulted and subsequently subjected to unwanted sexual attention. It prompted an outpouring of reports on online forums and social media from mostly female soldiers describing similar negative experiences. A commitment will be made in the defence review to invest a further £1.5bn in military accommodation, including urgent renovation for the 1,000 worst homes, a longstanding source of complaint. But in recent years the British military has had relatively few positive stories to tell, not least because it has been relatively inactive on operations, with the fraught rescue from Kabul in August 2021 the most significant recent effort. It was followed by the smaller airlift of 2,450 Britons and other western nationals from Sudan in the spring of 2023 as a civil war broke out. Although Labour promised a modest increase in defence spending in February, amounting to £5.3bn a year in real terms when the increase from the current 2.33% of GDP to the promised 2.5% goes through, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has an extraordinary capacity to soak up money. A former senior insider estimated that the MoD faced £5bn of cost pressures for next year, partly as a consequence of higher pay settlements announced by Labour, such as this year's 4.5%. There remains £16.9bn of unfunded commitments in the MoD's 10-year equipment plan. Spending on nuclear weapons is rising sharply: analysis by Steve Barwick, of Rethinking Security, concluded that the forecast cost of MoD's Defence Nuclear Organisation's 10-year equipment plan increased by 62% to £99.5bn in 2023. The most recent figure, for 2025, was more than £100bn, according to the MoD. At the same time, the challenge of maintaining the UK's ageing fleet of Vanguard submarines, which carry the Trident nuclear armed missiles, means individual patrol boats are undertaking record missions underwater, the last of which was 204 days long – more than nine months. A more immediate problem for the British military is how to resource and sustain a commitment to participate in a European-led 'reassurance force' for Ukraine, currently promised in the event of a durable ceasefire, if Russia can be persuaded to agree. A British contribution might amount to a brigade of a few thousand, as well as some command and control functions, though finding the troop numbers is likely to be a stretch, suggesting there will be more calls for extra spending. 'To be credible, the defence review needs to be backed by a cast-iron commitment to take defence spending to 3% of GDP by a specific date and 3.5% by 2035,' argued Peter Ricketts, a former national security adviser. But while no extra money is expected immediately, the financial debate may be moved forward not by the review but by Nato and Trump by the end of the month. Alliance members are considering a proposal from Mark Rutte, Nato's secretary general, to be tabled at its June summit in The Hague, to increase core defence spending to 3.5% by 2032, with a further 1.5% on cyber and transport and other military-related infrastructure. That would match Trump's demand that Nato members spend 5% of GDP on defence. 'I assume that in The Hague we will agree on a high defence spend target of in total 5%,' Rutte said this week.
Russia Today
9 hours ago
- Business
- Russia Today
Elite Western universities form a corrupt and parasitic empire
US President Donald Trump has banned international students from attending Harvard University, citing national security concerns. The move has sparked widespread condemnation from academics and foreign governments, who warn it could damage America's global influence and reputation for academic openness. At stake is not just Harvard's global appeal, but the very premise of open academic exchange that has long defined elite higher education in the US. But exactly how 'open' is Harvard's admissions process? Every year, highly qualified students – many with top-tier SAT or GMAT test scores – are rejected, often with little explanation. Critics argue that behind the prestigious Ivy League brand lies an opaque system shaped by legacy preferences, DEI imperatives, geopolitical interests, and outright bribes. George Soros, for instance, once pledged $1 billion to open up elite university admissions to drones who would read from his Open Society script. China's swift condemnation of Trump's policy added a layer of geopolitical irony to the debate. Why would Beijing feign concern for 'America's international standing' amid a bitter trade war? The international standing of US universities has long been tarnished by a woke psychosis which spread like cancer to all branches of the government. So, what was behind China's latest gripe? The answer may lie in the unspoken rules of soft power: Ivy League campuses are battlegrounds for influence. The US deep state has long recruited foreign students to promote its interests abroad – subsidized by American taxpayers no less. China is apparently playing the same game, leveraging elite US universities to co-opt future leaders on its side of the geostrategic fence. For the time being, a