Tuesday, January 07, 2025

Elon Musk Cusses Out Student Who Called Him a Fake News Machine




Leigh Kimmins
Mon, January 6, 2025 

Elon Musk launched into a foul-mouthed X tirade directed at a student who called him out for allegedly spreading disinformation.

“Elon Musk is rapidly becoming the largest spreader of disinformation in human history, hijacking political debates in the process,” wrote Joni Askola, a Finnish graduate student and activist for defense of Ukraine. “The EU must take action!”

“F u retard,” came Musk’s response, containing a slur used against people who have mental disabilities. He then replied saying “yes” to another person who said: “We could have avoided a lot of disasters by simply telling leftist retards to stfu.”

Musk appears to have made a conscious choice to reintroduce the word into right-wing parlance of late, often using it on his X platform.

An analysis of his X posts and replies shows that he has used the term or a variant of it 15 times since Dec. 20, having never used it before that.

This is despite his Dec. 29 plea for more “positivity” on the platform. “Please post a bit more positive, beautiful or informative content on this platform,” he said.

That post came just days after he used his new favorite slur against Americans during a wild meltdown over H-1B visas.

In a weird few days for the DOGE co-star, he agreed with a post that used the slur to say Americans could not exclusively fill the U.S. tech workforce and urged detractors to “take a big step back and F--- YOURSELF in the face.”


Musk has been using the slur a lot. / Reuters/Brian Snyder

The word is also a favorite of right-wing mouthpiece Laura Loomer, despite her current spat with Musk. She has used it five times since May, most notably against musician Macklemore after he signaled support for Palestine.

Musk does sometimes spread fake news on his own platform, most notably in August last year when he shared a fake Telegraph article claiming his new foe British Prime Minister Keir Starmer was considering sending far-right rioters to “emergency detainment camps” in the Falklands, an island off Argentina controlled by the U.K.

France 24 described him as a disinformation “super-spreader.” The site reported that in the first three weeks of October alone, the billionaire published at least 28 fake news stories on his X account, which were seen nearly 540 million times.

But perhaps Musk is just stressed that his best friend Donald Trump is reportedly tiring of him. “Trump does complain a bit to people about how Musk is around a lot,” New York Times journalist and “Trump whisperer” Maggie Haberman told tech reporter Kara Swisher during the latest episode of Swisher’s podcast, On.
Analysis: Barrage of media lawsuits shows Donald Trump is no supporter of free speech

Bobby Harrison
Sun, January 5, 2025

Many self-professed free speech proponents are noticeably quiet as Trump works to curtail freedom of speech to a degree that perhaps has never been seen in this country.


For many there is no more cherished right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution than the freedom of speech and, of course, its accompanying freedom of the press.

During the November election cycle, various people like billionaire Elon Musk and podcaster Joe Rogan spoke of the importance of free speech. Both cited part of their reasoning for supporting Donald Trump was his commitment to free speech.

Those and many other self-professed free speech proponents are noticeably quiet as Trump works to curtail freedom of speech to a degree that perhaps has never been seen in this country.

Trump, as part of a broad legal attack on the American press, is suing the Des Moines Register because the newspaper published a poll showing he was trailing Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris a few days before the November election. The president-elect also is suing longtime pollster Ann Selzer, whose poll the newspaper published. Granted, the Selzer poll of Iowa voters was way off, but because a poll is wrong has never been viewed as a reason to sue a news outlet that chooses to run it.

And ABC, one of the nation’s legacy broadcast networks, has already settled with Trump another lawsuit that many believe the network eventually would have won.

Historians and journalism advocates view Trump’s Des Moines Register lawsuit, ABC lawsuit and others as an effort to curtail press freedom. The lawsuits, they argue, create a fear of reporting on powerful people with deep pockets, and they force news outlets to expend large sums of money to defend lawsuits that have in many cases been viewed as frivolous.

A deeper expressed fear is that the Trump lawsuits are designed to convince a U.S. Supreme Court loaded with Trump sympathizers to curtail the press freedoms that this country has long enjoyed.

It is important to remember that at one time in the nation’s history, newspapers were largely extensions of the political parties and particular politicians — something that is no longer the case for most mainstream or legacy media outlets.

The late James Baughman, the late mass communications historian at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said in a 2011 Center for Journalism Ethics speech, “Papers in opposition to Andrew Jackson in 1828 attacked him for marrying a woman before her divorce had been finalized. He was the violator of marital virtue, a seducer. Jackson, one paper declared, ‘tore from a husband the wife of his bosom.’ Pro-Jackson newspapers insisted on the general’s innocence and accused his critics of violating his privacy. There was no objective, middle ground.”

Baughman pointed out that in 1884, the Los Angeles Times did not like that Democrat Grover Cleveland had won the presidency, so the paper “simply failed to report this unhappy result for several days.”

The history of American media, however, may mean little to Trump. He is suing the Pulitzer Prize committee for reaffirming the coveted award to The New York Times and Washington Post for their reporting of Trump’s campaign ties with Russia during the 2016 campaign. He is also suing CBS and its news show 60 Minutes for how an interview with Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris was edited.

There are, of course, countless examples of Fox News and other Trump-friendly television networks editing clips of interviews or news segments in ways that could be seen as favorable to Trump. Fox has said simply the edits were made for the sake of brevity. Advocates of press freedom would argue the practice is Fox’s guaranteed legal right, though they may disagree with the conservative outlets’ decisions in terms of journalism ethics.

Fox did pay a record $787 million to Dominion, a voting machine manufacturer, because of allegations aired on the network that their machines changed votes to favor Joe Biden in the 2020 election. The lawsuit was based on financial harm incurred by Dominion as a result of the false reports.

Many of those allegations were made not by Fox employees, but by Trump supporters who were network guests. Emails obtained during the lawsuit reveal that the Fox staff did not believe the unfounded allegations but repeatedly allowed the Trump allies to make them.

The so-called legacy media, including Fox in this instance, have long been legally responsible for what other people say on their news outlets. A newspaper, for instance, can be held liable for making false claims about a person in a letter to the editor it publishes.

Free speech, of course, does not mean people or news outlets cannot face consequences for what they say. A company could choose to fire an employee for offensive speech, and outlets are certainly not obligated to publish what they view as offensive or false claims.

