“Their goal is to put us out on the street,” says a 92-year-old woman threatened by eviction from the home she has been living for over 60 years, following an auction. Local media call her “the Greek Maricarmen” in remembrance of the was the 87-year-old pensioner from Madrid, Spain, whose forced eviction became a national […]
The post 92-year-old woman with disabilities threatened with eviction appeared first on Keep Talking Greece.
In Oleshky, the humanitarian convoys have finally arrived. So have the television cameras. After more than four years of Russian occupation, hunger and isolation, the surviving inhabitants of this devastated Ukrainian town have suddenly found themselves at the centre of international diplomacy.
Their predicament has acquired a political significance extending far beyond the immediate question of how to get food into Oleshky and its people out.
On Friday, 30 October, Kyrylo Budanov, head of Ukraine’s Presidential Office, confirmed that humanitarian assistance had reached the town and transport was ready for residents wishing to evacuate to Ukrainian-controlled territory.
Ukraine’s Human Rights Commissioner, Dmytro Lubinets, is coordinating the operation. Twenty-five buses, capable of transporting 750 passengers, together with ambulances for vulnerable residents, have been prepared.
The temporary ceasefire, which began on 27 October, is scheduled to expire on 1 November.
The number of evacuees remains uncertain. Ukraine’s prime minister withdrew an earlier estimate, explaining that the figures were changing and that premature disclosures could compromise the mission.
For civilians who have endured years of occupation, the operation offers something considerably more valuable than diplomatic recognition: a chance to survive.
For the governments involved, however, the calculations are rather different.
The White House announced the agreement on 23 October, crediting Melania Trump with securing the humanitarian ceasefire.
It was an unusual intervention by an American First Lady, and one that Ukrainian officials have publicly welcomed.
But the limited scope of the arrangement deserves attention.
Moscow has agreed to suspend hostilities temporarily, permit humanitarian deliveries and facilitate civilian evacuations. It has not agreed to withdraw its forces, reconsider its territorial demands or substantially alter its conduct of the wider war.
The political return, meanwhile, could be considerable.
Russia can demonstrate cooperation with Washington. The Trump administration can point to a negotiated outcome. The First Lady receives international recognition for a humanitarian initiative.
All this comes just days before the American congressional elections on 3 November, offering the White House a visible diplomatic success without requiring the Kremlin to sacrifice anything strategically important.
Whether the operation will actually deliver Republican votes is another matter. There is no evidence that it will materially influence electoral preferences.
But the publicity value is unmistakable.
For Putin, the arrangement offers something perhaps more useful than an electoral favour to Trump: an opportunity to cultivate the image of a reasonable negotiating partner while preserving Russia’s freedom of military action.
There is a deeper irony in Russia’s new role as a partner in Oleshky’s rescue.
Before the invasion, approximately 24,000 people lived in the town. Today, an estimated 1,700–2,000 remain.
The survivors have endured Russian occupation since 2022, widespread destruction, restrictions on movement and severe shortages of basic necessities. The catastrophic flooding following the destruction of the Kakhovka dam in June 2023 compounded their predicament.
Yet Moscow can now present itself as a participant in relieving the humanitarian catastrophe.
The transformation is politically convenient.
Images of Russian officials accompanying aid convoys may help construct a narrative of humanitarian responsibility, particularly for international audiences unfamiliar with the town’s recent history.
Facilitating an evacuation does not, however, absolve an occupying power of its obligations towards civilians.
Nor should cooperation on a single humanitarian operation be mistaken for evidence that Moscow has reconsidered the policies that produced the crisis.
The information campaign surrounding Oleshky is particularly revealing.
On 7 October, Ukraine’s Security Service warned that Russian military personnel were allegedly preparing interviews in which residents would blame Ukrainian forces for their suffering while praising Russian troops.
These allegations require independent scrutiny. But they raise an uncomfortable question: how much weight should be attached to political declarations made by people emerging from years of occupation?
Fear can produce silence. It can also produce conformity.