judge has granted Harvard's request for a temporary restraining order against Trump's proposed ban. Come what may, there is one commonsense solution that all parties to this saga would like to avoid: Forcing Ivy League institutions to open their admissions process to public scrutiny. The same institutions that champion open borders, open societies, and open everything will, however, not tolerate any suggestion of greater openness to its admissions process. That would open up a Pandora's Box of global corruption that is systemically ruining nations today. Speaking of corruption – how is this for irony? A star Harvard professor who built her career researching decision-making and dishonesty was just fired and stripped of tenure for fabricating her own data! The Ivy League has a vested interest in perpetuating rising wealth and educational inequalities. It is the only way they can remain atop the global rankings list at the expense of less-endowed peers. Elite universities like Harvard, Stanford, and MIT dominate lists of institutions with the most ultra-wealthy alumni (net worth over $30mn). For example, Harvard alone has 18,000 ultra-high-net-worth (UHNW) alumni, representing 4% of the global UHNW population. These alumni networks provide major donations, corporate partnerships, and exclusive opportunities, reinforcing institutional wealth. If the alma mater's admissions process was rigged in their favor, they have no choice but to cough it up, at least for the sake of their offspring who will perpetuate this exclusivist cycle. The total endowment of Princeton University – $34.1 billion in 2024 – translated to $3.71 million per student, enabling generous financial aid and state-of-the-art facilities. Less prestigious institutions just cannot compete on this university rankings (QS, THE, etc.) heavily favor institutions with large endowments, high spending per student, and wealthy student bodies. For example, 70% of the top 50 US News & World Report Best Colleges overlap with universities boasting the largest endowments and the highest percentage of students from the top 1% of wealthy families. According to the Social Mobility Index (SMI), climbing rankings requires tens of millions in annual spending, driving tuition hikes and exacerbating inequality. Lower-ranked schools which prioritize affordability and access are often overshadowed in traditional rankings, which reward wealth over social impact. Besides, social mobility these days is predetermined at birth, as the global wealth divide becomes unbridgeable. Worse, the global ranking system itself thrives on graft, with institutions gaming audits, inflating data, and even bribing reviewers. Take the case of a Southeast Asian diploma mill where some of its initial batch of female students had been arrested for prostitution. Despite its flagrant lack of academic integrity, it grew rapidly to secure an unusually high QS global ranking – ahead of venerable institutions like the University of Pavia, where Leonardo da Vinci studied, and which boasts three Nobel Laureates among its ranks. Does this grotesque inversion of merit make any sense? Government policies increasingly favor elite institutions. Recent White House tax cuts and deregulation may further widen gaps by benefiting corporate-aligned universities while reducing public funding for others. This move was generally welcomed by the Ivy League until Trump took on Harvard. With such ominous trends on the horizon, brace yourselves for an implosion of the global education sector by 2030 – a reckoning mirroring the 2008 financial crisis, but with far graver consequences. And touching on the 2008 crisis, didn't someone remark that 'behind every financial disaster, there's a Harvard economist?' Nobody seems to be learning from previous contretemps. In fact, I dare say that 'learning' is merely a coincidental output of the Ivy League brand When Lehman Brothers and its lesser peers collapsed in 2008, many Singapore-based corporations eagerly scooped up their laid-off executives. The logic? Fail upward. If these whizz kids were truly talented, why did they miss the glaring warning signs during the lead up to the greatest economic meltdown since the Great Depression? The answer lies in the cult of credentialism and an entrenched patronage system. Ivy League MBAs and Rolodexes of central banker contacts are all that matters. The consequences are simply disastrous: A runaway global talent shortage will hit $8.452 trillion in unrealized annual revenues by 2030, more than the projected GDP of India for the same year. Ivy League MBAs often justify their relevance by overcomplicating simple objectives into tedious bureaucratic grinds – all in the name of efficiency, smart systems, and ever-evolving 'best practices'. The result? Doctors now spend more time on paperwork than treating patients, while teachers are buried under layers of administrative work. Ultimately, Ivy League technocrats often function as a vast bureaucratic parasite, siphoning public and private wealth into elite hands. What kind of universal socioeconomic