But this latest barrage of lawsuits from Trump, that so-called advocate of free speech, have many experts questioning how far the long-held American free speech principles could be stretched.

This analysis was produced by Mississippi Today, a nonprofit news organization that covers state government, public policy, politics and culture. Bobby Harrison is Mississippi Today’s senior Capitol reporter.

'Befana' Witch Lowered into Rome Square as Part of Holiday Celebration




A festive spirit permeated Piazza Navona in Rome, on Monday, January 6, as firefighters helped lower a “Befana”, or old witch, down from a building so she could join the celebrations for an Italian national holiday and bring sweets to kids.

In Italian folkore, the Befana is an old witch who arrives before January 6 to deliver gifts to children on her broom.

Footage released by Vigili del Fuoco shows a person wearing a Befana mask being lowered down onto Piazza Navona with the firefighters’ ladder, much to the joy of children present. Credit: Vigili del Fuoco via Storyful

Video transcript

Eh?

S, s. Mhm.

Vai!

Eccola, la Befana!

China Is Ready to Take Advantage of Trump Trashing Clean Energy

CUTTING NOSE TO SPITE FACE

Thor Benson
ROLLING STONE
Sun 5 January 2025 

President-elect Donald Trump may only have four years in power ahead of him — assuming American democracy holds — but these four years could prove critical in the fight against climate change. With the U.S. poised to not only withdraw from the climate fight but likely become a detrimental force in that effort, the rest of the world is sorting out how to soldier on without a major ally.

Trump has assured fossil fuel companies he’ll basically do whatever they want and promised publicly to become a “dictator” on his first day in office so he can “drill, drill, drill.” He has bashed the electric vehicle industry, seems convinced that wind turbines are the root of all evil, and has repeatedly called climate change a “hoax.” He seems to have no interest in being part of the international coalition that’s trying to combat the crisis and is expected to once again pull the United States out of the Paris climate agreement meant to prevent the global average temperature from rising 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

Under President Joe Biden, the U.S. made significant progress in the fight against climate change, and a substantial amount of what was started in his administration will likely continue on. But Trump will reverse the climate policies he can and prolong America’s reliance on fossil fuels. The European Union, China, and other major players in the climate fight have been paying close attention to what’s happening in American politics, as they always do, and they’re prepared to continue their climate efforts regardless of what the U.S. is doing.

“They’re probably thinking, ‘Oh god. Not again,’” says Sikina Jinnah, a professor of environmental studies and associate director of the Center for Reimagining Leadership at the University of California, Santa Cruz. “[Trump’s win] signals to not only Europe but the rest of the world that we’re an unreliable partner in multilateral negotiations — not only in the climate context but much more broadly.”

EU Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra has said he still wants to see if he can work with Trump on certain climate issues, but the U.S. will likely recede from the global climate fight. Some officials from the EU have suggested other countries may fill that vacuum and become leaders in the renewable energy industry.

“I think there is a sense that Europe is going to do its own thing if the U.S. is not willing to cooperate,” says António Valentim, an assistant professor in European politics and policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science. “I think the U.S. is very likely to be seen as less of a leader, especially in climate issues, but also with other topics.”

Europe may become a less powerful actor on the world stage when it comes to climate issues without a powerful ally like the U.S., Valentim says, but the U.S. withdrawing from the climate fight could make some European nations more adamant about being proactive in addressing climate change and embracing renewable energy.

“I think that industrialized nations — that is, OECD countries minus the U.S. — will only continue their climate efforts to the extent that the renewable energy transition is now in the making and that in many places electrifying various parts of the economy will be cost efficient and security enhancing,” Federica Genovese, a professor of political science and international relations at the University of Oxford, tells Rolling Stone. “Now, I don’t think this is a pattern that will universally manifest across OECD countries. Some of them—like Australia, Canada—have large, aka relatively cheap, fossil fuel resources.”

Genovese says EU officials in Brussels are probably “not banking on U.S. climate leadership in the next four years,” but real action may also be a point of contention in Europe. The European Parliament itself has moved to the right in recent years, which could mean some climate efforts could start to stall at home.

Meanwhile, China, currently the world’s largest carbon emitter, has been making massive strides in the adoption of renewable energy. Whatever the U.S. decides to do regarding energy policy will have little effect on that, and China may take advantage of America’s inconsistency to become even more dominant in the global renewable energy marketplace.

“China is positioned to sort of take over as the global leader in climate politics,” Jinnah says. “China has emerged as the global leader in renewables, in electric vehicles. Over the last several years, they’ve taken a leadership role among countries in the Global South that it seems that they have a really strong identity politic with.”

China has become a major investor in renewable energy projects throughout Africa and other parts of the Global South. The country already produces 80 percent of the world’s solar panels, and it controls 60 percent of the world’s wind turbine production capacity. If the U.S. becomes less competitive in the renewable energy industry, it will likely benefit China the most.

The world doesn’t have an infinite amount of time to win the fight against climate change, and each year that is not used to its utmost potential increases the likelihood that humanity will face worse and worse effects of climate change.

Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University, says that avoiding 2 degrees Celsius of warming is starting to look “pretty slim” at this point. He says humans find themselves approaching “more and more dangerous terrain.”

“These four-year intervals — where we switch from one attitude about climate to another — make it more and more likely that we’ll end up stabilizing the climate at a higher temperature,” Oppenheimer says. “I get very worried that there’s a real threat that we’ll exceed 2.5 degrees. When you get up to 3 degrees, that’s really bad. We have better do everything we can to make sure that we don’t exceed 2 degrees.”

Oppenheimer notes that when the world reaches 2 degrees of warming and beyond, countries could regularly face multiple extreme weather events simultaneously, such as a terrible heat wave while a hurricane or a massive wildfire is bearing down on the populace.

States, the private sector, and other entities will be able to continue their work in helping to fight climate change while the federal government is refusing to do so, but such a large problem is best addressed by large measures, not a patchwork of smaller projects. Trump won’t be able to stop the growth of the clean energy sector, but he may be able to slow it at a time when what’s needed is an urgent sprint away from the use of fossil fuels.

