All News

Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has pledged to take the “strongest possible action” if Russia has harmed an Australian national captured while fighting for Ukraine

Jenkins’ Capture

Oscar Jenkins, an Australian national, was captured by Russian forces last month while fighting in Ukraine. A video of Jenkins being interrogated by Russian forces emerged, showing him bound and visibly distressed. Struggling with the language barrier, Jenkins identified himself as “a soldier” and mentioned his past roles as a teacher in China and a student in Australia.

Jenkins’ Background

Jenkins, originally from Melbourne, has a diverse and international background. He has worked as a university lecturer in Tianjin, China, since 2017. Inspired to join the Ukrainian cause, Jenkins enlisted with an international brigade among Ukraine’s military ranks.

If reports of his death are confirmed, Jenkins would become the first Australian to die as a prisoner of war in over 50 years. The last recorded case was H. W. Madden during the Korean War in the 1950s.

Albanese’s Response

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has condemned any potential harm to Jenkins as “absolutely reprehensible” and stressed that the Australian government is “seeking urgent clarification” on the situation. He has pledged that Australia will take the “strongest possible action” if it is confirmed that Jenkins has been killed.

Russia’s Response

The Russian embassy in Australia has pointed to a statement made by Maria Zakharova, spokesperson for the Russian Foreign Ministry. Zakharova criticized Australia’s support for Ukraine and stated that the ministry is “monitoring the situation together with the relevant agencies.”

Australia’s Support for Ukraine

Australia has been a committed ally of Ukraine since the war began in February 2022, providing close to $1 billion in financial and military aid. This assistance has included both material support and training for Ukraine’s armed forces.

Prime Minister Albanese’s strong remarks reflect the broader concern within Australia about the potential mistreatment of its citizens abroad and underline the nation’s commitment to holding Russia accountable for any violations of international law.

ED: Below is a Macrobusiness article titled ‘Australian dollar 40s in 2025?’  I know that many members travel O/S … Here’s a simplified summary of the article:

The US Dollar (USD) is expected to keep getting stronger due to solid US economic growth, rising interest rates, and trade policies like tariffs. Recent data and policy shifts have already pushed the Dollar higher than anticipated. Analysts predict another 5% increase in the USD’s value over the next year, driven by strong US performance and new tariffs.

For Australia, the outlook is weaker. The Australian Dollar (AUD) is expected to fall, possibly below 50 US cents in the coming years. This is because of slowing wage growth, economic policies, and dependency on commodities, which are vulnerable to China’s economic slowdown. The contrast between the US’s strong economy and Australia’s weaker position, particularly in productivity and inflation control, amplifies this trend.

The author, David Llewellyn-Smith, suggests that political and economic decisions in Australia, such as fiscal austerity or rate cuts, could further weaken the AUD. If global factors, like slowing demand for Australian resources, worsen, the AUD could face significant challenges into 2026.

Australian dollar 40s in 2025?

David Llewellyn-Smith

Monday 13 January 2025

Goldman is upgrading the US dollar.

USD: All systems still go; upgrading our Dollar forecasts.

In our 2025 Outlook, we wrote that we expected the Dollar to be “stronger for longer” because of a combination of solid US growth, continued support for capital inflows, and more protectionist policies.

Since then, the Dollar has appreciated even faster than we expected.

This has been largely on the back of a shift higher in US policy rate expectations, which tends to be the most supportive environment for the currency.

Looking ahead, the critical questions are to what extent these moves will be validated by the incoming data, and whether they already incorporate our expectations for policy shifts in the coming year, particularly higher tariffs .

While we acknowledge that FX market participants are clearly expecting some degree of tariff policy changes, and it is difficult to disentangle the drivers of recent moves, we maintain that there is more Dollar strength ahead.

In our view, there are three key considerations.

First, it is challenging—if not impossible—for FX markets to fully price tariff risks ahead of time because movements in the CNY fix will be critical for the size and composition of the broad market reaction.

