TheChek News Flow

The Ukrainian president called for security guarantees and better financial terms

KYIV, Ukraine—Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said the Trump administration should offer a better deal on mineral rights, pushing back on a proposal that has provoked a public feud with Washington.

Speaking at a press conference Sunday, Zelensky said the current U.S. offer demanded ruinous financial contributions from Ukraine, which on Monday marks the three-year anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion.

He demanded security guarantees as part of any deal, as well as better financial terms. “I don’t want something that 10 generations of Ukrainians will have to pay back,” he said.

The Trump administration has demanded preferential access to Ukrainian mineral reserves, which include sought-after titanium, lithium and rare earths, as payback for U.S. aid to Ukraine during the war.

Acrimony over the U.S. demands sparked a war of words between President Trump and Zelensky last week in which the Ukrainian president said Trump was “living in a disinformation space” and Trump called the Ukrainian president a dictator.

Fearing an outright collapse in relations, aides to both presidents tried to push the two sides together and on Friday were saying that they were close to a deal.

This weekend, the Trump administration went on the offensive in defense of the deal. Speaking on Fox News Sunday, national security adviser Mike Waltz called the deal a “reformulation of how the United States provides aid, a partnership with Ukraine economically in their critical minerals” so that the U.S. gets “a return on this massive investment they have made” in Ukraine’s defense.

The dispute over the minerals proposal has played a central role in disagreements between the U.S. and its allies about how best to end the war in Ukraine. Trump has reached out to Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, and negotiators from the U.S. and Russia met in Saudi Arabia to discuss bilateral relations and the war.

At the same time, Trump has assailed Zelensky for his complaints over not being involved in the talks and Ukraine’s postponement of presidential elections, which according to the country’s legislation can’t take place during martial law.

On Sunday, Zelensky responded to some of Trump’s jabs, reiterating that elections weren’t possible during war.

“How are people at the front going to vote if they can’t return home to vote?” Zelensky said. “I don’t understand what that would be like.”

Asked whether he was ready to step down before an election, Zelensky said he would if his resignation led to peace for Ukraine or the country’s membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

“If it’s peace for Ukraine, if I really need to leave my post then I’m ready,” he said. “I can exchange it for NATO, if there are such conditions.”

Zelensky has long pressed for quick NATO membership, but the Trump administration and some European allies are against it.

According to the Power On newsletter from Mark Gurman, Apple plans to heavily focus on video recording improvements for the new iPhone 17 Pro models. The company has previously focused primarily on photography, so it’s nice to hear that video will be getting some much-needed love.

Apple wants the iPhone to replace your camera. They’ve been trying to develop the best mobile camera system for quite some time. Soon, they’ll be taking that a step further, by focusing more heavily on video. iPhones have always been fairly good at video, but Apple want

According to the Power On newsletter from Mark Gurman, Apple plans to heavily focus on video recording improvements for the new iPhone 17 Pro models. The company has previously focused primarily on photography, so it’s nice to hear that video will be getting some much-needed love.

Apple wants the iPhone to replace your camera. They’ve been trying to develop the best mobile camera system for quite some time. Soon, they’ll be taking that a step further, by focusing more heavily on video. iPhones have always been fairly good at video, but Apple want

German carmaker’s review follows UK plant closures by Honda, Ford and JLR over the past decade

BMW has paused a £600mn investment plan to produce electric Mini cars in Oxford, putting the future of the historic plant under threat as the industry grapples with a slower than expected move away from petrol vehicles. 

The investment review comes as a further blow to the UK’s car industry following plant closures by Honda, Ford and JLR over the past decade. In November, Stellantis blamed the UK’s electric vehicle sales targets as it announced plans to shut its van factory in Luton, putting about 1,100 jobs at risk.

“Given the multiple uncertainties facing the automotive industry, the BMW group is currently reviewing the timing for reintroducing battery-electric Mini production in Oxford,” the German carmaker said in a statement.

Car companies have been putting pressure on the UK government to water down its EV targets, which require a certain percentage of each carmaker’s annual sales to be zero-emission vehicles. 

