ዘመኑ ባፈራው የቴክኖሎጂ ግብአት በመጠቀም ለህብረተሰባችን ስራ ለሁሉም በሚል ግብ የተሻለ የስራ አማራጭ፣ ለተሻለ ኑሮ፣ ለተሻለ የገበያ ትስስር ፣ ለተቀናጀ የገበያ ተደራሽነት ገዥን ከደንበኛ የማስተሳሰሪያ የቴክኖሎጂ አማራጭ ይዘን መተናል በሁሉም የስራ መስክ በሁሉም የስራ እርከን ስራ ለሚገኙ ባለሙያዎች እና ድርጅቶች የስራ አጋጣሚን መፍጠር
ዘመኑ ባፈራው የቴክኖሎጂ ግብአት በመጠቀም ለህብረተሰባችን ስራ ለሁሉም በሚል ግብ የተሻለ የስራ አማራጭ፣ ለተሻለ ኑሮ፣ ለተሻለ የገበያ ትስስር ፣ ለተቀናጀ የገበያ ተደራሽነት ገዥን ከደንበኛ የማስተሳሰሪያ የቴክኖሎጂ አማራጭ ይዘን መተናል በሁሉም የስራ መስክ በሁሉም የስራ እርከን ስራ ለሚገኙ ባለሙያዎች እና ድርጅቶች የስራ አጋጣሚን መፍጠር
ዘመኑ ባፈራው የቴክኖሎጂ ግብአት በመጠቀም ለህብረተሰባችን ስራ ለሁሉም በሚል ግብ የተሻለ የስራ አማራጭ፣ ለተሻለ ኑሮ፣ ለተሻለ የገበያ ትስስር ፣ ለተቀናጀ የገበያ ተደራሽነት ገዥን ከደንበኛ የማስተሳሰሪያ የቴክኖሎጂ አማራጭ ይዘን መተናል በሁሉም የስራ መስክ በሁሉም የስራ እርከን ስራ ለሚገኙ ባለሙያዎች እና ድርጅቶች የስራ አጋጣሚን መፍጠር
.jpg)
ዘመኑ ባፈራው የቴክኖሎጂ ግብአት በመጠቀም ለህብረተሰባችን ስራ ለሁሉም በሚል ግብ የተሻለ የስራ አማራጭ፣ ለተሻለ ኑሮ፣ ለተሻለ የገበያ ትስስር ፣ ለተቀናጀ የገበያ ተደራሽነት ገዥን ከደንበኛ የማስተሳሰሪያ የቴክኖሎጂ አማራጭ ይዘን መተናል በሁሉም የስራ መስክ በሁሉም የስራ እርከን ስራ ለሚገኙ ባለሙያዎች እና ድርጅቶች የስራ አጋጣሚን መፍጠር
E-Commerce
Hotel Booking
Rent
Item Tenders
Service Tenders
Bids
Job Vacancy
Freelancing Job
Service Booking
Entertainment
Search
0.jpg)
👁 :1
1.The Power of Honesty: The first step towards personal growth is to be honest with oneself.
2.The Importance of Taking Responsibility: Taking responsibility for your actions and choices is essential for personal growth
3.The Need for Self-Discipline: Self-discipline is the key to achieving your goals. By developing self-control, you can overcome procrastination, resist temptations, and stay focused on your priorities
4.The Role of Mindset: Your mindset plays a crucial role in your success. Cultivate a positive and growth-oriented mindset to overcome obstacles and achieve your goals.
5.The Value of Hard Work: Success requires hard work, dedication, and perseverance.
6.The Importance of Continuous Learning: Never stop learning and growing.
7.The Power of Gratitude: Practicing gratitude can shift your focus from negativity to positivity
8.The Importance of Taking Action
0.jpg)
👁 :
Vision without action is merely a dream. Action without vision just passes the time. Vision with action can change the world. — Joel Arthur Barker
✍️✍️✍️✍️✍️
Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centres of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance. — Robert Kennedy
0.jpg)
👁 :1
A person who does not know his own worth defines his worth by the value others give him.
A person who does not know his worth, when people tell him that he is weak, he lives a weak life by accepting that he is right because he does not know his worth and yes I am weak.