Instead, Trump is fully embracing the fossil fuel industry, effectively abdicating America’s role as a leader in the global fight against the climate crisis. Perhaps the U.S. will soon see growth in a new industry that has not yet been pondered by most: the dystopian bunker industry. Happy investing.
Why Trump’s push for peace in Ukraine could spell the end of NATO

Simon Heffer
Sat, January 4, 2025 
THE TELEGRAPH


Zelensky, Trump and Putin


In May 2023 at a CNN Town Hall meeting, Donald Trump, already well advanced in his campaign to become president of the United States again, said: “They’re dying, Russians and Ukrainians. I want to stop them dying. And I’ll have that done – I’ll have that done in 24 hours.”

He has repeated the claim often, saying it would be contingent on his sitting down with Vladimir Putin, the Russian aggressor, and Volodymyr Zelensky, the president of Ukraine. He also claimed that had he been president, and not Joe Biden, Putin would never have dared invade as he did in February 2022.

Notably, since he won the US election convincingly on Nov 5, the president-elect has offered no more detail on what the world can expect from his promised peace initiative.

There has been much talk from the two combatants, however. The Russians have repeatedly indicated that they are happy for talks, though very much on their terms – such as holding them in Slovakia, a rare EU country that, because of its dependence on Russian gas, continues to fawn on Putin and is regarded, as a consequence, as unreliable.
ADVERTISEMENT


President Zelensky has indicated his belief that the only way Russian troops will be removed from the one-fifth of Ukrainian sovereign territory that they now occupy will be through diplomatic, and not military means. Ukraine continues to lose small amounts of territory to the invader, at an enormous cost in lives to Russia.

Lest that imply Russia is having a walkover in Ukraine, one must remember that its attempt to conquer the country started almost three years ago, and it is now relying heavily on North Korean cannon fodder for its meagre gains.

If Russia were the formidable military force it purports to be, and had inexhaustible manpower, the conflict would have ended soon after it began, and legions of mercenaries would have been unnecessary.

But the war is now in its 35th month; and even though territory has been lost, Ukraine has put up an astonishing fight. It is no surprise though, that it would like to end things.



An American estimate last October suggested that 57,500 Ukrainians had been killed and another 250,000 wounded since the war started, a gruesome rate of attrition and one now thought to be an underestimate.
ADVERTISEMENT


The BBC estimates that between 150,000 and 200,000 Russians have been killed and up to another 600,000 wounded.

We await details of Trump’s initiative to bring this horror to an end; unless, of course, it is delayed by reservations expressed to him and his team by some Nato allies. In particular, they could raise fears over how a settlement seen to favour the Russians would impact international relations, effectively rewarding Putin for his aggression.

Putin’s 25 years in power suggest that whenever he is allowed to get away with any outrage, he then seeks to push boundaries (literally and metaphorically) even further.

His apparent desire to re-conquer parts of the old Soviet Union provides obvious potential targets for him. Moreover, if America’s Nato allies believe their resolve not to hand Putin a victory is compromised by pressure from Trump, the coherence of the alliance, and indeed its whole future, could be threatened.

Pax Americana

Trump will hold the whip hand in Nato, and will feel his allies are in no position to give America, the organisation’s main funder, lectures on foreign policy. During his election campaign, as during his first term, Trump complained about the European contingent in Nato not paying its way.

He was not breaking new ground: President Barack Obama made the same complaint when in office. In fact, the conflict in Ukraine has prompted many Nato countries to increase defence spending to 2pc of their GDP – the long-agreed total – for the first time.

There are 31 members of Nato and this year 23 of them are expected to meet the 2pc target; only three did so in 2014.

It is the first time since the early 1990s that the alliance has managed to spend as much as 2pc of its GDP on defence. The eight members not meeting the target – which include Italy, Spain and Canada – are all at least spending more this year.

By contrast, the United States is actually spending less on defence this year than last, at 3.38 per cent of GDP: but the actual sum is enormous given the overall size of the country’s output.

Perhaps it is no surprise that the countries situated closest to Russia tend to spend the most. Estonia spends, in GDP percentage terms, even more than America at 3.43pc, while Poland, which has been very hawkish about the Russian threat (and has the history to prompt it to be so), is spending 4.12pc, up from 3.9pc in the previous year. British spending, by comparison, is up from 2.07pc of GDP in 2023 to 2.33pc last year.

But America, which in 2023 spent $916bn on defence – more than any other nation on earth – is the foundation on which Nato rests.



If the other members want to take Trump on once he is back in the White House, because there are aspects of his foreign policy they don’t like, they should remember there might be severe consequences for their security. Hence the mounting tension about what Trump may, or may not, seek to do.

Desperate Kremlin

Judging from reports from the front, there is widespread scepticism about Trump’s ability to end the war as swiftly as he hopes. To do so without signalling to Putin that his aggression has worked, to avoid undermining Nato and to limit the likelihood of further assaults, Putin would have to make some sort of concession.

There is room to do so, and President Zelensky has intimated there is scope for negotiation. So much of the Ukrainian question is complicated by history, but that complicated history might, paradoxically, allow room for manoeuvre.

The Russian Empire annexed Crimea, one of the sources of contention, in 1783. Before that, the region had been a khanate, technically independent but under the influence of the Ottoman Empire.

When the Soviet Union was formed, Crimea was incorporated into the bloc; but in February 1954, almost a year after Stalin’s death, the Russian Soviet Republic announced the transfer of the Crimean Oblast to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic.

It was said to be a “personal” gesture on the part of Nikita Khrushchev, then cementing his power in the Soviet Union, to a republic he admired.

Since both Russia and Ukraine answered to Moscow, it hardly mattered under whose jurisdiction Crimea came. But it was then after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 that Ukraine became independent, taking Crimea with it – to the annoyance of many Russians who saw it as part of their cultural heritage.

A year later, Russia’s Supreme Soviet accused Khrushchev (who had died in 1971) of treason for having given it away. In 1997, Russia signed a treaty with Ukraine under which it accepted the latter’s borders, including Crimea. But that was before Putin and his regime. He openly decided to repudiate this understanding as part of his project to rebuild a Russia that included lands with a number of ethnic Russians. Ukraine was one such place.

When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, it annexed Crimea without any world power attempting to intervene. America did not wish to get involved, marking it down as a European problem.

The European Union, which for some years had sought to entice Ukraine to look westwards, rapidly took flight from the question. An entirely bogus referendum in Crimea showed 96pc of the voters supporting the annexation.

However, given the lack of historical ties the region has with Ukraine, it might be a subject for any diplomatic negotiations to focus upon.


