The US president has requested $5bn (£3.7bn) in damages, according to court documents filed in Florida.
bbc
Der US-Hersteller schreibt im Geschäft mit Elektroautos vor allem Verluste. Nun legt der Hersteller eine strategische Kehrtwende hin – und nimmt dafür Milliardenabschreibungen in Kauf.
Handelsblatt
It depends, says Andy Wu, on how much risk investors, vendors take on, but Big Tech seems well insulated
Harvard University
The UK will not join the EU’s new defence fund. Can the UK–EU security reset still succeed? Expert comment LToremark 15 December 2025 The collapse of talks for the UK to join the SAFE defence fund is a blow to the UK–EU reset. But it has not hit a brick wall. Security and defence cooperation is an important component of the UK Labour government’s ‘reset’ in relations with the EU. Building back relations in this area has been a priority for Labour ever since former Conservative prime minister Boris Johnson excluded it from the scope of talks on a Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) in 2020.Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine highlighted the urgent need for the UK to work alongside its European partners to support Kyiv – and made the UK’s eschewal of engagement with the EU more costly. Related work Independent Thinking: Is Brexit finally done? At the May 2025 UK–EU summit both sides formalized a Security and Defence Partnership (SDP). The agreement provides for regular cooperation across different levels of government and different areas of security, including maritime, space, cyber and hybrid.Although the agreement is, in many respects, aspirational and forward-looking, there are some obvious roadblocks which will make effective security cooperation difficult.No longer a SAFE bet?As part of the SDP negotiations, the UK had hoped to secure access for UK firms to SAFE (Security Action for Europe), a €150 billion financial assistance programme aimed at improving defence capabilities across the continent. Allowing UK companies to contribute to projects above the 35 per cent limit for non-EU firms would not only benefit UK industry but also enhance the credibility of the programme.But the negotiations proved more difficult than expected. Initial estimates of the fee London was expected to pay – initially upwards of €6 billion – were deemed prohibitively expensive and proposals for a ‘pay-as-you-go’ model went nowhere.The collapse of the talks on 28 November will limit the participation of UK firms in SAFE, to the detriment of the UK defence industry, the viability of the individual projects and the credibility of the programme as a whole.But it is not necessarily a catastrophic outcome. A future deal may be reached for successive funding rounds and the fact money was the biggest issue makes compromise easier to envisage. Moreover, the value of the reset does not only lie in the specific agreements reached but also in getting both sides talking again. This means the reset itself has not hit a brick wall.Broader lessons for the resetNonetheless, the breakdown of talks highlights some deeper issues which have dogged the reset and will likely continue to do so, regardless of the specific programme in question. Related work To defend Europe, the UK–EU reset should prioritize defence industrial cooperation The UK’s status outside the single market and customs union continues to delimit what is possible after Brexit and contributes to a divergence in perspectives. The UK believes its strategic clout will be the deciding factor, while for the EU the most important factor is the UK’s relationship to EU institutions and regulatory architecture.This has also led to a long-standing perception gap on how UK contributions are valued. While UK policymakers see any prospective British engagement with EU defence efforts as a positive contribution, there are many in Brussels and the national capitals who consider such ‘cherry-picking’ a risk.Inclusive EU decision-making processes are another potential issue. Any decision to extend access to the UK must pass a very high bar and would be subject to the potential veto of individual member states, making UK asks vulnerable to issue-linkage strategies and agreement harder to reach. This has already threatened UK participation in the PESCO military mobility project, which was blocked by Spain due to the ongoing dispute over border arrangements in Gibraltar.It is also evident in France’s desire for strict conditions for UK participation in SAFE, reflecting competition over defence-industrial interests which continues to pull EU/European defence policy in different directions. UK participation is viewed by some EU countries as an inhibitor of efforts to foster a genuinely European defence technological industrial base.How to make progress at the next UK–EU summitThe UK’s engagement with EU security has always been awkward, especially after Brexit. But with the US increasingly willing to sideline and criticize Europeans and the conflict in Ukraine at a crucial moment, cross-channel divergence is not something either side can afford.Problematic attitudes remain on both sides. UK political elites are unable to accept the limitations imposed by the hard Brexit outcome and unwilling to revisit the most important red lines. The belief that the UK can build back via security contributions or that the strategic and economic aspects of EU policymaking can be separated has been proven false time and again.The EU, for its part, continues to struggle with strategic thinking and action, a near inevitable consequence of its politico-institutional order. There is also a tendency in some quarters to view Britain through an outdated Brexit lens which overstates the risks of UK participation to the EU. Far from introducing a potential spoiler into the mix – or incentivizing exit – including the UK in EU security initiatives offers a practical means of minimizing the security gap.