Second, our models assume a negative growth response to these trade policy shifts, but so far the market has instead upgraded the US growth view since the election.

Third, and most timely today, we believe that much of the recent Dollar strength reflects the surprising resilience in the US economy and shifting policy expectations.

We expect the Dollar to rally by about 5% over the coming year on the realization of new tariffs and continued US outperformance.

Even with this upgrade, we still see the risks tilted towards more Dollar strength.

Surprisingly, GS has not downgraded the AUD at the same time. If DXY rises 5% or more, then AUD is almost certain to fall just as much, especially since China tariffs and CNY weakness are the key variables.

As well, while the US interest rate outlook is firming up, the Australian is weakening. The key difference is mass immigration and wage growth that drives services inflation.

US wage growth is sitting firmly around 4% while Australia’s is 3.5% and falling fast. The US is about to evict millions of cheap foreign workers, while Australia is only pretending to cut back on the Indian inundation.

Australia’s labour-market expansion growth model has a much lower neutral interest rate than most economists realise, especially versus a traditional business investment growth model like the US.

Amusingly, the failure of productivity growth in the former versus the latter leads classic economic models to predict worse inflation for Australia.

However, it simply doesn’t work that way in reality. Lower wage growth from the permanent labour supply shock weighs heavily on services inflation in Australia versus the US. This is made worse by the stupid RBA never learning and running too tight initially.

Goods inflation will go the other way as US imports get cheaper and Australian less so. But tariff displacement of Chinese goods seeking new markets should offset any impact from a weak AUD for inflation.

So, how weak will the AUD be in 2025? For the past eighteen months, I have had a forecast of reaching below 50 cents in the next few years.

This was based upon the notion of a rerun of the late-1990s scenarios of a struggling Asia centred on Chinese weakness driving commodity prices lower versus a runaway US dollar based on US tech exceptionalism.

If anything, the looming scenario is even stronger after the US election.

I’d be surprised to see AUD fall so far as the 40s this year, but if the LNP were to win the election and deploy fiscal austerity-chasing rate cuts, then AUD could fall deep into the 50s.

And with the Pilbara killer coming by year’s end, all bets are off for 2026 AUD weakness.

Picture: ‘Land Pub 0.0.3 Chaplaincy in War’ is launched by Chief of Army Lieutenant General Simon Stuart, centre, with Chaplain Sarah Gibson, left, and Director General Chaplaincy – Army Principle Chaplain Kerry Larwill at Russell Offices in Canberra.

Chaplains have supported Australian soldiers in battle since before the corps’ inception, yet chaplaincy as a wartime capability has not recently been exercised to its full capacity.

During Exercise Talisman Sabre 23, a chaplaincy training review was conducted to demonstrate gaps in the provision of Army chaplaincy in large-scale combat operations.

It became obvious something was needed to address this and refocus the capability on its warfighting role – leaving the dead and dying unattended for example, even when they are only notional dead, is not respectful or honouring of the service these people give.

While chaplaincy on base often centres on the provision of pastoral care, chaplaincy in war has a significant focus on the foundational chaplaincy roles of honouring the dead, comforting the dying, caring for the distressed and supporting all. Chaplaincy is part of the picture in building and maintaining fortitude and resilience in individuals and teams.

It was with this warfighting focus that the publication LPub 0.0.3 Chaplaincy in War was developed to assist chaplains, along with planners and commanders, to understand the role of chaplains across the spectrum of conflict.

Authored by a working group of chaplains, led by Chaplain Sarah Gibson at Forces Command, the publication was supported by the Combat Training Centre and Battle Lab.

Chief of Army Lieutenant General Simon Stuart launched the publication on December 9, 2024, and emphasised the importance of highlighting the chaplain function within the established training continuum.

“This publication demonstrates the way a capability that had been part of Army since the beginning will now refocus and align with my intent and the requirements of Army and the nation,” Lieutenant General Stuart said.