model are these institutions bequeathing to the world? I can only think of one historical analogue as a future cue: Colonial India, aka the British Raj. This may be a stretch, but bear with me. Lessons from the Raj As Norman Davies pointed out, the Austro-Hungarians had more bureaucrats managing Prague than the British needed to run all of colonial India – a subcontinent that included modern-day Pakistan and Bangladesh. In fact, it took only 1,500-odd white Indian Civil Service (ICS) officials to govern colonial India until WWI. That is quite staggering to comprehend, unless one grasps how the British and Indian societies are organized along rigid class (and caste) lines. When two corrupt feudal systems mate, their offspring becomes a blueprint for dystopia. India never recovered from this neo-feudal arrangement. If the reader thinks I am exaggerating, let's compare the conditions in the British Raj and China from 1850 to 1976 (when the Cultural Revolution officially ended). During this period, China endured numerous societal setbacks – including rebellions, famines, epidemics, lawlessness, and a world war – which collectively resulted in the deaths of nearly 150 million Chinese. The Taiping Rebellion alone – the most destructive civil war in history – resulted in 20 to 30 million dead, representing 5-10% of China's population at the time. A broad comparison with India during the same period reveals a death toll of 50-70 million, mainly from epidemics and famines. Furthermore, unlike colonial India, many parts of China also lacked central governance. Indian nationalists are quick to blame a variety of bogeymen for their society's lingering failings. Nevertheless, they should ask themselves why US Big Tech-owned news platforms, led by upper-caste Hindu CEOs, no less, showed a decidedly pro-Islamabad bias during the recent Indo-Pakistani military standoff. Maybe, these CEOs are supine apparatchiks, much like their predecessors during the British Raj? Have they been good stewards of the public domain (i.e. internet)? Have they promoted meritocracy in foreign lands? (You can read some stark examples here, here and here). These Indian Big Tech bros, however, showed a lot of vigor and initiative during the Covid-19 pandemic, forcing their employees to take the vaccine or face the pink slip. They led the charge behind the Global Task Force on Pandemic Response, which included an 'unprecedented corporate sector initiative to help India successfully fight COVID-19.' Just check out the credentials of the 'experts' involved here. Shouldn't this task be left to accomplished Indian virologists and medical experts? A tiny few, in the service of a hegemon, can control the fate of billions. India's income inequality is now worse than it was under British rule. As global university inequalities widen further, it is perhaps time to rethink novel approaches to level the education field as many brick and mortar institutions may simply fold during the volatile 2025-30 period. I am optimistic that the use of AI in education will be a great equalizer, but I also fear that Big Tech will force governments into using its proprietary EdTech solutions that are already showing signs of runaway AI hallucinations – simply because the bold new world is all about control and power, not empowerment. Much like the British Raj, I would say.
BBC News
14 hours ago
- Business
- BBC News
Macron warns the West could lose credibility over Ukraine and Gaza wars
France's President Emmanuel Macron warned the US and Europe risked losing their credibility and being accused of "double standards" if they do not resolve the wars in Ukraine and Gaza also appealed to Asian countries to build a new alliance with Europe to ensure they do not become "collateral damage" in the struggle for power between the US and was speaking at the Shangri-la Dialogue, a high-level Asia defence summit held in the guests listening were US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, as well as top military officials from the region. Macron pointed out that if Russia could take Ukrainian territory "without any restrictions, without any constraints… what could happen in Taiwan? What will you do the day something happens in the Philippines?""What is at stake in Ukraine is our common credibility, that we are still able to preserve territorial integrity and sovereignty of people," he said. "No double standards."Many in Asia worry of instability in the region should China attempt to forcibly "reunify" with Taiwan, a self-governing island that Beijing claims as part of its territory. China has also increasingly clashed with the Philippines over competing claims in the South China later answered a question posed by the BBC's security correspondent Frank Gardner on Europe's military role in Asia while a full-scale war was still raging on the continent."If both the US and Europeans are unable to fix in the short term the Ukrainian situation, I think the credibility of both the US and Europeans pretending to fix any crisis in this region would be very low," the French leader President