Christmas trees sit by a bomb shelter in Sevastopol, Crimea, last month. The West failed to help Crimea repel Russia a decade ago. - REUTERS/Alexey Pavlishak

There are other historical considerations. What is now Ukraine was once divided unequally between the Austro-Hungarian Empire, ruled by a Habsburg emperor from Vienna, and the Russian Empire, ruled by a Romanov from St Petersburg.

The Russians have been talking in recent weeks about the need to re-draw not just Ukraine’s borders with Russia, but also those of countries in Eastern Europe.

The borders are the product first of the settlement at Versailles in 1919 after the First World War, and then the carve-up of the region between the dying Roosevelt and the ruthless Stalin at Yalta in 1945 (Churchill, who was also present, had rings run around him).

The recent talk of redrawing those borders is ludicrous, and an effort at distraction by Russians whose position is weaker than they want the world to believe. Such a policy would aim to reduce Ukraine to a rump and to divide and rule by giving territory that was formerly part of Austria-Hungary, or the pre-1795 Polish lands, back to the inheritors of those states, along with scores of thousands of people who are ethnically Poles or Hungarians.

It is also an attempt to divide and rule by offering two potentially troublesome European countries, one of which – Poland – is notably hostile to Russia, something by way of an inducement.

It won’t work, and it suggests how desperate the Kremlin really is to stop the war it so recklessly started. One reason it won’t work is that the State Department in Washington is not so stupid as to have it on its list of options for Trump.

Also, he knows he can only serve one more term as president. Authorising a mess such as the wholesale redrawing of the borders of Eastern and Central Europe would almost certainly derail his presidency, with no way back.

The subject of borders can, and should, be looked at another way. One of the many aspects of modern Ukraine that Putin has refused to accept is its growing Europeanism.

There is evidence that many people in Ukraine with Russian ancestry are disgusted by what Putin has done and, like many of those with a more European heritage, look increasingly westwards towards societies that operate through capitalism and not kleptocracy, democracy and not tyranny, and personal liberty instead of repression.

None of those liberal attributes can serve a society run by Putin where control must be absolute for it to survive. The war he is fighting has the medieval aspect of being about territory, but it is also first and foremost about ideology.
Containing Putin

The next United States administration may seek to convene some sort of conference about Ukraine before too long. Exactly how long will depend on the willingness of Putin and President Zelensky to hold such talks, and on an agreement about a chairman, an agenda and a venue.

It may also depend on Russia, especially, not committing outrages that might make such talks impossible in the light of international opinion.

The recent shooting down of an Azerbaijani airliner is precisely the sort of act that seems to confirm Russia as an unscrupulous rogue state.

Further outrages like the downing of civilian airliners, something Russian forces have done twice since 2014, could undermine possible talks - REUTERS/Azamat Sarsenbayev

America, as the world’s leading power and having under the Biden administration supplied Ukraine with many of the means to fight its war, will clearly be central to any talks, whether they are formally suggested by Trump or not. And the likely next secretary of state, Marco Rubio, would seem an obvious chairman, even though Ursula von der Leyen might have pretensions to the role.

Other European leaders would want to weigh in, but most of the principals have overwhelming domestic difficulties distracting them.

In Germany, Olaf Scholz is on borrowed time. In France, President Macron has by a series of mistakes rendered his country almost ungovernable. In Britain we are witnessing the fastest decline in the standing of a newly elected government in living memory, its credibility shattered, and with a foreign secretary few in the diplomatic world feel able to take entirely seriously, and who has an impressive record of insulting Trump.

However, were a peace process to begin, the major Nato governments would use diplomatic channels to seek to influence the direction of the talks, and their emissaries would be present on the margins.

But Europe, for security reasons, has the most to lose from an outcome that emboldens Putin to make further territorial claims. If its representatives have not pressed the State Department to put this fact at the top of Trump’s list of bullet points, it is time they did.

Just before the pandemic, I attended a conference addressed by a leading intelligence expert who specialises in Russia. His fear then was not a further incursion into Ukraine, but Putin’s desire to secure a land corridor to the Baltic port city of Kaliningrad.

That city, which the Germans called Königsberg, was where Prussia crowned its kings from 1701, and was until the independence of the three Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) contiguous with the Soviet Union.

Now it is a Russian exclave with Poland to its south and Lithuania to its north and east. Russia can access it freely by air and by sea, but not by land. It has invested hugely in the city in recent years, not least in its naval base. It has the strategic significance of being Russia’s effective outpost in the European Union. It is, effectively, one of the leading reasons why Europe should not abandon Ukraine.

To do so would be to invite Putin to send an armoured column from the territory of his satrap and minion Aleksandr Lukashenko in Belarus through Lithuania (a shorter route than through Poland, which is, in any case, more heavily defended) to secure the land corridor he wants.



In territorial terms, it would be a far more minor offence than he has committed in Ukraine, but in political terms it would constitute an enormity.

It would be an attack on the sovereign territory of a Nato member and, for what it is worth, on a member of the EU. Yet if Putin sees his assault on Ukraine being rewarded by his being allowed to keep a large chunk of territory on which he has no real claim, what is to stop him from securing his access to Kaliningrad?

Would Trump, having presided over a Ukrainian settlement that gave Putin such confidence, endorse Nato retaliation against invading Russians (or North Koreans) in Lithuania?

After all, if he did not, where might things proceed? The annexation of the three Baltic states, with their minority ethnic Russian populations, is often talked up by Russian nationalists loyal to Putin. Could Trump countenance that?

Such a thought is not scaremongering, but a legitimate prospect if Putin’s Ukrainian adventure is rewarded. It is all the more reason why peace talks must be embarked upon with caution and underpinned by a clear sense of justice.

In an ideal world, they would be preceded by further increases in defence spending across Nato’s members.

Our own veterans minister, Alistair Carns, said a month ago that Britain’s diminished Army would, if it suffered a casualty rate similar to the Russians, be “expended” in six to 12 months.

When it comes to public spending we, like many other Nato members, have chosen welfare over warfare, last year’s modest increase in spending notwithstanding.

GOOD!


Not only is the world too dangerous a place for this to go on, but we also need to realise that an immediate increase in defence spending would, as well as making us more secure, give us a louder voice in any peace talks, and enable us to try to ensure that Nato’s influence and future are protected by keeping the alliance united, and avoiding outright and unnecessary capitulation to Putin.