This important document is the first of its kind for a specialist corps, and will not be the last. It demonstrates how chaplains support soldiers, officers and commanders to achieve their mission in support of Army, the ADF and the nation.

Chaplain Matthew Stuart, of 3rd Brigade, was recognised at the publication’s launch for his significant contribution to its development, and was presented with the Royal Australian Army Chaplains Departmental award, known as the 414 Award.

The Straits Times

A significant ceasefire and hostage deal has been agreed upon between Israel and Hamas, bringing a temporary halt to the brutal conflict that has plagued the region for 15 months. The three-phase deal, confirmed by U.S. President Joe Biden, aims to secure peace, facilitate humanitarian aid, and reconstruct Gaza. While the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is dire, the Australian government must tread cautiously and refrain from accepting refugees from Gaza for several critical reasons.

The Three-Phase Deal: A Path to Stability or a Temporary Reprieve?

The deal consists of three phases. The first phase includes a complete ceasefire, the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza’s populated areas, and the release of hostages held by Hamas, prioritising women, the elderly, and the wounded. In exchange, Israel will release hundreds of Palestinian prisoners and allow increased humanitarian aid into Gaza.

The second phase, set to begin in six weeks, aims to achieve a permanent end to the war. During this time, the ceasefire will remain in effect as long as negotiations continue. The third phase involves returning the remains of hostages killed in the conflict and initiating a major reconstruction plan for Gaza.

Despite this apparent progress, the situation remains volatile, with unresolved issues still under negotiation. The ceasefire is fragile, and the likelihood of renewed conflict looms large.

The Risks of Accepting Refugees from Gaza

Australia has a proud history of providing refuge to those fleeing conflict. However, taking in refugees from Gaza poses unique risks that must be carefully considered.

1. Security Concerns

The Gaza Strip has been under the control of Hamas, a designated terrorist organisation by Australia, the U.S., and the European Union. Accepting refugees from a region governed by a terrorist group raises significant national security concerns. It is challenging to thoroughly vet individuals fleeing from such areas to ensure they pose no threat to Australia’s safety.

While the majority of civilians in Gaza are innocent victims of the conflict, the risk of inadvertently admitting individuals with extremist ties cannot be ignored. Australia must prioritise the safety and security of its citizens.

2. Social Integration Challenges

Refugees from Gaza would face substantial social integration challenges in Australia. Many would arrive with traumatic experiences from prolonged exposure to violence, displacement, and loss. These individuals would require extensive support services, including mental health care, housing, and employment assistance.

Moreover, the cultural and political dynamics of the Middle East are complex and may not easily align with Australian values and societal norms. There is a risk of social tension if integration efforts are not carefully managed.

3. Encouraging Regional Solutions

Australia’s focus should be on supporting regional solutions to the Gaza crisis. Neighbouring countries, particularly Egypt and Jordan, are better positioned to provide immediate refuge and support for those fleeing Gaza. These countries share cultural, linguistic, and historical ties with the Palestinian population, making integration more feasible.

By providing financial and logistical support to regional partners, Australia can contribute to a more sustainable and effective solution without taking on the risks associated with accepting refugees from Gaza.

4. Setting a Precedent

Accepting refugees from Gaza could set a precedent that encourages further mass migrations from conflict zones. While compassion is essential, Australia must balance its humanitarian commitments with practical considerations about its capacity to absorb and support new arrivals.

A Balanced Approach: Humanitarian Aid Without Resettlement

Australia can still play a vital role in alleviating the suffering of Gaza’s civilian population without accepting refugees. This can be achieved through:

• Increased Humanitarian Aid: Providing financial assistance to international organizations working on the ground in Gaza to deliver food, medical supplies, and shelter.
• Diplomatic Efforts: Supporting diplomatic initiatives aimed at achieving lasting peace in the region.