Civilians dependent upon the authorities controlling their territory may repeat the language of those authorities, whether from conviction, intimidation or self-preservation.
Some residents may genuinely support Russia. That does not make them less entitled to humanitarian assistance.
There is a fundamental distinction between holding pro-Russian political opinions and actively collaborating in crimes against Ukraine.
A state defending its sovereignty need not demand ideological conformity from citizens it seeks to protect.
Indeed, rescuing them irrespective of their political sympathies is a more meaningful demonstration of democratic principles than any carefully staged declaration of gratitude.
The American dimension introduces its own peculiarities.
The White House has portrayed the ceasefire as an achievement of the First Lady’s personal diplomacy. Yet Washington was not the only party attempting to secure an agreement.
On 16 October, a week before the White House announcement, Pope Leo XIV appealed directly to Putin for a ceasefire in Oleshky to permit food deliveries, medical assistance and voluntary evacuations.
Three days later, the pontiff raised the same issue with Volodymyr Zelensky.
The Vatican’s documented intervention does not negate Melania Trump’s involvement, which Ukrainian and Russian officials have acknowledged. It does, however, complicate the suggestion that the breakthrough was exclusively an American diplomatic achievement.
In the meantime, the publicity surrounding the operation has assumed a conspicuous political character.
On 29 October, Melania Trump announced that four journalists from Newsmax, a broadcaster closely associated with Trump’s conservative constituency, would accompany the mission as neutral observers.
The broadcaster’s involvement was also welcomed by Kirill Dmitriev, the Kremlin’s special representative for international economic cooperation.
The interests converge rather neatly.
Washington obtains images of successful humanitarian diplomacy. Moscow gains an opportunity to appear cooperative before an American audience. The First Lady receives recognition for an initiative that has produced tangible results where much broader diplomatic efforts have struggled.
None of this diminishes the importance of saving civilians. But the political presentation risks becoming an achievement in its own right, potentially obscuring the question of why those civilians required rescuing in the first place.
The military reality provides a rather less reassuring picture.
Oleshky lies on the Russian-controlled eastern bank of the Dnipro, opposite Ukrainian-held Kherson.
According to reporting by Le Monde, Ukrainian officials fear that Russian forces could exploit the temporary pause to replenish supplies and prepare further operations around Kherson.
Such concerns do not establish that a new offensive is imminent. Nevertheless, they highlight the distinction between a local humanitarian agreement and a genuine reduction in military confrontation.
The evacuation route reflects these security sensitivities.
Rather than crossing the Dnipro directly, residents wishing to reach Ukrainian-controlled territory are expected to travel through Russia and Belarus.
The arrangement avoids an immediate frontline crossing but creates separate concerns about possible coercion, screening and freedom of movement.
Meanwhile, Russia has made clear that its willingness to negotiate humanitarian pauses does not imply a willingness to suspend its broader offensive.
The distinction is critical. Moscow can cooperate over evacuation buses while continuing to launch missiles elsewhere in Ukraine.
For European governments, the danger lies in confusing limited cooperation with strategic change.
The Kremlin has demonstrated that it can make a carefully circumscribed humanitarian concession, receive international recognition and retain its fundamental negotiating position.
The wider implications are significant.
A diplomatic process that rewards Moscow for temporary gestures while leaving its military objectives untouched risks producing the appearance of progress rather than progress itself.
Europe’s interest is not merely in securing occasional humanitarian agreements, valuable though they are. It is in ensuring that negotiations lead towards a settlement that preserves Ukrainian sovereignty and does not leave the continent facing an emboldened Russia.
For now, Oleshky offers no evidence that Moscow has moved substantially closer to such an outcome.
The humanitarian mission may save hundreds of Ukrainian lives. If it succeeds, those who negotiated and implemented it deserve recognition.
But political recognition should not become historical absolution.
The occupying power has agreed to help evacuate civilians from a town it continues to occupy. Washington has secured a diplomatic achievement that places few constraints on Russia’s military ambitions.