Whatever the carrot may be in such talks, the stick is not just the threat of armed force. The sanctions regime on Putin and his cronies has been entirely inadequate. The standard of living for ordinary Russians may well have dipped because of his aggression, but the kleptocratic elite is doing as well as ever.

It was recently reported that three Danish companies have bought Russian fish worth millions from the oligarch Vitaly Orlov: the taxes levied on such a sale means an estimated 10pc to 20pc of the sums paid end up buying arms.

A so-called shadow fleet of 79 ships is also trafficking Russian oil and other energy products to foreign customers. By keeping the most powerful Russians rich and providing the financial means to buy munitions, the businesses that do this trade keep Putin in power and his friends happy, and allow the war to continue.

The State Department, and indeed many Republicans in Congress, will be alert to all these dangers: not least the risk of the incoming administration alienating nations who are supposedly America’s best friends.

Since Trump is not renowned for observing the niceties of his position, it may well be a hopeful sign that he has played down his earlier rhetoric about an instant solution to the Ukraine problem and become more discreet, by his standards.

The prime function of European diplomats these days is to ensure that their friends in the State Department keep the president-elect in such a sensible frame of mind.

Only a madman could want the war in Ukraine to continue. But only a fool could want it to end by America, and by default the rest of Nato, coercing President Zelensky to get on his knees before Putin.

The aggression of February 2022 and the succeeding three years remains unjust, unwarranted and unforgivable. That should be a simple message for Trump the Peacemaker to understand; as should be the point that making peace and running up the white flag are seldom the same thing.
Azerbaijan’s leader accuses Russia of passenger jet crash ‘cover up’ in blistering new attack on neighbor

Jay Ganglani and Hassan Tayir, CNN
Tue 7 January 2025 


Ilham Aliyev, Azerbaijan president, speaks during a plenary session at the COP29 U.N. Climate Summit, Tuesday, Nov. 12, 2024, in Baku, Azerbaijan. (AP Photo/Rafiq Maqbool)


Azerbaijan’s leader has accused Moscow of carrying out a “cover up” over a passenger jet crash last month that claimed 38 lives, as relations sour between the two neighbors.

While meeting on Monday with the two surviving flight attendants and families of other crew members that died, President Ilham Aliyev said the preliminary investigation into the crash had confirmed that the plane was hit by Russian air defenses, according to Azerbaijan’s state news agency (AZERTAC).

The airspace above Grozny, the capital city of the southern Russian republic of Chechnya, was only closed after the plane was hit, Aliyev alleged.

Azerbaijan Airlines flight J2-8243 was traveling from the Azerbaijani capital Baku to Grozny, but was forced to make an emergency landing in Kazakhstan on Christmas Day. Thirty-eight of the 67 people on board died in the crash.
ADVERTISEMENT


“I can confidently say that the guilt for the deaths of Azerbaijani citizens in this accident lies with the representatives of the Russian Federation,” Aliyev said. “We demand justice, we demand punishment of the guilty, we demand complete transparency and humane treatment.”

Days after the crash, Russian President Vladimir Putin apologized that the “tragic incident occurred in Russian airspace,” but did not accept responsibility.

Putin said Russia’s air defense systems were active when the plane attempted to land in Grozny, according to the Kremlin, and that the area was being attacked by Ukrainian combat drones.

Aliyev on Monday again accused Russia of a “cover up,” saying the “focus on absurd versions” of the crash has ignited “surprise, regret and rightly indignation” in Azerbaijan.

“If the city of Grozny had taken timely measures to close Russian airspace over its territory, if all the rules of ground services had been observed, and if there had been coordination between the armed forces and civil services of the Russian Federation, then this tragedy would not have happened,” he said.

In a break from protocol, his televised comments were made in Russian rather than Azerbaijani.

Aliyev also praised the flight’s crew for their heroism and bravery, hailing the pilots’ “professionalism” and ability to make an emergency landing to save some of those onboard.

People from Azerbaijan, Russia, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan were on board the plane, which was a Brazilian-made Embraer 190.

Brazil’s air force said Monday its investigators had completed the extraction of data from two black box recorders that were recovered from the crash, Reuters reported. The flight recorders had been sent to Brazil, where international experts were joined by their Azerbaijani counterparts to analyze the devices in a move to ensure transparency and credibility, according to Kazakhstan state news agency.

The data has been sent to the Kazakh authorities investigating the crash, according to Reuters. Kazakhstan’s government is cooperating with Azerbaijan on the investigation.

Separately, Russia’s investigative committee has opened a criminal case in relation to the disaster, the Kremlin said.

Video and images after the plane crashed showed perforations in the plane’s body that look like damage from shrapnel or debris. The cause of the holes has not been confirmed.

“I am sure that in the near future we will learn the initial results, and everything will fall into place. The whole picture of the tragedy that occurred will also become known,” Aliyev said. “Of course, this will be an important moment in the full investigation of the tragedy and the punishment of its perpetrators.”
Russia's Orthodox patriarch, marking Christmas, says West trying to smother Russia























Reuters
Mon 6 January 2025 

(Reuters) - The patriarch of Russia's Orthodox Church, celebrating Christmas alongside Kremlin leader Vladimir Putin, said on Tuesday that the Western world despised Russia and its "alternative path of civilised development".

Orthodox Christians in Russia celebrate Christmas on Jan. 7, according to the Julian calendar

Patriarch Kirill, an enthusiastic backer of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, blessed icons and crosses that were to be engraved with the president's initials and sent to servicemen in the 34-month-old war in Ukraine, Russian news agencies quoted Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov as saying.

Russia presents a challenge to powerful countries not because of its nuclear capabilities or strength, Kirill said, according to the news agencies.



"They hate us because we are offering a different, alternative path of civilised development," he said at Christ the Saviour cathedral, which was rebuilt on the site of a swimming pool in the 1990s after Soviet dictator Josef Stalin levelled it in the 1930s.

The West was in moral collapse, he said, but Russia showed the world how to blend science, culture, education and faith.

"Physically, they cannot really smother us, though they try through different types of slander and the creation of blocs of some sort intended to weaken Russia," he said. "Nothing will work because God is with us."

Putin has looked to the church for support in Ukraine and denounced what he sees as a decline in Western morals, including the movement to protect gay and transgender rights.