Conclusion

The ceasefire and hostage deal between Israel and Hamas is a welcome development, but the situation in Gaza remains precarious. While the plight of Gaza’s civilians is deeply concerning, the Australian government must carefully weigh the risks and challenges associated with accepting refugees from this conflict zone.

Australia’s primary responsibility is to ensure the safety and security of its citizens. By focusing on providing humanitarian aid and supporting regional solutions, Australia can uphold its humanitarian values without compromising national security.

Defence Today

The Whyalla steelworks, a historic industrial asset in South Australia, has resumed operations after a challenging four-month shutdown. This restart marks a crucial step forward for the plant, its workforce, and the surrounding community. However, the recent turbulence faced by Whyalla highlights a critical question: why is the federal government not investing more in Australian steelmaking?

In an era marked by geopolitical uncertainty and increasing threats of conflict, Australia’s capacity to produce its own steel is more important than ever. History has repeatedly demonstrated that industrial self-sufficiency is a strategic asset in times of crisis. Steel is the backbone of national infrastructure and defence capabilities—from building ships and armoured vehicles to reinforcing critical infrastructure—and Whyalla’s steelworks should be at the heart of Australia’s national security strategy.

The return to steelmaking at Whyalla is a testament to the determination of its management team and workforce. Led by GFG’s global chief manufacturing officer, Theuns Victor, the “back to black” taskforce worked tirelessly to stabilize the plant and bring it back online. The sight of molten steel being cast once again was described as an emotional moment by Victor, who cautioned that more work is needed to ensure long-term stability.

“The blast furnace is currently running at half its capacity with a number of issues yet to be resolved,” Victor said. “Despite this, I am very confident we will deliver the plant to stability and then to its full capacity, but this will take time and patience.”

Prolonged shutdowns like the one Whyalla experienced can cause significant damage to aging facilities, making restarts a complex and costly process. The return to operations is therefore a significant achievement, but it also underscores the vulnerability of Australia’s steelmaking capacity.

Australia’s reliance on imported steel poses a serious risk to national security. In times of global conflict or economic instability, supply chains can be disrupted, leaving the country vulnerable. The federal government must recognize that steelmaking is not just an industrial issue—it is a matter of national defence.

Countries like the United States and China have long understood the strategic importance of maintaining robust domestic steel industries. Both nations have heavily invested in their steel sectors to ensure they can meet their own infrastructure and defence needs in times of crisis. Australia must follow suit by providing substantial federal support to Whyalla and other steelmakers.

Investing in Whyalla is about more than just preserving jobs in South Australia. It’s about ensuring Australia has the industrial capacity to produce critical materials in times of need. Without a strong domestic steel industry, the nation risks being unable to meet its defence and infrastructure requirements during a conflict.

GFG executive chair Sanjeev Gupta has outlined a vision for Whyalla to become a leader in green steel production. The “back to black” strategy is a stepping stone toward this ambitious goal. Green steel, produced using renewable energy sources and innovative technologies, represents the future of sustainable steelmaking. By investing in Whyalla now, the government can position Australia as a global leader in this emerging field.

The reopening of Whyalla is also good news for the iron ore and coking coal mines that supply it, including the Middleback Ranges operations in South Australia and the Tahmoor coking coal mine in NSW. Supporting Whyalla’s steelworks means supporting a broader ecosystem of industries that are vital to Australia’s economy.

The federal government must take decisive action to secure Australia’s steelmaking future. This includes providing financial support to modernise facilities like Whyalla, investing in research and development for green steel technologies, and implementing policies that prioritise the use of Australian-made steel in infrastructure and defence projects.

As the world becomes more unpredictable, Australia cannot afford to be complacent about its industrial capabilities. The return of Whyalla’s steelworks is a cause for celebration, but it should also serve as a wake-up call. Investing in Whyalla is investing in Australia’s future resilience and security.