But a man who knows his worth, if someone comes and says to him, 'You are weak; I reply, now that you can think now that you think of yourself with it, you think of me! ..I reply that my mind thinks, and my mind believes that I have value..These words you just said describe me!
Believe first that your value is higher than they think you are now!
A man who does not know his worth travels in a stranger's plan, in a man-made path; because he considers himself unable to invent and create a way for planning; he cannot change the situation on his own! Life, on the other hand, shines its face on those who know their own worth. You will not give a seat to those who put their own status in the mist! But to those who fight for life to deserve a better place, she gives her hands full! Know your worth, because no one is closer to knowing you than you are!
Don't give people a chance to define your value like a market cap!
Be yourself and live your value class; write a strong story with your fingers! Do the work that speaks; shape the work that reads in the year! Think of yourself as something you can think of and do!
Ignorance of self-worth makes us think that the door can never be opened! The unrotten seed makes us look like a maseena, and when you look at the unrotten seed with a maseena view, you see your race as maseena....Again...You carry wealth in you, you carry great goals in you, you carry great wisdom in you ...Don't live without a way...Know your worth....That will testify to you that you were born to carry an unbroken seed
👁 :
A woman who attended a 2017 party with Matt Gaetz - Donald Trump's nominee to be the next US Attorney General - has testified that she saw the then-congressman having sex with a minor.
The Friday revelation by her attorney comes amid newfound interest in the findings of a congressional ethics panel's long-running probe of the Florida lawmaker.
Gaetz's selection as America's next top law enforcement officer and his sudden resignation from Congress - putting him out of reach of the probe - have roiled Washington with bipartisan concern that risks derailing his nomination.
He has denied any wrongdoing and called the investigation into him a "smear campaign". The Justice Department - which Gaetz would lead in the post - investigated the claim but ultimately did not file any criminal charges against him.What are the allegations?
Gaetz, 42, represented Florida's first congressional district in the US House of Representatives from 2017 until his resignation on Thursday.
A fierce Trump defender, he has long upset Democrats but also many Republicans with his bombastic public conduct and alleged hard-partying lifestyle.
On and off since 2021, the secretive House Ethics Committee has investigated Gaetz over various allegations, including a claim that he had sex with an underage girl, used illicit drugs, accepted bribes, misused campaign funds and shared inappropriate images on the House floor.
The Floridian has repeatedly and vehemently denied wrongdoing, casting the probe as an attempt to smear his name by powerful enemies he has made in politics.
He has also raised in his defence the fact that the Justice Department ended a separate three-year federal sex-trafficking investigation last year by deciding not to bring charges against him.
"Lies were Weaponized to try to destroy me," Gaetz posted on X on Friday.
"These lies resulted in prosecution, conviction, and prison. For the liars, not me."
Joel Greenberg, Gaetz's one-time friend, was the lone person charged in the Justice Department sex trafficking's investigation. He cooperated with investigators and reportedly told prosecutors information about multiple others, including Gaetz.
Greenberg is currently serving an 11-year prison sentence after agreeing to plead guilty to multiple federal charges, including under-age sex trafficking, wire fraud, stalking, identity theft, producing a fake ID card, and conspiring to defraud the US government.Is there a case against Gaetz?
As part of his cooperation with federal prosecutors, Greenberg - a local tax collector in the Orlando, Florida area - admitted he had repeatedly paid young women to attend parties with him and his friends, where they used drugs and had sex.
At least one of the girls he paid for sex was 17 years old at the time - and Greenberg alleged that Gaetz had also had sex with her - a claim federal authorities investigated but were unable to verify.
No charges were filed against Gaetz, who has fiercely denied these allegations, and the probe was later closed.
But now, the explosive claim sits at the core of the House ethics probe and is endangering his nomination.
The committee inquiry had been paused to allow the Justice Department to do its work. Gaetz claimed it was only revived because then-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy considered him a nagging thorn in the side of Republican leadership.
Last year, Gaetz spearheaded an unprecedented internal revolt to oust McCarthy from the speakership - the top job in the US House of Representatives. The California Republican, who resigned from Congress less than three months later, has claimed Gaetz only wanted him removed because of the ethics investigation.
Gaetz's nomination as Attorney General this past Thursday was followed hours later with his resignation from the House.
His resignation halted the release - which was reportedly planned just days later - of the ethics probe's findings. His departure from Congress means he is no longer under congressional jurisdiction.