Chatham House
Fighting the fight for sustainability at the WWF filliong Mon, 12/15/2025 - 10:28 Having an impact, making changes – it resonates with an increasing number of young professionals, seeking purpose in and beyond their careers. But making an impact often feels overwhelming: Where to start? Volunteering? Funding? Which issue to prioritise? Am I doing too much? Am I not doing enough? In this series of interviews, we’ll meet different people working for NGOs and discover how they lead the charge on positive impact and what future leaders and organisations can do to support. Here we meet Vivek Kumar, CEO of the WWF-Singapore. Corporate Insights, News BIO Vivek Kumar: CEO, WWF-Singapore (World Wide Fund for Nature) Organization: WWF-Singapore Experience: Group Director, NTUC FairPrice; Assistant Director-General, National Trades Union Congress; Head of Retail Marketing, Shell. VIVEK, IN TERMS OF SUSTAINABILITY, WHAT KEEPS YOU AWAKE AT NIGHT MOST? When I think about what keeps me awake at night, it is not worry but the need to stay focused. In a world of fast-moving geopolitical shifts, attention can easily drift to short-term pressures, yet climate and nature remain among the defining long-term risks for our region. We are already working, collectively, to meet critical UN Sustainable Development Goals on climate, biodiversity and responsible production. If we lose focus now, we lose momentum when it matters most. Nature does not recognise political boundaries, and shared systems only thrive when countries work together. The Sulu–Sulawesi seascape is shared by Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines, and forms part of the wider Coral Triangle, one of the most biodiverse marine regions in the world. In this landscape, WWF-Singapore works with our regional offices to coordinate efforts between communities, subject matter experts and governments to restore coral reefs and bolster local livelihoods. It shows what cooperation can achieve, and why weakening cross-border collaboration would set us back. I also think about sustaining support for work on the ground. WWF-Singapore operates in over 20 countries across Asia Pacific, restoring forests, protecting coastlines and strengthening biodiversity. These projects build real resilience for people and nature, but they depend on continued investment. We need to mobilise far more capital and recognise nature as an asset class that underpins economies, supply chains and long-term stability. When funding tightens, progress slows, and the returns that healthy ecosystems provide start to erode. At the same time, I see plenty of reasons for optimism. Innovation is accelerating, and the next generation brings real possibility. Through our schools and youth programmes, I meet young people who are creative, driven and deeply committed to solving the dual crisis of climate and nature. Their energy is a reminder that meaningful change is within reach. YOU MENTION PROJECTS. DOES THE WWF ENGAGE WITH ORGANISATIONS TO DRIVE IMPACT? Absolutely. We work with organisations across sectors because sustainability is not just good for the planet, it is good for business. When companies make sustainability part of their value proposition, it changes behaviour at scale and directs capital to where it is most needed. One example is our partnership with Agoda, one of Asia’s largest online travel platforms. This is a consumer-facing collaboration that meets travellers at the moment of choice. We looked at how healthy ecosystems underpin meaningful travel, which shaped our Eco Deals initiative. Now in its fourth year, one dollar from every booking supports WWF’s conservation work, contributing to the protection of elephants in Thailand, tigers in Malaysia and efforts to reduce human–wildlife conflict. We also work upstream in supply chains, where production choices have long-term consequences. In the Central Annamites of Viet Nam, we partnered with acacia tree smallholders and IKEA to improve timber production through longer growing cycles and certification. Thousands of farmers are now part of the programme, carbon sequestration has risen by around 30 per cent, and livelihoods have become more stable. Together, these examples show how businesses can create impact from both ends of the value chain: by engaging consumers and by strengthening production systems. When commercial value aligns with environmental stewardship, everyone benefits. THIS SOUNDS ENCOURAGING. HOW DID YOU PERSONALLY BECOME INVOLVED IN THIS WORK? I began my career in communications and media, including time in the energy sector, which gave me a strong grounding in navigating complex systems, managing stakeholders and translating technical issues into clear, actionable strategies. These are core skills at WWF, where much of our work involves aligning different actors, shaping narratives around climate and nature, and moving ideas into practical implementation. As my career developed, I became increasingly interested in roles that connected business, people and long-term development, which led me into the public sector. Working on programmes for young people and the knowledge economy deepened my understanding of behaviour change and systems thinking. During Covid, I engaged more deeply with environmental issues and that is when WWF came onto my radar. If there is a common thread in my journey, it is the ability to carry transferable skills from one sector into another. Industry experience can help retool an organisation, but it only works when you pair it with a commitment to learn the technical foundations of your new field and apply them with purpose. IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT SUSTAINABILITY HAS SHAPED