In times of peace, steel builds infrastructure. In times of war, steel builds defence. Ensuring Australia’s ability to produce its own steel is not just an economic priority—it is a national imperative.

To prepare for a potential war over Taiwan, the U.S is increasing its military presence in Australia to a level not seen since World War 2. Taiwan is regarded by China as part of its territory and Beijing has vowed to take control of the island by force if necessary. What advantages does Australia’s geography offer the U.S. in a potential fight in the Asia-Pacific region?

Grace Stanke, a highly accomplished nuclear engineer and winner of the Miss America 2023 title, has landed in Australia on a mission to promote nuclear energy. Her visit is part of a campaign organized by Nuclear for Australia, a pro-nuclear advocacy group backed by Australian entrepreneur Dick Smith. Stanke’s unique combination of scientific expertise and public appeal makes her a powerful advocate in the ongoing debate over Australia’s energy future.

Grace Stanke is no ordinary nuclear engineer. Dubbed “the new face of nuclear energy” by the Wall Street Journal, she has also earned a coveted spot on Forbes’ list of influential energy experts under 30. As a public figure, Stanke uses her platform to demystify nuclear energy, explaining its potential as a safe, clean, and reliable power source.

Working for Constellation Energy, the largest operator of nuclear reactors in the United States, Stanke is deeply involved in the practical applications of nuclear technology. Her work includes contributions to the revival of decommissioned plants, such as the infamous Three Mile Island reactor, now being repurposed to support the energy needs of tech giants like Microsoft.

During her Australian tour, Stanke expressed surprise at the level of resistance to nuclear energy in Australia.

“It honestly surprises me that there is such a big debate about this in Australia just because here in America, it’s one of the few things our politicians agree on,” she said. “Whether it is for the sake of clean energy, or for the sake of reliable energy, or for the sake of high-paying jobs for generations to come in the areas around nuclear power plants.”

Australia currently has a decades-long ban on nuclear energy, a policy that both Labor and the Greens support. However, as global energy markets evolve and countries turn to nuclear power to reduce carbon emissions, the debate in Australia has intensified.

Nuclear for Australia, led by 18-year-old Will Shackel, is determined to change public perception. Shackel sees Stanke’s visit as an opportunity to make nuclear energy more relatable to everyday Australians.

“She’s one of the most effective global nuclear advocates,” Shackel said. “And being a woman certainly helps. There’s a huge gender gap when it comes to support for nuclear power, and generally women are less likely to support it. So, having someone like Grace, who’s Miss America and a strong female advocate with a women-in-STEM message, will help resonate with women who might be on the edge in terms of nuclear power.”

Stanke has embraced a playful approach to her advocacy, referring to herself as “Barbenheimer” — a nod to the blockbuster films Barbie and Oppenheimer. Her light-hearted messaging aims to make nuclear energy more accessible and engaging.

“Nuclear power is literally just fancy hot rocks that boil water. That’s it,” she tells her 50,000 Instagram followers in a video.

Her ability to break down complex topics into digestible soundbites has made her a popular figure on social media, where she regularly addresses concerns about safety, waste, and costs.

Stanke’s visit comes at a pivotal time for Australia’s energy debate. With an upcoming federal election, voters will soon decide between Labor’s renewable-focused plan and the Coalition’s proposal to incorporate nuclear power into the nation’s energy grid.

Proponents argue that nuclear power’s reliability and low emissions make it an essential component of a diverse energy mix. Stanke believes Australians should at least have the option to consider nuclear energy.

“That ban should be lifted because Australians should at least give themselves the option,” she said. “Why eliminate options here? The key to a healthy energy grid is a diverse energy grid, and I think it should be up to the Australian people to decide what that looks like.”

In countries like the United States, nuclear energy enjoys bipartisan support as a means of decarbonizing the economy. With the rise of energy-hungry industries such as AI and data centres, nuclear power is being revisited as a stable, long-term solution to meet growing demand.