An attorney who represents the then-minor has called for the report's release, saying that she had testified to the committee that she had sex with Gaetz while "she was a high school student, and there were witnesses".
Will it affect Gaetz's chances of confirmation?
Sitting House Speaker Mike Johnson argued against the report's release in a Sunday appearance on Fox News, saying it could "open Pandora's box" if the panel started issuing reports into those who are not members of the body.
"We don't issue investigations and ethics reports on people who are not members of Congress," he said. "I think this would be a breach of protocol that could be dangerous for us going forward in the future."
He also told reporters that he would "strongly request" the report isn't made public because the rules outline that "a former member is beyond the jurisdiction of the ethics committee".
Members of the committee planned to meet behind closed doors on Friday and hold a vote on whether to release the report.
But the meeting never happened, with Chairman Michael Guest saying it was postponed and would be re-scheduled. Guest has previously indicated he is inclined to "maintain [the] confidentiality" of the panel's work.Public pressure is, however, mounting and even some Senate Republicans, who will be tasked with vetting his nomination and voting on whether to confirm him to the attorney general post, have indicated they would like to see the report.
Also on Friday, Joel Leppard - an attorney who represents two women who have testified in the ethics probe - said one of his clients said she had witnessed Gaetz having sex with the then-17-year-old.
"What if sworn testimony detailed conduct that would disqualify anyone from serving as our nation’s chief law enforcement officer?" he said in a statement.
"Democracy demands transparency. Release the Gaetz Ethics report.
👁 :1
One day a journalist interviews the World's Richest Man, Bill Gate. The journalist asked, "What is the secret of your success?" She asks him.
The rich man gives the journalist a blank check and tells her, "Write as much money as you want. She pushes the check away like a reluctant person and says, "No, I didn't mean that, I wanted to ask you what the secret of your success is.
Bill Gate hands him the check again and tells him, "Write as much money as you want. But she refused. The richest man in the world showed him the check and said, "The secret of my success is that I took advantage of this opportunity without burning it. The secret of my success is that I took advantage of every opportunity I have.
If you had taken advantage of this opportunity, you could have become the world's leading journalist right now. I gave you two chances. This world doesn't give you two opportunities; taking advantage of the only opportunity is the secret of success
Bill Gate gave the journalist two chances but she didn’t take advantage of them. If she had used it, she would have become the richest woman in the world, as he said.
Positive mind find opportunity in everything. While negative mind find fault in everything
👁 :136
Tim Berners-Lee (born June 8, 1955, London, England) is a British computer scientist, generally credited as the inventor of the World Wide Web. In 2004, he was awarded a knighthood by Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and the inaugural Millennium Technology Prize (€1 million) by the Finnish Technology Award Foundation.
Computing came naturally to Berners-Lee, as both of his parents worked on the Ferranti Mark I, the first commercial computer. (See computer: The first stored-program machines.) After graduating in 1976 from the University of Oxford, Berners-Lee designed computer software for two years at Plessey Telecommunications Ltd., located in Poole, Dorset, England. Following this, he had several positions in the computer industry, including a stint from June to December 1980 as a software engineering consultant at CERN, the European particle physics laboratory in Geneva.
In 2001 Berners-Lee became a Fellow of the Royal Society. He has been the recipient of several international awards. In 2004 he was knighted by H.M. Queen Elizabeth, and in 2007 he was awarded the Order of Merit.
0.jpg)
👁 :
As countries negotiate a new global goal to raise climate cash, these five charts show why discussions are so fraught.
A hundred billion dollars. It's a staggering amount of money, although there are in fact now 16 individuals with personal assets worth more than this amount. But at the ongoing UN climate talks it's also a highly loaded figure, especially for countries on the frontlines of climate change.
It's the threshold amount that, back during turbulent negotiations in 2009, rich countries promised to "mobilise" each year by 2020 to help the billions of people in developing countries transition to a greener economy and cope with the impacts of climate change.
This may sound like a lot, but it is already considered too little. The new number that's being floated by many developing countries: at least a trillion.
Climate negotiators at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, are discussing the details of how much money rich countries should provide to poor countries to help them mitigate emissions and cope with climate impacts. What they haven't decided yet is how much it will be – or many of the other details, such as who will contribute what and is the target date to deliver the money. A huge range of options have been put forward by different groups and countries.