The cameras will eventually leave Oleshky. The temporary ceasefire will expire.
And unless something more substantial changes, Russia’s occupation — and the war that made the evacuation necessary — will continue.
The US and Japan have signed a deal to establish an AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) facility in Japan, a move that will help bolster production of the most sought-after American beyond-visual-range air-to-air munition.
The agreement paves the way for a final assembly and checkout (FACO) facility for AIM-120 AMRAAMs—which arms F-35 Lightning II stealth fighters operated by both countries and many other US allies—in Japan.
“This is a groundbreaking agreement that will not only ensure the acquisition of equipment needed by both Japan and the United States, but will also strengthen Japan’s defense industry base,” Japanese Defense Minister Shinjirō Koizumi announced after holding discussions with US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth on 28 October, on the sidelines of the ASEAN Defense Ministers’ Meeting Plus in Cebu, the Philippines.
The Japanese Defense Minister said the AMRAAM missiles are “essential for the F-35” and that the new facility is part of “Operation Supercharge,” a US-Japan initiative to strengthen cooperation on defense equipment and technology, particularly munitions production and industrial capacity.
However, he did not provide any information on the potential facility location, operator, cost, timeline, or the planned output.
The AIM-120 is the primary beyond-visual-range (BVR) active radar-guided air-to-air missile and the longest-range air-to-air weapon in the US Air Force (USAF) arsenal.
It remains the most widely deployed active radar-guided missile, integrated on more than a dozen aircraft types across more than 40 nations, including the F-35, which the Japanese Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) also operates.
Additionally, the missile is also used in the National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System (NASAMS) and other ground-based air defense systems, many of which have been combat-tested in Ukraine.
US and Japanese officials said that the agreement will diversify the AMRAAM industrial base and build regional stockpiles for Washington and its allies.
The agreement comes amid intense global demand for precision munitions, as conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East have depleted stockpiles and rising tensions in the Indo-Pacific have heightened the need for resilient supply chains.
Earlier, Raytheon signed a deal with the US Department of War in February 2026 to produce at least 1,900 AIM-120 missiles annually. Later that year, the company was awarded a five-year AMRAAM production contract by the Department worth up to $20.7 billion in September 2026, with options for two more years.
Against that background, Japan’s new facility will not supplant US production lines but will create a second node, improving much-needed surge capacity and reducing logistics risks for the F-35 fleets and other platforms of both countries, as security risks from China in the Indo-Pacific continue to mount.
The agreement on the new facility stems from work that began in July 2024 at that year’s 2+2 meeting.
The licensing process took more than two years due in part to Japan’s tight constitutional prohibitions on exporting lethal weapons or even co-producing offensive equipment with allies, which stem from its peace-focused foreign policy following its tragic losses in World War II.
Additionally, the AMRAAM includes intellectual property and sensitive guidance systems that must be protected.
For this reason, the proposed facility does not promise to produce the entire missile locally. Instead, a final assembly and inspection approach enables Japan to finish and verify missiles with parts made through an industrial structure.
Japan has pursued a deeper defense industrial relationship with the United States as a core element of its security strategy for decades. This push accelerated after the 2022 National Security Strategy and related documents, which called for fundamentally reinforcing Japan’s defense capabilities, revitalizing its industrial base, and expanding international cooperation amid heightened security threats from China.
It is, however, pertinent to note that while it pursues new areas of collaboration that were earlier farther, it already has a long history of licensed production of US equipment, as well as joint development of several cutting-edge systems.
This includes the SM-3 Block IIA ship- and land-based ballistic-missile interceptor, co-developed by Raytheon and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.
Designed to engage ballistic missiles in the mid-course phase of flight and a key element of Aegis ballistic missile defense for both the US Navy and Japan’s Maritime Self-Defense Force, the SM-3 Block IIA entered full-rate production in 2024.