Stanke’s advocacy aims to replicate this mindset in Australia. By emphasizing nuclear’s potential to provide high-paying jobs, reduce emissions, and ensure energy security, she hopes to shift public opinion.

“This is about the future,” she said. “It’s about ensuring that the next generations have access to reliable, clean energy. I’m here to spark that conversation.”

As Australia grapples with its energy transition, Stanke’s visit highlights the growing global consensus on nuclear power’s role in achieving a sustainable future. Her message is clear: nuclear energy deserves a place at the table.

James Morrow -National Affairs Editor

James Morrow is the Daily Telegraph’s National Affairs Editor. James also hosts The US Report, Fridays at 8.00pm and co-anchor of top-rating Sunday morning discussion program Outsiders with Rita Panahi and Rowan Dean on Sundays at 9.00am on Sky News Australia.

Is it just me or does the annual Australia Day fight feel different this year?

Normally this summertime warm-up lap for the coming year’s public debates follows a pretty set pattern.

First, one or another council or corporation backs off from the day, saying they don’t want to be part of something “not everyone can celebrate” – or words to that effect.

Then there is the to-and-fro over the meaning of the day and whether it should be on January 26 (though everyone knows you could pick a new date by putting a calendar on a dart board and the haters would still find a way to complain).

Finally, everyone has their day off, their barbecue, their beach, or their “invasion day” rally and moves on with their lives.

But now, in 2025, something feels like it has changed.

No longer are progressive revolutionaries quietly buoyant that if they keep chipping away one day everyone will decide it’s all too hard and the whole edifice will fall.

Instead Australians – like people around the world – are looking at the tut-tutting secular moralisers of the left who see any expression of national pride or sovereignty as being one step removed from fascism and telling them where to go.

First, there were the big corporates: After public backlash, a big supermarket chain and a huge foreign owned pubs group walked back their plans to ignore the day.

Then there was the IPA poll finding a big uptick from last year’s survey about Australia Day, with 69 per cent of respondents saying keep the date.

This included, crucially, a big shift in support among 18 to 24 year olds who recently spent a dozen-plus years being told to feel bad about their history while copping stolen land propaganda from over-politicised teachers.

Finally, there was Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s vow to reverse an Albanese government decision that allowed local councils to stop holding citizenship day ceremonies on Australia Day.

Is it any wonder that the anti-Australia Day crowd is acting more and more unhinged?

On Monday this masthead reported on activist Elsa Tuet-Rosenberg and her social media call to “F**k up their dumb war memorials which glorify western imperialism while refusing to acknowledge the frontier wars”.

“Universities, suburbs, streets, shops etc named after genocidal colonisers? F**k them up too!”

The left senses the wind has changed, and they’re not happy.

Now to be fair, conservatives can also get a bit out over their skis on Australia Day.

But this is done by conflating the basic human, tribal need for a unifying national piss-up with some grand Enlightenment project.

Yes, the arrival of the First Fleet quite literally staked a claim in Australia for a whole set of European and Western ideals, including Australia’s (currently stressed) Enlightenment values of tolerance and acceptance and individualism.

Yet the real point of Australia Day, just as it is for all sorts of other rituals from cheering on the Aussies at the cricket to remembering our dead later in the year at Anzac Day, is more tribal.

It is, or should be, an event to bind us together under one flag no matter where we come from.

In an age when Australians have ever less in common – faith, origin, whatever – and are increasingly being pitted against each other over everything from housing to the Middle East, any sort of societal glue is not just welcome but desperately needed.

This is why there was something so quietly sinister about the Albanese government’s breaking the link between citizenship ceremonies and Australia Day.

Likewise, the suggestion in Labor’s quietly shelved (for now) multiculturalism review that applicants for citizenship be allowed to take their tests not in English but in the language of their homeland.