Donald Trump has put increasing pressure on both Russia and Ukraine's leaders to end the war, and has appeared to give Vladimir Putin a two-week deadline. Trump has also previously berated Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky and accused him of being "not ready for peace".Macron also made his point about double standards on the war in Gaza, acknowledging there was a perception the West has given a "free pass" to stressed the importance of working towards a ceasefire and mutual recognition of a Palestinian state, saying: "If we abandon Gaza, if we consider there is a free pass for Israel, even if we do condemn the terrorist attacks, we kill our own credibility in the rest of the world."He said this was why it was "very important to be consistent and follow our principles and rules".In recent weeks, European leaders have criticised Israel's attacks for exacerbating the increasingly desperate humanitarian situation in Gaza. Meanwhile the US has worked with Israel to table a ceasefire proposal to Hamas, while creating a much-criticised aid distribution model in Gaza. Macron also used his speech on Friday to sell his vision of "strategic autonomy", where countries protect their interests while also working closely together to uphold a rules-based global order not dominated by touted France as an example of being friends with both the US and China while guarding its own sovereignty, and said this model could form the basis of a new alliance between Europe and Asia."We want to co-operate but we don't want to depend... we don't want to be instructed on a daily basis on what is allowed, what is not allowed and how our life can change because of a decision by a single person," he said, in what appeared to be a veiled reference to Trump or Chinese President Xi also made references to Trump's global tariffs and allies' uncertainty of the US's security commitments, saying: "We cannot just remain seated and say… what do we do with tariffs, okay we are not so sure that we have the full-fledged guarantee in the existing alliance, what do we do?""We want to act, we want to preserve our stability and our peace and our prosperity," he said, calling for a "positive new alliance between Europe and Asia" where they would ensure "our countries are not collateral damage of the imbalances linked to the choices made by the superpowers".He noted that both Europe and Asia's challenges were increasingly intertwined, and referenced the Ukraine war again where North Korea has been aiding Russia's efforts with thousands of its troops. Macron said that in the past he had objected to the Western alliance Nato having a role in Asia, "because I don't want to be involved with someone else's strategic rivalry"."But what's happening with North Korea being present alongside Russia on European soil is a big question for all of us," he said. "So this is why if China doesn't want Nato involved in Southeast Asia or Asia, they should prevent clearly [North Korea] from being engaged on European soil."Mathieu Duchatel, director of international studies at the Paris-based think tank Institut Montaigne, said Macron's comments on credibility had "implied criticism of the US' Middle East policy, and a direct call on US to adjust its diplomacy towards Russia".Observers agree China would likely be angered by Macron's speech, with Dr Duchatel noting the French leader's comments on Taiwan were "the furthest he has gone" on the parts of Asia may welcome Macron's message on strategic autonomy given their anxieties about choosing between the US and China, said Andrew Small, senior fellow of the Asia-Pacific programme of Washington-based think tank GMF."His argument is that most of the rest of the world does not want to be stuck with this dichotomy and wants to hold together some version of global order - that's what a number of states in Asia would agree," he said.
Associated Press
17 hours ago
- Business
- Associated Press
Navigating Turbulent Waters: How Sustainable Supply Chains Can Thrive in a Disrupted Trade Era
As global trade policy fractures into a patchwork of bilateral agreements and shifting regulations, supply chains are being tested like never before. Efficiency, continuity, and compliance are no longer guaranteed – and yet, the push for sustainable practices is only intensifying. How can companies meet the growing demand for environmentally responsible operations while staying agile in the face of geopolitical and economic volatility? Join us for an eye-opening webcast exploring how forward-thinking supply chain leaders are embedding sustainability into their core strategies – not just as a compliance measure, but as a driver of long-term resilience and competitive advantage. Register now to hear how companies like DP World are navigating today's complexities with data-driven solutions, adaptive trade strategies, and bold environmental commitments. You'll learn: Don't miss this timely and practical conversation on the future of sustainable supply chains. Register Today! Visit 3BL Media to see more multimedia and stories from DP World