In his Christmas message, the Russian president praised the church for "strengthening the institution of the family, the upbringing of young people and the affirmation of moral ideals".



Before the cathedral ritual, Putin attended the church of St. George the Victorious with veterans of the Ukraine conflict, at Moscow's Poklonnaya Hill war memorial complex.

Ukraine, which has had its own independent church since 2018, has moved its Christmas celebration to Dec. 25, though a minority has maintained allegiance to a church with historic links to Moscow.

(Reporting by Reuters; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

QUISLING COMPRADOR 

Macron affirms Trump has 'solid ally' in France, urges realism from Ukraine over territory

WON'T GET CRIMEA BACK, NOR THE EAST

Thomas Adamson
Mon, January 6, 2025 








PARIS (AP) — French President Emmanuel Macron said his country was a "a solid ally” of President-elect Donald Trump on Monday as he outlined his vision for global diplomacy in 2025, while warning that France could lose the incoming U.S. leader’s respect by being “weak and defeatist.”

“Donald Trump knows that he has a solid ally in France, an ally he does not underestimate, one who believes in Europe and carries a lucid ambition for the transatlantic relationship,” Macron said in a New Year's speech at the Élysée Palace, emphasizing France’s commitment to fostering cooperation while urging European nations to fortify their unity and resilience.

Last month, Trump visited Paris for the grand reopening of Notre Dame Cathedral, an event that underscored the enduring ties between France and the United States.

“If we decide to be weak and defeatist, there is little chance we will be respected by the United States under President Trump,” Macron warned.

The speech, delivered against a backdrop of geopolitical turmoil, laid out France’s foreign policy priorities, spanning the Ukraine war, European defense, and the Middle East.

Even as Macron expressed openness to Trump, he delivered pointed criticism of tech mogul Elon Musk, a known Trump ally, for promoting what he described as a “new reactionary international” movement through his social media platform, X.

Without naming Musk directly, Macron referenced his alleged support for Germany’s far-right AfD party and his increasing interference in European elections.

“Who could have imagined, 10 years ago, that the owner of one of the world’s largest social networks would intervene directly in elections, including in Germany?” Macron said. He warned of the risks posed by unchecked power in the hands of tech billionaires and the destabilizing impact they could have on democratic institutions.

Macron framed Musk’s influence as a challenge to Europe’s democratic values, reinforcing the need for European unity and resilience against external disruptions.

Call for realism and responsibility on Ukraine

Addressing the grinding war in Ukraine, Macron stressed the need for “realistic discussions on territorial questions,” adding, “such negotiations can only be conducted by Ukrainians themselves.”

He called on the United States to “help change the nature of the situation and convince Russia to come to the negotiating table,” while underscoring Europe’s pivotal role. “The Europeans will have to construct security guarantees for Ukraine, which will be primarily their responsibility,” he said.

Macron countered Trump’s campaign pledge for an express settlement, warning, “There is no quick and easy solution in Ukraine.” He also highlighted the stakes for the United States, stating, “The new American president himself knows the United States has no chance of winning anything if Ukraine loses.”

The French president further cautioned against compromise due to fatigue. “The credibility of the West will be shattered if we compromise because of fatigue,” he asserted, adding that a capitulation of Ukraine would be catastrophic—not just for Europe, but for U.S. credibility as well.

Fight against terrorism is a ‘central’ priority

Macron addressed a range of pressing international issues, identifying Iran as the “principal strategic and security challenge” in the Middle East. He pointed to Tehran’s accelerated nuclear program as a looming global threat, warning that the world is “perilously close to the breaking point.”

On Syria, Macron reiterated France’s long-term commitment to supporting a democratic transition, pledging to remain faithful to Kurdish fighters battling terrorism. “The fight against terrorism must remain central to our priorities,” he said, reaffirming France’s backing for allies like the Kurds while advocating for a “sovereign, pluralistic Syria.”

Europe’s defense and economic future

In a sharp critique of Europe’s dependence on U.S. defense technology, Macron urged European nations to bolster their industrial capabilities.

“If we depend on the American industrial base for our security, we will face strategic dilemmas that are both cruel and culpable,” he warned.

Macron also addressed the EU-Mercosur trade deal that France continues to oppose, signaling his country's intent to push for coherent commitments. The proposed agreement, which aims to reduce tariffs and boost trade between the European Union and South American countries, has been criticized for its potential environmental and agricultural impacts. “The mass is not said. We will continue to defend the coherence of our commitments,” Macron stated.

Macron’s remarks underscored France’s delicate balancing act on the global stage—collaborating with old allies while maintaining European sovereignty.

Thomas Adamson, The Associated Press


Macron sees 'no quick and easy solution' to Ukraine conflict

FRANCE24
NEWS WIRES
Mon, January 6, 2025 


President Emmanuel Macron on Monday said that he saw no "quick and easy solution" to the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine as he outlined his foreign policy priorities for 2025 at the annual ambassadors conference in Paris.

French President Emmanuel Macron called on Ukraine Monday to have "realistic" expectations on territory as its fight against the Russian invasion heads into a fourth year, saying he saw no "quick and easy solution" to the conflict.

Outlining France's foreign policy for the coming year, Macron also took aim at Elon Musk, the billionaire owner of social media platform X and close ally of US President-elect Donald Trump, accusing him of supporting "a new international reactionary movement".

Russia, which invaded Ukraine in February 2022, is currently occupying about a fifth of its territory.

"There will be no quick and easy solution in Ukraine," Macron said in a speech to French ambassadors gathered at the Elysee Palace.

But he also warned that Ukrainians needed to have "realistic discussions on territorial issues", clearly urging Kyiv for the first time to consider territorial concessions.

Europe will have to offer "security guarantees" for Ukraine, he added.

(AFP)


Macron urges 'realistic' expectations from Ukraine on territory

Francesco FONTEMAGGI
Mon 6 January 2025 

French President Emmanuel Macron called on Ukraine Monday to have "realistic" expectations on territory as its fight against the Russian invasion heads into a fourth year, saying he saw no "quick and easy solution" to the conflict.

Outlining France's foreign policy for the coming year, Macron also took aim at Elon Musk, the billionaire owner of social media platform X and close ally of US President-elect Donald Trump, accusing him of supporting "a new international reactionary movement".