If, as Australians, we can’t even speak the same language with one another, how are we supposed to come together as neighbours, friends, workmates – and, should it ever come to it, fellow citizens fighting off a common outside enemy?

Impossible, obviously.

This push to devalue national unity is why, ironically, anti-Australia Day leftists and so many big corporates find themselves on the same side on these things, not just on culture war fights but also big ticket policy items like immigration that threaten any vision of the nation as anything more than an economy.

But this also has consequences, from Labor’s both-sidesing the Middle East leading to near-daily anti-Semitic awfulness to a housing crisis whipped on by “Big Australia” lobbyists.

The challenge for Peter Dutton is to catch this wind and use it to tell a binding story not just about Australia’s past but about our collective future.

The aim for the rest of us should be to enjoy the day.

In a surprising midnight breakthrough, negotiators in Doha presented a final draft of a ceasefire deal to both Israel and Hamas, marking a significant step toward ending the ongoing conflict. Central to this development is the anticipated release of 33 hostages by Hamas as part of the initial phase of the agreement. The unfolding situation raises the question: is this progress driven by former President Donald Trump’s stern warning to Hamas?

The ceasefire draft, brokered by Qatar, proposes a 42-day halt in hostilities, with hopes that further hostage releases and peace talks will follow. High-level U.S. involvement has been key to the negotiations, with Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan actively engaging with mediators to ensure both sides agree to the terms.

President Trump made headlines by issuing a direct warning to Hamas. He declared that if hostages are not released before his inauguration on January 20th, there will be “hell to pay.” This stark message has resonated across diplomatic circles, sparking debate over its impact on the current negotiations.

While the Biden administration continues to push for a finalised ceasefire agreement, many analysts argue that Trump’s blunt rhetoric may have created urgency among Hamas leaders. “This is classic Trump,” one commentator noted. “He doesn’t mince words, and that puts pressure on everyone involved.”

The Biden administration is eager to secure a deal before Trump can claim credit for the breakthrough. Secretary Blinken has been in constant communication with Qatari mediators and Israeli officials, ensuring that all parties remain committed to the ceasefire’s terms. Jake Sullivan expressed optimism during a recent press briefing, stating, “We are closer than ever to seeing hostages released and a meaningful pause in violence.”

However, the ongoing negotiations remain delicate. The ceasefire draft includes provisions for the release of 33 hostages, but Hamas still holds an additional 94 captives. Israel believes that some of the hostages expected to be released may be deceased, adding complexity to the agreement’s implementation.

The midnight breakthrough in Doha has set the stage for what could be a pivotal moment in Middle Eastern diplomacy. Both Israeli and Hamas delegations have acknowledged receiving the draft and are preparing for another round of talks scheduled for Tuesday morning. Progress has been reported on key issues, but finalising the remaining details will require further effort.

If the ceasefire holds and hostages are released, it could be a major victory for the Biden administration. However, if the negotiations falter or if Trump’s rhetoric is perceived as the driving force behind Hamas’s actions, the narrative may shift to favour of Trump.

For now, the world watches as Secretary Blinken and his team work to secure the release of hostages and broker peace. Whether this success can be attributed to Biden’s diplomacy or Trump’s threats remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: the pressure is mounting, and the stakes are higher than ever.

For years, climate activists and their media allies have warned of a looming crisis, claiming that human-induced climate change would drastically slow ocean currents. This slowdown, they argued, would wreak havoc on global weather patterns, marine ecosystems, and coastal communities. However, after two decades of data collection, the reality paints a different picture.

Recent studies reveal that ocean currents have actually sped up over the past 20 years. Far from the catastrophic scenarios predicted, there’s no evidence of ecosystem collapse or global disasters tied to these changes. The alarmist rhetoric peddled by activists has proven to be not only inaccurate but also a distraction from genuine environmental issues.

Once again, scientific evidence challenges the doomsday narrative of the green-left agenda, highlighting the importance of basing policies on real-world data rather than fear-driven projections.