In fact, in addition to the latest AMRAAM deal, the US and Japan “agreed to share the necessary technical information to achieve increased production” of the Standard Missile-3 Block IIA missile. However, neither side has said when more output will be available or how much the most recent deal is expected to boost overall SM-3 production.
This follows Raytheon’s $745.4 million contract to manufacture and assemble SM-3 Block IIA all-up rounds for both the US and Japan earlier this year, and Tokyo reportedly funded nearly half of the immediate obligation under that contract.
Notably, the US Navy used SM-3—including the Block IIA variant—during the Iran War, and reports suggest the overall inventory of these interceptors has been significantly depleted in the past eight months of hostilities.
Japan has also manufactured Patriot air-and-missile interceptors for decades through licensed production agreements, including that of the PAC-2 and the PAC-3.
In a notable development reflecting easing rules, Japan exported finished PAC-3 missiles to the US in November 2025 to help replenish US stocks depleted by aid to Ukraine, as the EurAsian Times reported at the time. However, Japanese officials clarified that the interceptors would be used only by the US and would not be supplied to a third nation.
Patriot systems, particularly the PAC-3 MSE interceptor, have been a cornerstone of US defense alongside THAAD in its latest conflicts with Iran. In fact, the US and Japan are currently discussing co-production of the PAC-3 MSE, the more advanced hit-to-kill variant.
The co-development of the Mitsubishi F-2 combat aircraft by the United States and Japan remains a classic example of their collaboration and close defense ties.
The F-2 is a derivative of the US F-16 Fighting Falcon, developed through a partnership between Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) and Lockheed Martin through technology transfer, design support, and manufacturing. Japan has also license-produced an array of US aircraft, including the F-15J, the P-3C Orion, and Sea Hawk military helicopters, among others.
Beyond aircraft production, Japan currently operates a Final Assembly and Check-Out (FACO) facility for the F-35A Lightning II in Nagoya, operated by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.
It is one of only a small number of F-35 FACO facilities located outside the United States. At this facility, Mitsubishi performs final assembly, systems integration, and check-out of F-35A aircraft destined for the JASDF.
For this, major components and kits are supplied from the global F-35 production network, with Japanese industry contributing certain parts and performing final build and testing.
In the past, the Japanese defense industry has also license-produced the AIM-7 Sparrow and AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles. Currently, Japan is aiding the US in producing the Evolved SeaSparrow Missile (ESSM) Block 2 under a licensed production agreement struck in June 2025.
Under the agreement, Raytheon supplies missile kits, parts, components, and technical assistance, while Mitsubishi Electric Corporation (MELCO) handles the domestic assembly and production of the missiles.
Japan also builds and equips its destroyers with the Aegis Combat System and manufactures critical radar and missile components in partnership primarily with Lockheed Martin and Raytheon (RTX), along with Japanese firms such as Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Mitsubishi Electric.
Japanese destroyers are based on US Arleigh Burke designs and incorporate licensed Aegis technology, and Japan builds the ships domestically with extensive US systems integration.
Further widening the scope of this industrial collaboration, the United States and Japan have expanded practical cooperation on ship repair and shipyard capacity with an eye on expanding the ability of Japanese shipyards to perform maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) work on forward-deployed US Navy vessels.
In 2025, the two countries signed a memorandum of understanding on shipbuilding cooperation to expand capacity, encourage Japanese investment in US shipyards, explore standardization of designs and parts, and strengthen overall industrial resilience.
The US is considering Japan’s FFM Mogami-class guided-missile frigate design for its next frigate, after US President Donald Trump issued a national security memo in August 2026 allowing the Navy to acquire foreign ship designs and build some warships overseas amid delays and cost overruns at home.
Against that backdrop, the latest agreements on AMRAAM FACO and expanded SM-3 production cooperation suggest Japan is pursuing two goals: strengthening its defense industrial base and contributing more actively to collective deterrence.
The post Japan Just Became 1st Country Outside the U.S. to Assemble F-35’s Deadliest Missile: AIM-120 AMRAAM appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.