Russia, which invaded Ukraine in February 2022, is currently occupying about a fifth of its territory.

"There will be no quick and easy solution in Ukraine," Macron said in a speech to French ambassadors gathered at the Elysee Palace.

But he also warned that Ukrainians needed to have "realistic discussions on territorial issues", clearly urging Kyiv for the first time to consider territorial concessions.

Trump has promised to bring a swift end to nearly three years of fighting, without offering any concrete proposals for a ceasefire or peace deal.

Both sides are looking to secure a better position on the battlefield before Trump's January 20 inauguration.

"The United States of America must help us to change the nature of the situation and convince Russia to come to the negotiating table," Macron said.

Europe will have to offer "security guarantees" for Ukraine, he added.

"The new American president knows himself that the United States has no chance of winning anything if Ukraine loses," Macron said.

He also warned that the credibility of Western countries would be "shattered" if they agreed to compromise on Ukraine because of "fatigue".

"A capitulation by Ukraine cannot be good for Europeans and Americans," the French president said.

Trump has described US assistance to Ukraine as wasteful, with his aides suggesting leveraging US assistance to force territorial concessions to Russia.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky expressed optimism in an interview published Sunday with US podcaster Lex Fridman that Trump will be able to force Russia into peace talks and end the war.

"It is up to the Ukrainians to choose the time and conditions for peace negotiations," French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said later Monday.

Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, who spoke to reporters in Paris alongside Barrot, added: "Ukraine deserves peace, needs peace. But it should be on fair terms."

- No 'naviety' on Syria -

Macron also said the West must not be naive about the new authorities in Syria after the ousting of Bashar al-Assad, and promised France would not abandon Kurdish fighters.

"We must regard the regime change in Syria without naivety," Macron said after Islamist-led forces toppled Assad last month, adding France would not abandon "freedom fighters, like the Kurds" who are fighting extremist groups in Syria.

The West is looking to engage with Syria's Islamist-led leadership led by Ahmed al-Sharaa.

On Friday, France's Barrot and German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock became the most senior Western figures to visit the Syrian capital since Islamist-led forces toppled Assad.

The trip was overshadowed by the new leader's refusal to shake Baerbock's hand.

LIK HUSBAND OF GOP REP REFUSED TO LOOK AT VP HARRIS OR SHAKE HER HAND




Macron also said Iran was the main strategic and security challenge in the Middle East, citing the acceleration of its nuclear programme and support for Russia's war against Ukraine.

"Iran is the main strategic and security challenge for France, Europeans, the entire region and beyond," Macron said, adding the issue would be a key subject of discussion with Trump's administration.

He said that the acceleration of its nuclear programme, which the West suspects is aimed at making a nuclear bomb, is "bringing us very close to the breaking point".

Macron also accused Musk, the world's wealthiest man who has secured unprecedented influence thanks to his proximity to Trump, of intervening in elections, including Germany's snap legislative polls next month.

"Ten years ago, who could have imagined it if we had been told that the owner of one of the largest social networks in the world would support a new international reactionary movement and intervene directly in elections, including in Germany," Macron said, while adding Trump "knows he has a strong ally in France".

fff-vl-cf-cl-as/gv
Zelensky clashes with US MAGA podcast host who asks him to ‘forgive’ Putin

Joe Barnes
Mon 6 January 2025 

Volodymyr Zelensky has clashed with an American podcaster who suggested Vladimir Putin should be forgiven as part of a compromise that leads to a peace deal.

Lex Fridman, one of the most popular podcast hosts in the United States, with connections to Elon Musk and Joe Rogan, asked the Ukrainian president if he should excuse Putin.

In an emotional and, at times, angry confrontation, Mr Zelensky turned the tables on his host, calling Putin a child murderer.

Mr Zelensky asked his interviewer whether he had children – which he doesn’t.

He said: “This is the most important thing in life, and they simply took away the most precious thing from you. Will you ask who ruined your life before going to rip their head off? I’m just curious.

“They took your child away. Are you going to ask who did this? And they will answer that that dude did this. You will say, ‘oh, well then there are no questions’. No, no, no. You will go f------ hell and bite their head off and it will be fair. Can murderers be forgiven?”




Credit: Lex Fridman Podcast

It was an uncharacteristic outburst by Ukraine’s leader, whose troops are under pressure on the front lines as air strikes continue across the country.

Fridman, 41, rose to fame after interviewing Mr Musk and appearing on Rogan’s podcast. He also interviewed Donald Trump during the election.

Mr Zelensky and Fridman, who is also a computer scientist, spoke for nearly three hours for the podcast’s latest episode, which has amassed five million views on YouTube alone.

During their conversion, Mr Zelensky dropped his guard on numerous occasions, swearing and reverting to his former career as a leading comedian in Ukraine.

It was a side of the Ukrainian president that has rarely been seen since Russia mounted its invasion almost three years ago.


Volodymyr Zelensky showed a side to his personality that has rarely been seen since Russia invaded Ukraine nearly three years ago

Fridman, born in the Soviet Union, was criticised before the interview over his request to carry out the podcast in Russian, which both he and Mr Zelensky can speak fluently.

But the Ukrainian president refused to use the language of the aggressor state.

“The people who attack us, they speak Russian. They attack people who were only recently told that this was actually in defence of Russian-speaking people, and this is why I respect neither the leader or director of today’s Russia, nor the people,” he said.

The podcaster insisted the aim of his interview, which took place in Kyiv, was “to do all I can to push for peace”.

In a discussion over the prospect of future peace talks, Fridman suggested Mr Zelensky would have to submit to a deal that not only pleases Ukrainians but also Putin,

“Unfortunately the reality is that a compromise is needed in order to reach an agreement,” Fridman said.

Mr Zelensky replied: “The fact that he is not in jail after all the murders, he’s not in jail assuming all the murders and no one in the world is able to put him in his place, send him to prison. Do you think this is a small compromise?”


Lex Fridman is one of the most popular podcast hosts in the US, with connections to Elon Musk and Joe Rogan


He then attacked the idea of a compromise.

Mr Zelensky also sought to correct Fridman’s assertion that Putin loves his country.
‘Putin does not love his people’

“You are mistaken. He does not love his people. He loves his inner circle. It’s only a small part of the people. He doesn’t love them. Why? I’ll explain. You cannot send your people to another land knowing that they will die,” he said.