YOUR CAREER – THAT FIGHTING THE GOOD FIGHT, HOWEVER HARD, IS WORTH PURSUING? My career has taken me from the corporate world to the public sector and now to WWF, and along the way I have become more aware of how organisations influence the communities and environments around them. It is a reminder that shaping a better future is not confined to NGOs; it spans every industry and every organisation. Across industries, more leaders are recognising that preparing their operations and supply chains for a changing climate is essential for long-term success. This is no longer the job of one team. It affects finance, procurement, operations and strategy. For example, a CFO’s access to capital increasingly depends on how well their company manages environmental and social risks because banks and investors have their own expectations to meet. This shift is visible in sectors like hospitality too. I recently chaired a panel with the COO of Marina Bay Sands, who noted that responsible choices, even in areas like seafood sourcing, are becoming a competitive advantage. Wherever you are in your career, there is room to understand how your work connects with the world around you. When you do that, you can create value, strengthen your organisation and shape a career with real purpose. HAVE YOU PERSONALLY FOUND IT REWARDING TO WORK IN A SPACE THAT IS DEDICATED TO SUSTAINABILITY? It is deeply rewarding, but it can also be challenging. When you work in this space, you see the scale of the climate and nature crises up close. There are days when progress feels slow, but you also see real wins over time, from recovering biodiversity to improved species protection and stronger community resilience. Those moments remind you why the work matters. What keeps me inspired is the combination of individual dedication and institutional commitment. Across the region, I meet people who return to their communities to protect the landscapes and wildlife they grew up with, whether through nature-based enterprises, national park work or smart sensing systems that help farms and wildlife coexist. At the same time, I see encouraging signs from institutions. Financial regulators and banks are developing innovative financing mechanisms that support high-integrity carbon projects, restore ecosystems and de-risk investments in nature. These shifts show that systemic change is happening alongside grassroots action. When you witness that blend of passion on the ground and commitment at the institutional level, it reinforces the belief that meaningful progress is possible. There are days when progress feels slow, but you also see real wins over time, from recovering biodiversity to improved species protection and stronger community resilience. Those moments remind you why the work matters. WHAT MESSAGE WOULD YOU SHARE WITH UP-COMING LEADERS – CEMSIES, SAY – ABOUT SUSTAINABILITY? Three things. First, understand the science. Sustainability and nature conservation can be an emotional space, but good intent must be paired with a clear grasp of the facts. Understand how your decisions, tools or technologies interact with nature, even in sectors like finance or GenAI where the impacts may be less visible. The science is evolving quickly, and leaders need to know which interventions genuinely move the needle for climate and nature. At WWF, we offer learning resources and volunteering opportunities, and I would encourage young people to use them to strengthen their understanding. Secondly, look for the levers you can influence. You do not need to be in the C-suite to shape procurement choices, suggest lower-impact alternatives or surface risks and opportunities in your team. Sustainability often advances through these everyday decisions, and young leaders who recognise that can help shift organisations in practical and credible ways. And finally, recognise the people who are doing the hard work on the ground. Be encouraging, stay connected to the insights coming from frontline communities and conservation teams, and pay attention to the organisations driving credible impact. When you acknowledge their efforts and bring those perspectives into your own work or sphere of influence, you help strengthen the broader system. WHAT ABOUT ORGANISATIONS AND INCUMBENT LEADERS? ANY MESSAGES FOR BUSINESS ON FIGHTING THE GOOD FIGHT? Leaders need to build real literacy in this space. It is similar to the early days of digital transformation, when everyone discussed it but few understood what it involved. Get closer to the issues, whether that means learning about nature, understanding circularity or simply examining how your operations affect the environment. You do not need to transform everything at once. Start with one meaningful action that fits your organisation’s values. It is also important to know your footprint. Large companies are making progress, but many SMEs are not. Understanding your energy use, material flows and waste gives you a foundation for better decisions. And when you make changes, be clear about why. That clarity helps distinguish between actions that are meaningful and those that are merely fashionable. Regulation is tightening across markets. Environmental standards and climate reporting requirements are expanding and will eventually touch every sector. Businesses can move early and strengthen their competitiveness, or wait until compliance becomes unavoidable and more costly. Acting now puts organisations in a much stronger position to operate and grow in a changing global landscape. Thumbnail Design sans titre (10)_1.png
Bocconi University
The “self-steering” DisCIPL system directs small models to work together on tasks with constraints, like itinerary planning and budgeting.