The question is ultimately one of justice, those countries say. Richer nations have, after all, historically caused the lion's share of climate change. Poorer nations not only have less means to make costly climate adaptations, but the problem of climate change was also largely not of their making. (Read more about the world's fight for climate justice).
Climate finance is "not charity", Ani Dasgupta, president of the World Resources Institute, a non-profit based in Washington DC, told a press briefing ahead of COP29. It is needed for the world to be "in a better place," he said, adding: "Developing countries cannot meet their transition goals if there is no finance."
As talks continue in Baku, here are five key charts to help put the fraught discussions into context – and show what is really at stake.
What's been paid so far?
Money is a tough topic that has caused a lot of tension at climate talks for decades now, even as climate costs around the world continue to rise.
Rich countries failed to meet their promised 2020 deadline for the $100bn goal, only reaching the yearly goal for the first time two years later in 2022, as the chart below using figures from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) shows. These countries have also been criticised for how they are delivering the money: for example, they are primarily providing money in the form of low-interest loans, that have be repaid, rather than grants, which don't. Countries have also reclassified existing development aid rather than contributing fresh funding, according to a report by the climate news site Carbon Brief. Analysis by other organisations and researchers say the amount transferred is actually far lower than the OECD figures, meaning the $100bn goal still hasn't been met.
Speaking at COP29, UN climate chief Antonio Guterres said "now more than ever" finance promises must be kept. "Developing countries eager to act [on climate change] are facing many obstacles: scant public finance; raging cost of capital; crushing climate disasters; and debt servicing that soaks up funds," he said. "We need a new finance goal that meets the moment."
If the new climate finance goal fails, we will all feel the impact, says Charlene Watson, senior research associate at Overseas Development Institute (ODI), a global think tank based in London, UK. "It [would be] a global failure. We are all not reaching the global 1.5C target." (Read more about why 1.5C is a critical threshold for the climate).
Why do we need a new finance goal?
The focus on climate finance is coming now because back in 2015, countries at the COP21 talks in Paris agreed to set a new collective goal for it before 2025.
The $100bn goal, which was announced 15 years ago at a previous conference, COP15, is "now clearly out of sync with the total needs" of developing countries, says Joe Thwaites, senior advocate in international climate finance at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a US non-profit.
More like this:
• The people cracking the world's toughest climate words
• Five nature wins that have actually worked
• A famous climate graphic is running out of red
The only conditions fully agreed so far for the new goal are that it will be "from a floor of $100bn per year" and "take into account the needs and priorities of developing countries".
The original $100bn goal, in contrast, was a political number, says Watson. "It wasn't a number that was based on developing country needs. The [new goal] is supposed to be based on those needs. And those needs are just tremendous."
What's actually needed?
It's hard to say exactly what reducing emissions and coping with climate impacts has already cost developing countries or will cost in the future. This has led to huge range of estimates of the money that is needed via the new goal.
Scientific understanding of these needs has come on "leaps and bounds" in recent years but is still challenging, "particularly as we've got so many moving pieces", says Thwaites. "The cost of [green] technology is going down in many cases, but on the other hand, climate impacts are increasing far faster than we were necessarily expecting. So it's very complicated to model these things out."
The chart below shows the large range in estimates of annual climate finance needs in developing countries by 2030. Even though estimates of what's needed are "not perfect", adds Thwaites, "they do show that total needs are in the trillions of dollars per year".
One key estimate of needs comes from research by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) of developing countries' national climate plans. It found that, in total, these countries have said they need $502bn (£394bn) specifically from developed countries each year until 2030. Their total financial needs, however, amounted to more than 10 times this value at $5.8-5.9tn (£4.5-4.6tn), and it's not clear where the most of the remaining money would come from. Many countries also didn't account for all the costs of climate change, such as the irreversible losses and damages caused by climate-related disasters, which is not covered by the $100bn goal but developing countries are calling for the new goal to include.
These values may also change when countries update their national climate plans by early 2025. On the other hand, a stronger new climate finance goal at COP29 could lead to stronger national climate plans from poorer countries.
Ahead of the current talks, some developing countries and groups of developing countries put "very big numbers on the table", says Watson. "They want the goal to look like a trillion [dollars per year]," she says. "Developed countries haven't yet officially put a quantum on the table, so we don't know how much bigger than $100bn it's going to be."