The two-zone winter reduced-rate tariff for electricity (formerly known as the “ night-time tariff”) will come into effect from Sunday, November 1, 2026, and will remain in force until March 31, 2027, the Hellenic Electricity Distribution Network Operator (DEDDIE) announced on Friday. Τhe hours for each zone are as follows: – Midday zone: 12 noon […]
The post Reduced winter tariff for electricity in effect from Nov 1 appeared first on Keep Talking Greece.
Dez empresárias algarvias participaram, a 27 e 28 de outubro, no 1.º Fórum de Empresárias da Eurorregião Alentejo-Algarve-Andaluzia (EURO AAA), em Sevilha, Espanha. A participação foi promovida pelo NERA – Associação Empresarial da Região do Algarve, no âmbito do projeto INTREPIDA pro, que pretende reforçar o empreendedorismo feminino e a cooperação transfronteiriça.
As participantes, provenientes dos concelhos de São Brás de Alportel, Faro, Tavira, Silves e Loulé, representam setores tão distintos como o artesanato, o design, a apicultura, a produção de aguardente de medronho, o turismo e o desenvolvimento pessoal.
Organizado pela Fundación Tres Culturas del Mediterráneo, entidade líder do projeto, o encontro combinou sessões de capacitação com momentos de networking, permitindo a partilha de experiências e o estabelecimento de contactos empresariais entre mulheres das três regiões.
A comunicação assertiva, a aplicação da inteligência artificial aos negócios, a marca pessoal e as estratégias de venda estiveram entre os temas abordados. Um dos destaques foi a sessão “A Arte e a Ciência de Vender”, dinamizada por Penélope Serrano Serradilla, que incidiu na identificação das necessidades dos clientes, na comunicação do valor dos produtos e serviços e na construção de relações comerciais de confiança.
O projeto prevê a realização de novas sessões em Portugal, dedicadas ao empreendedorismo feminino e à utilização de ferramentas de inteligência artificial em contexto empresarial. Estão também previstos mais três fóruns transfronteiriços para mulheres empresárias, que terão lugar em Cádis, na Andaluzia, em Évora, no Alentejo, e no Algarve, em local a definir.
O INTREPIDA pro é cofinanciado pelo Programa Interreg VI-A Espanha–Portugal (POCTEP) 2021-2027. A parceria é liderada pela Fundación Tres Culturas del Mediterráneo e integra o NERA – Associação Empresarial da Região do Algarve, o NERE – Núcleo Empresarial da Região de Évora, a Mancomunidad de Desarrollo Condado de Huelva e a Fundación Bahía de Cádiz para el Desarrollo Económico.
A month after the explosion in historical center of Athens, in Plaka, where 6 people were killed, the Fire Service Arson Crime Division identified three suspects: cooper-thieves who had cut off a pipe of natural gas, thus triggering the explosion on September 25.. Authorities issued arrests warrants against three men, aged 34, 37 and 55, […]
The post Copper-thieves triggered explosion with 6 dead in Athens; 3 arrests appeared first on Keep Talking Greece.
After missing out on the F-22 and F-35 fighter programs, the B-21 Raider next-generation bomber deal, and absorbing billions in losses on the fixed-price KC-46 Pegasus tanker development, Boeing’s Defense, Space, and Security division has rebounded strongly with a series of major contracts.
Amid this turnaround, Boeing reported its third-quarter results on October 27, with CEO Kelly Ortberg assuring investors that the dark days for the company’s defense unit are over.
In the first three quarters of 2026, Boeing’s defense sector brought in US$23 billion in revenue and US$710 million in earnings, up from US$379 million a year earlier, a healthy 87.3 percent increase.
Meanwhile, the company reported a record backlog of US$745 billion, more than five times its market capitalization of about US$132.36 billion. This also includes a backlog of over 6,300 commercial airplanes.
The backlog at Defense, Space & Security grew to a record US$101 billion, with 23 percent representing orders from customers outside the US.