MIT
Global security continued to unravel in 2025. Crucial tests are coming in 2026 Expert comment jon.wallace 12 December 2025 Alarming events in nuclear proliferation, space security and hybrid warfare meant 2025 was a year in which the international security order deteriorated. 2025 has not been a banner year for the international security order. A ceasefire in Gaza’s brutal war was achieved – though Israel and Hamas each accuse the other of violating the truce. Elsewhere, from Ukraine to Sudan, ongoing conflicts seem only more intractable. And the threat of further violence looms from Venezuela to the India–Pakistan border. In response to this growing instability, governments are spending on defence at levels not seen since the Cold War. Meanwhile international aid spending has been slashed by many Western countries – worsening conditions in conflict affected countries and degrading early warning systems. 2025 accelerated numerous developments in insecurity but four particular trends stand out.Nuclear showdowns and nuclear powerNuclear arms control continued to unravel over 2025. Expanding nuclear and conventional missile tests by major powers created serious escalation concerns. Meanwhile, China’s arsenal continued to expand, on a trajectory that could see it have at least as many ICBMs as either Russia or the USA by the end of the decade. At the same time, a series of extraordinary events undermined a fragile strategic balance.February’s Munich Security Conference speech by US Vice President JD Vance indicated the new Trump administration’s declining commitment to European defence and raised questions about the credibility of NATO’s article 5 mutual defence guarantee – a critical question in light of previous Russian nuclear threats relating to Ukraine. A 4-day crisis in May between India and Pakistan saw two nuclear-armed states in open conflict, alarming observers for its potential to escalate. Tensions remained high, particularly following terror attacks in Islamabad and New Delhi. In June, US–Israel strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities were followed by the suspension of some IAEA inspections in the country, rendering the status of Iran’s nuclear programme unclear, and deepening security concerns in the Middle East. That may have contributed to Saudi Arabia’s decision to sign a mutual defence agreement with nuclear-armed Pakistan in September. Related work Russia and the US put nuclear testing back on the table. Is time running out for arms control? In October, Russia claimed to have tested a nuclear-powered cruise missile. The same month, the US and Russia broached the possibility of renewing nuclear weapons testing, threatening to collapse a 30-year moratorium that has underpinned strategic stability. Later that month President Trump endorsed South Korea’s pursuit of nuclear-powered submarines, which caused North Korea to warn of a ‘nuclear domino’ effect, raising fears of regional nuclear proliferation. 2026 will quickly provide a critical inflection point for nuclear arms control: New START, the last arms-control agreement between the US and Russia (owners of the largest nuclear weapon stockpiles) will expire in February 2026.Failure to agree even a symbolic extension could drive an uncontrolled expansion of US and Russian nuclear arsenals – fuelling proliferation elsewhere. Hybrid warfare intensifiesHybrid attacks in Europe have increased significantly since the Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began. 2023 and 2024 saw an increase in damage to undersea infrastructure in the Baltic and North Seas. But 2025 has been characterized by an increase in drone disruption: at airports, and at other important strategic locations like military bases. Drones, crewed aircraft, and even balloons have repeatedly violated European states’ sovereign airspace along the border with Russia and Belarus, creating serious disruption. Most states do not have sufficient defensive anti-drone systems in place. The air defence systems that exist are built to counter missile or aircraft threats and are therefore not cost-effective in countering drones. This means that adversaries have been able to cause significant disruption to air travel almost unhindered.The increase in drone incidents, air space violations and physical sabotage is likely to have a big impact on European actions in 2026. European publics find them disconcerting and favour more action to protect them. There is a chance that a country might shoot down a Russian aircraft in 2026. However, European governments have been struggling to define a comprehensive strategy to respond to such attacks, given their disparate nature and the difficulty of attributing them. There is a chance that a country might shoot down a Russian aircraft in 2026 – Poland’s foreign minister warned his country may do so during a meeting at the UN in September. Such an act could be the forceful gesture Russia needs to persuade it to cease attacks – or it could risk an unprecedented escalation. Weaponized interdependenceThough certainly not new, 2025 was the year countries increasingly showcased their willingness to exploit economic linkages and supply-chain vulnerabilities as instruments of coercion and geopolitical leverage. China weaponized its hold over global rare earth supplies and processing capabilities by restricting exports – critical to almost all high-end manufacturing, including many weapon systems. Related work China’s new restrictions on rare earth exports send a stark warning to the West In September, Beijing imposed a temporary export ban on drone components, vital for Ukraine’s war effort. In October, another ban, on low-end Nexperia chip exports, threatened to ground the European car industry to a halt. The US also looked to use its economic might, exploiting allies’ overwhelming reliance on the US security umbrella, technology and market access as leverage to extract favourable trade and tariff concessions. Countries that have long relied on openness and interconnectedness in global supply chains find themselves increasingly vulnerable in this new era of geoeconomics. Many are now investing in developing their own sovereign capabilities and reducing their reliance on others – efforts which are set to become their own source of friction and tension in 2026.Space security and the return of ‘Star Wars’The US decision to stop sharing intelligence and satellite imagery with Ukraine in March 2025 provided a harsh wakeup call for many European NATO members – who also rely on the US for many space capabilities. Germany has just published its first space security strategy, drawing on lessons from Russian attacks on Ukrainian space communication systems. The Finnish armed forces significantly invested in their satellites over 2025. And space security was a significant focus in the UK’s Security and Defence Review. In November, President Macron announced €4.2 billion of funding for weapons to support European interests in space.
Chatham House