An expert group of economists established by the COP26 and COP27 presidencies has similarly recommended that rich countries spend $1tn (£785bn) annually by 2030 on climate and nature investments in developing countries, out of $2.4tn (£1.88tn) in total needs in these countries.
But this calculation does not take into account China's financial needs. China is considered to be a developing country in the UN climate process, this makes the economists' calculation "a difficult number to try and use in a [final COP] decision", says Thwaites.
How $100bn compares to fossil fuel earnings
It's often pointed out that $100bn is a drop in the ocean compared with the money flowing through financial markets around the world.
Notably, revenues in the oil and gas industry have averaged close to $3.5tn (£2.75tn) per year since 2018.
Oil and gas earnings soared from 2022 due to the surging price of oil and gas following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. In 2023, the world's largest five fossil fuel companies paid their shareholders $111bn (£87.4bn), according to analysis by Global Witness, a non-profit with offices in London and Washington DC. BP and Shell both reported their second highest annual profit in a decade in 2023, a total of $13.8bn (£11bn) and $28.2bn (£22.3bn) respectively.
Fossil fuel companies' revenues, combined with soaring coal, oil and gas emissions, have led some groups to suggest sourcing climate finance directly from the fossil fuel sector.
One proposal, backed by several climate vulnerable nations and a range of non-profits, is for polluters to pay an international tax on fossil fuel extraction, which they say would also encourage the phase out of fossil fuels. An analysis by campaign group Stamp Out Poverty found this "climate damages tax" could raise $720bn (£565bn) by 2030 to help the world's poorest countries with climate damages.
Another proposal is to tax the windfall profits of fossil fuel companies that benefit from high energy prices.
However, fossil fuel taxes could only fund climate losses and damages temporarily as governments have agreed to transition away from coal, oil and gas. (Read more about what the world would look like if polluters footed the climate bill.)
Other suggestions for raising climate cash include a G20 wealth tax, a shipping emissions tax or even a frequent flier levy.
How the $100bn compares to climate damage
Climate change is already causing huge financial losses around the world. One 2023 paper found that the global costs of extreme weather attributable to climate change was an average of $143bn (£113bn) per year between 2000 and 2019. (Read more about how climate change is rewriting the rules of extreme storms).
Developing countries are often especially hard hit. While overall financial losses tend to be greater in richer countries, poorer countries see higher shares of GDP loss. These countries also suffer the most in terms of lives lost and disrupted.
Such losses are only set to get worse. A 2018 paper found that the loss and damage due to climate change in developing countries will reach $290-580bn (£228-456bn)¬¬ in 2005 money by 2030, equivalent to $468-936bn (£368-737bn) today. These damages could more than triple by 2050, it found.
Damage to farming, infrastructure, productivity and health around the world will cost $38tn (£30bn) per year by 2050, according to analysis by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. Climate change has already committed the world economy to an income reduction of 19% up to 2050, the researchers concluded. What is polluters' fair share?
One of the biggest debates over the last few years has been who is going to contribute to the new fund, says Watson. The previous $100bn goal was agreed to by 23 developed countries and the EU, and notably didn't include China, now the world's largest polluter.
Many developed countries think some of the increasingly wealthy developing nations should be contributing to the new finance goal. "[They] want to see very specific provisions for who needs to contribute," says Watson. It's worth noting that many developing countries, including China, already provide some international climate finance, but that this is currently not counted towards the climate finance goal.
There is mounting frustration among developing countries that the world's biggest emitters have not paid their fair share of climate finance to date. ODI has estimated countries' fair share, based on their historical responsibility for cumulative emissions, GDP and population.
Big emitters' failure to pay their fair share has led to "a lot of anger and frustration and a lack of trust and confidence", says Sarah Colenbrander, director of the climate and sustainability programme at ODI. The US, for example, paid just $14bn (£11bn) in climate finance in 2022, less than a third of its fair share of $45bn (£36bn). In 2021, the country provided $9bn (£7bn) of its $44bn (£35bn) fair share, according to ODI analysis.
"America just repeatedly fails to deliver," says Watson. Climate experts also now see a Trump presidency as a major setback for global climate action and a huge roadblock to raising critical funds for climate vulnerable countries.