Rising defense sales also helped Boeing narrow its third-quarter losses.
In fact, Boeing believes its Defense unit will continue to deliver healthy growth after massive multi-year contract wins over the last two years and its decision to shun risky contracts, such as the fixed-price contract for the KC-46 Pegasus tanker development, in which it has already lost billions of dollars.
“We are going to see higher growth out of our defense portfolio than maybe what we thought a year ago. I think we were thinking more in terms of low-single-digit revenue growth. Clearly, that’s going to be more towards the high – middle-single- digit or higher going forward,” Ortberg said.
CEO Ortberg highlighted the recent 737 certification and Boeing’s win in the competition to build the Navy’s sixth-generation F/A-XX fighter as the company’s two most important third-quarter highlights.
“Recent milestones, including certification of the 737-7 and 737-10 and selection to design and build the Navy’s sixth-generation fighter aircraft, are important steps as we continue building on our progress.”
In September, the U.S. Department of War (DoW) selected Boeing to develop the Navy’s next-generation F/A-XX fighter jets. The contract is valued at over US$20 billion for the full-scale development phase.
This was the second time in as many years that Boeing was selected to develop a sixth-generation aircraft. Earlier, in March 2025, the US awarded Boeing the NGAD contract, now called the F-47.
Boeing is therefore building the sixth-generation fighter for both the US Air Force (USAF) and the US Navy.
This is a remarkable turnaround, as Boeing has no genuine experience in building a stealth aircraft.
In 2015, Boeing lost the contract to build the USAF’s next-generation bomber, the B-21 Raider, to Northrop Grumman.
Earlier, Boeing lost the contract to build both fifth-generation fighters to Lockheed Martin.
In 1991, the Pentagon selected Lockheed Martin as the prime contractor for the F-22 Raptor. Boeing, however, participated in the project and built the aircraft’s wings and tail sections.
In 2001, Boeing’s X-32 lost the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) competition to Lockheed Martin’s X-35, which became the F-35. That was a winner-take-all program.
Boeing then went roughly 24 years without winning a new fighter design competition.
During those years, the 1997 merger with McDonnell Douglas kept Boeing’s defense and aerospace business alive.
The merger with McDonnell Douglas brought the F-15 Eagle and F/A-18 Hornet/Super Hornet lines. Boeing continued production, maintenance, and upgrades of these aircraft, originally designed and built by McDonnell Douglas.
Its lack of experience in stealth technology and its failure to design and build a new (clean-sheet) fighter in over three decades were major impediments to Boeing’s bid to design and develop sixth-generation fighters.
In fact, the USAF’s NGAD program was widely described as existential for Boeing’s future as a fighter designer and builder.
Boeing, however, came from behind and not only won the NGAD contract, but also cemented its lead by winning the Navy’s next-generation fighter, the F/A XX.
“We scored a generational win with the US Navy when they selected Boeing to design, build, and deliver its sixth-generation fighter jet, making Boeing the exclusive sixth-generation fighter company for both the US Air Force and the US Navy,” Ortberg said.
Boeing also won substantial F-15EX orders.
In September, the Air Force awarded Boeing a US$2.38 billion contract for 22 additional F-15EX Eagle II fighters. This brings the total F-15EXs under contract to 120.
“In the quarter, we also received a contract to manufacture 22 more F-15EX aircraft for the US Air Force. And this award brings the total number of aircraft under contract to 120, with the potential for additional upside as the F-15EX continues to demonstrate the value of its unmatched payload and range capability,” Ortberg said.
Notably, the Air Force has significantly raised its overall planned buy of F-15EX fighters, from earlier targets of around 129 to roughly 267 aircraft.
According to the US force structure plan 2035, submitted to Congress earlier this month, nearly 20 percent of the USAF’s combat-coded fleet could be F-15EXs by 2035.
These new F-15EX orders would provide Boeing with stable cash flow for at least another decade.
Another major victory was new multi-year agreements for Patriot PAC-3 seeker production.