“Children, my daughter, she is 20 years old. For me, this is a child. She’s already an adult of course, but she’s a child. The boys he sends are 18 years old. They are children. He sends them.”

He said the danger posed by Putin meant his country had to seek “security guarantees” from its Western allies to ensure its protection from another invasion going forward.

One plan presented by Mr Zelensky to Donald Trump, the president-elect, was for Western governments to release $300 billion in frozen Russian assets in order for Kyiv to purchase American weapons, he told Fridman.

Mr Trump, his aides and supporters often complain that Washington should not simply hand over weapons to Ukraine for its defence for free.

“We don’t need gifts from the United States. It will be very good for your industry, for the United States. We will put money there. Russian money, not Ukrainian, not European. Russian money, Russian assets,” Mr Zelensky said.

He also repeated a claim that he would accept partial Nato membership for his country, under which Russian-occupied territories would be excluded from the alliance’s mutual defence clauses, as “a diplomatic way to end the war”.

He said the West’s initial response to the threat of a Russian invasion before February 24 2022 was “b-------”.

“We didn’t receive help. If we assume that words are help, well then yes, we received a lot of it because there were plenty of words,” he added, complaining about the lack of weapons donations and sanctions against Russia before Putin’s troops crossed the border into Ukraine.

In a sign of his reliance on Mr Trump to help bring about peace, Mr Zelensky devoted swathes of his podcast appearance to flattering the president-elect.

He signalled that European leaders only started taking interest in his discussions with the Americans after Mr Trump won the US presidential elections in November 2024.

“I now see that when I talk about something with Donald Trump, whether we meet in person or we just have a call, all the European leaders always ask, ‘How was it?’”

“This shows the influence of Donald Trump,” he said, in a parting shot at Joe Biden, the outgoing president, whose status has diminished in Kyiv in recent months.

He revealed that Mr Trump had assured him their first meeting after the inauguration on Jan 20 would be one of the president’s first official engagements.

The interview, which was also published in full on X, was seen as a success for Mr Zelensky.

Fridman has continued to face criticism, however, over his framing of questions towards Mr Zelensky, especially over Russia requiring security guarantees from Ukraine.

The podcast host has been accused of recording other episodes with prominent Ukrainian figures, including a war reporter and government minister, without publishing them.

In late 2024 he was questioned over the whereabouts of interviews with Illia Ponomarenko, a journalist with more than a million social media followers, and Mykhailo Fedorov, Ukraine’s minister for digital transformation.

Fridman was accused of blocking users on X, Mr Musk’s social media platform, who challenged him over the allegedly unpublished episodes.


N.S. wildlife sanctuary welcomes changes to bear rehabilitation policies happening this year

CBC
Tue, January 7, 2025

A black bear cub that was brought to Hope for Wildlife, an animal rehabilitation centre in Seaforth, N.S., in 2020. After notifying the Department of Natural Resources that they had taken the cub into their care, the cub was picked up by the department and later euthanized. (Submitted by George Ryan - image credit)


An animal rehabilitation centre on Nova Scotia's Eastern Shore is looking forward to the opportunity to rehabilitate orphaned black bear cubs as the Department of Natural Resources readies to issue required permits as early as this spring.

"It's very exciting for us to think that we're that close finally," said Hope Swinimer, founder of Hope for Wildlife in Seaforth, N.S.

"The message it sends, that our government is saying, hey, it is important that we do help, that these animals aren't destroyed. There is an option. It costs government no money at all. Let's take these steps and move forward," she said.

Swinimer said she has received a handful of calls each year about black bear cubs in distress, but her facility has been unable to offer help to the animals because Nova Scotia is one of a handful of provinces and territories that do not rehabilitate black bears that are injured, or cubs if they are orphaned.

Hope Swinimer is excited about the chance to rehabilitate black bear cubs at Hope for Wildlife. (CBC)

An emailed statement to CBC from the province's Department of Natural Resources said the Houston government made a promise as part of its mandate when elected in 2021 "to provide options for regulated wildlife centres to rehabilitate orphaned bear cubs."

The department is confident it will be ready "to provide permits to facilities" by the spring, the statement said.

Bear cub rehabilitation has been a controversial subject in Nova Scotia, most notably after an orphaned black bear cub was taken from Hope for Wildlife and euthanized in 2020.

Soon after, the wildlife refuge submitted a proposal to the provincial government asking permission to rehabilitate orphaned cubs. It was denied the following year.

Swinimer said a change in policy will help the facility further its mission.

"We're really hoping that if this does go forward, it will help in so many ways that we never saw possible," she said.


Brenda Boates says Cobequid Wildlife Rehabilitation Centre will not be applying for a permit to rehabilitate bear cubs. (CBC)

Brenda Boates, the wildlife operations manager at Cobequid Wildlife Rehabilitation Centre, said her facility in Brookfield, N.S., will not be applying for a permit to rehabilitate bears.

"We rely on volunteers, donations and fundraising. So we don't have the facility, the space or the money to put up a building to house these cubs by themselves and we certainly don't have the staff to support that," said Boates.

The Cobequid centre rehabilitates birds, amphibians, reptiles and some mammals.

Boates expressed some reservations about the prospect of rehabilitating bears in Nova Scotia, raising concerns about how a bear's survival skills might be negatively impacted by excessive human contact or the danger of relocating an animal in another bear's territory.

But she said it could work if done properly.

"There are a lot of really good rehabbers that do it successfully. And there's a lot of really good wildlife rehab institutes. By that I mean big large places that take multiple species with acres and acres and acres of land that do it quite successfully," said Boates.

Swinimer said much of the hard work has already been done at Hope for Wildlife.

"A lot of the staff I've hired through the years have had experience working with black bears and we've learnt a lot on cage design, how to keep an animal safe, how to keep the animals that are naturally, naturally around us safe, how to keep the public safe," she said.

Swinimer said a number of established bear rehabilitation centres have reached out to her offering guidance on how to build an appropriate facility.

Rehabilitating orphaned cubs can be challenging and "must be done very carefully," making the creation of proper policies and procedures important, the Natural Resources Department said in its statement.

The department stressed that Nova Scotians who believe they've found an orphaned bear cub should contact Natural Resources and not attempt to take the cub themselves because the mother is likely to be nearby.