Even without US leadership, though, debates on finance will continue to be a huge focus in Baku and future climate talks.
"In the future, all COPs will be about finance," says Dasgupta. "That is where we need to come to an agreement and where the question of justice looms largest."
Source : https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20241115-five-charts-explaining-a-trillion-dollar-climate-problem
👁 :
President Biden’s decision to allow Ukraine to strike inside Russia with long-range missiles supplied by the US has sparked a furious response in Russia.
"Departing US president Joe Biden… has taken one of the most provocative, uncalculated decisions of his administration, which risks catastrophic consequences," declared the website of the Russian government newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta on Monday morning.
Russian MP Leonid Slutsky, head of the pro-Kremlin Liberal-Democratic Party, predicted that the decision would "inevitably lead to a serious escalation, threatening serious consequences".
Russian senator Vladimir Dzhabarov called it "an unprecedented step towards World War Three".Anger, yes. But no real surprise.
Komsomolskaya Pravda, the pro-Kremlin tabloid, called it "a predictable escalation".
What really counts, though, is what Vladimir Putin calls it and how the Kremlin leader responds.
So far he’s stayed silent.
But on Monday President Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov told journalists that “if such a decision has been taken it means a whole new spiral of tension and a whole new situation with regard to US involvement in this conflict".
Mr Peskov accused the Biden administration of “adding fuel to the fire and continuing to stoke tension around this conflict".
Follow live: Biden allows Ukraine to strike inside Russia with US missiles
Western leaders would argue that it’s Russia that is ‘adding the fuel’ by recently deploying North Korean troops to the war zone to fight alongside Russian forces and by continuing to attack Ukraine.
President Putin himself may have yet to comment. But Russia’s president has said plenty before.
In recent months, the Kremlin has made its message to the West crystal clear: do not do this, do not remove restrictions on the use of your long-range weapons, do not allow Kyiv to strike deep into Russian territory with these missiles.
In September President Putin warned that if this were allowed to happen, Moscow would view it as the "direct participation" of Nato countries in the Ukraine war.
"This would mean that Nato countries… are fighting with Russia," he continued.
The following month, the Kremlin leader announced imminent changes to the Russian nuclear doctrine, the document setting out the preconditions under which Moscow might decide to use a nuclear weapon.
This was widely interpreted as another less-than-subtle hint to America and Europe not to allow Ukraine to strike Russian territory with long-range missiles.
Guessing Vladimir Putin’s next moves is never easy.
But he has dropped hints.
Back in June, at a meeting with the heads of international news agencies, Putin was asked: how would Russia react if Ukraine was given the opportunity to hit targets on Russian territory with weapons supplied by Europe?
"First, we will, of course, improve our air defence systems. We will be destroying their missiles," President Putin replied.
"Second, we believe that if someone is thinking it is possible to supply such weapons to a war zone to strike our territory and create problems for us, why can’t we supply our weapons of the same class to those regions around the world where they will target sensitive facilities of the countries that are doing this to Russia?"
In other words, arming Western adversaries to strike Western targets abroad is something Moscow has been considering.In my recent interview with Alexander Lukashenko, the leader of Belarus, Putin's close ally seemed to confirm the Kremlin has been thinking along these lines.
Mr Lukashenko told me he had discussed the subject at a recent meeting with Western officials.
"I warned them. 'Guys, be careful with those long-range missiles,'" Mr Lukashenko told me.
"The Houthi [rebels] might come to Putin and ask for coastal weapons systems that can carry out terrifying strikes on ships.
"And if he gets his revenge on you for supplying long-range weapons to [President] Zelensky by supplying the Houthis with the Bastion missile system? What happens if an aircraft carrier is hit? A British or American one. What then?"
How long-range missiles striking Russia could affect Ukraine war
But some of the media reaction in Russia appeared designed to play things down.
"The Russian armed forces had already [previously] intercepted ATACMS missiles during attacks on the Crimean shore," a military expert told the Izvestia newspaper, which went on to suggest that President-elect Trump might "revise" the decision.
This is, to put it mildly, an unusual situation.
In two months’ time, President Biden will be out of office and Donald Trump will be in the White House.
The Kremlin knows that President-elect Trump has been far more sceptical than President Biden about military assistance for Ukraine.
Will that be a factor in Vladimir Putin’s calculations as he formulates Russia’s response?