“Boeing received a seven-year contract to accelerate and eventually triple the PAC-3 Seeker production, supported by our early investments in facilities, workforce, and supply chain,” Ortberg said.
Besides, Boeing also saw growth in the MQ-25 Stingray aerial refueling drone and in the T-7A Red Hawk trainer program. Both programs have achieved Milestone C approval and moved into low-rate initial production.
Ortberg also stressed that all these programs are “being underwritten with the right contract type,” and the company has decided to avoid risky contracts, such as fixed-price contracts.
Boeing has lost more than US$7 billion on the KC-46A Pegasus fixed-price program.
The original firm-fixed-price development contract was valued at roughly US$4.9 billion. Boeing, however, has absorbed far more than that in overruns because, under the fixed-price terms, the company covers all costs above the agreed ceiling.
CEO Ortberg has repeatedly called it a “bad contract for the last decade.”
“The important part is all these programs are also being underwritten with the right contract type. So not only are
we booking more orders, we’re booking more orders that won’t result in some of the challenges we’ve had,” Ortberg said.
The F-47 contract is a cost-plus deal, Ortberg said. He declined to identify what type of contract Boeing signed for F/A-XX, but said it is “an appropriate contract type.”
Boeing has already decided to shun fixed-price contracts by 2022, when its newly appointed chief of the defense unit, Ted Colbert, announced the company would no longer bid on such contracts with the Pentagon.
The company also made major leadership changes as it worked its way back to recovery.
In July 2024, Boeing named Robert “Kelly” Ortberg to succeed Dave Calhoun as the company’s CEO.
Then, in September 2024, the company fired defense unit chief Colbert and replaced him with Stephen “Steve” Parker.
Two major labor strikes in 2024 and 2025 also impacted the company’s recovery.
However, strong defense sales and FAA certifications for the 737-7 and 737-10 aircraft have helped the company narrow its losses, build its backlog, and reassure investors of future growth potential.
“So the outlook is strong, our products are in strong demand, and the budget supports additional growth,” Ortberg said.
The post After F-22, F-35 and B-21 Raider Losses, Boeing Rebounds With Record Backlog. CEO Says “Dark Days Are Over” appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.
Alcoutim recebe, a 20 de novembro, as 9.as Jornadas da Rede de Museus do Algarve (RMA), dedicadas ao tema “Arqueologia para Todos: Mediação e Comunicação do Património”. O encontro decorre a partir das 9h30, no Espaço Guadiana, e é organizado pela RMA em parceria com o Município de Alcoutim.
A iniciativa pretende debater os desafios da comunicação do património arqueológico e as formas de tornar o conhecimento científico mais acessível, inclusivo e compreensível para o público. Entre as questões em análise estão as ferramentas, as linguagens e as narrativas que permitem despertar o interesse pela arqueologia, bem como as estratégias para valorizar os sítios arqueológicos e os espaços museológicos.
A arqueologia permite conhecer a ocupação humana dos territórios ao longo do tempo, mas a transmissão desse conhecimento exige formas de comunicação capazes de aproximar a investigação das comunidades. Segundo a nota de imprensa, a mediação do património assume, neste contexto, um papel importante na criação de laços entre o passado e o presente, promovendo o “sentido de pertença identitária e de valorização da sua herança coletiva”.
As jornadas vão reunir especialistas e técnicos de várias instituições, num espaço de partilha de experiências, metodologias e boas práticas relacionadas com a comunicação e a divulgação da arqueologia.
A participação é gratuita, mediante inscrição até 13 de novembro, estando sujeita à disponibilidade de lugares. A ficha de inscrição está disponível em https://forms.gle/CfhB3GBkQiG2RRSi7.
Para mais informações, os interessados podem contactar a Unidade de Cultura, Património Cultural e Turismo da Câmara Municipal de Alcoutim, através dos números 281 540 545 ou 281 540 555, ou a organização, pelo endereço de correio eletrónico rede.museusdoalgarve@gmail.com.
Login