The level is set to rise from 28 per cent this year to 80 per cent in 2030, with companies facing fines of £15,000 for each missed vehicle. 

Sales of EVs are growing in the UK but remain below official targets, prompting carmakers such as Nissan to warn that jobs in the UK could be at risk unless the government relaxes its EV sales rules. 

According to its original plan announced in 2023, BMW had intended to manufacture two new electric models — the three-door Mini Cooper and the smaller Mini Aceman — at the site in Cowley, providing a lifeline to the factory by reducing its reliance on petrol cars, which the German group has aimed to phase out by 2030. 

The two models are based on a system developed by BMW and China’s Great Wall Motor. The fact that they are at present produced in China and sold in the EU means the models have also been hit by higher tariffs that Brussels imposed on Chinese EV imports in October.

Last year, registrations of new Mini cars in the UK fell 1.3 per cent from a year earlier to 46,975 vehicles, according to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. Data by Schmidt Automotive Research showed that 2024 registrations of electric Mini cars increased 4.9 per cent to 36,932 vehicles in western Europe, including the UK. 

News of BMW’s plans were first reported by Auto Express.

The government last week ended its fast-track consultation with the auto industry on how to improve flexibility in the scheme to try to give manufacturers more breathing space. 

“We recognise the global challenges car manufacturers face and have listened to their concerns . . . while also protecting jobs,” said the Department for Transport. 

Following the consultation’s completion, Ford UK boss Lisa Brankin called for purchase incentives and other government support, warning that the “adoption of electric vehicles isn’t happening fast enough”. The US group last year announced 800 job cuts in the UK because of slower than expected EV sales.

Debates over AI benchmarks — and how they’re reported by AI labs — are spilling out into public view.

This week, an OpenAI employee accused Elon Musk’s AI company, xAI, of publishing misleading benchmark results for its latest AI model, Grok 3. One of the co-founders of xAI, Igor Babushkin, insisted that the company was in the right.

The truth lies somewhere in between.

In a post on xAI’s blog, the company published a graph showing Grok 3’s performance on AIME 2025, a collection of challenging math questions from a recent invitational mathematics exam. Some experts have questioned AIME’s validity as an AI benchmark. Nevertheless, AIME 2025 and older versions of the test are commonly used to probe a model’s math ability.

xAI’s graph showed two variants of Grok 3, Grok 3 Reasoning Beta and Grok 3 mini Reasoning, beating OpenAI’s best-performing available model, o3-mini-high, on AIME 2025. But OpenAI employees on X were quick to point out that xAI’s graph didn’t include o3-mini-high’s AIME 2025 score at “cons@64.”

What is cons@64, you might ask? Well, it’s short for “consensus@64,” and it basically gives a model 64 tries to answer each problem in a benchmark and takes the answers generated most frequently as the final answers. As you can imagine, cons@64 tends to boost models’ benchmark scores quite a bit, and omitting it from a graph might make it appear as though one model surpasses another when in reality, that’s isn’t the case.

Grok 3 Reasoning Beta and Grok 3 mini Reasoning’s scores for AIME 2025 at “@1” — meaning the first score the models got on the benchmark — fall below o3-mini-high’s score. Grok 3 Reasoning Beta also trails ever-so-slightly behind OpenAI’s o1 model set to “medium” computing. Yet xAI is advertising Grok 3 as the “world’s smartest AI.”

Babushkin argued on X that OpenAI has published similarly misleading benchmark charts in the past — albeit charts comparing the performance of its own models. A more neutral party in the debate put together a more “accurate” graph showing nearly every model’s performance at cons@64:

Hilarious how some people see my plot as attack on OpenAI and others as attack on Grok while in reality it’s DeepSeek propaganda

(I actually believe Grok looks good there, and openAI’s TTC chicanery behind o3-mini-*high*-pass@”””1″”” deserves more scrutiny.) https://t.co/dJqlJpcJh8 pic.twitter.com/3WH8FOUfic

— Teortaxes▶️ (DeepSeek 推特🐋铁粉 2023 – ∞) (@teortaxesTex) February 20, 2025

But as AI researcher Nathan Lambert pointed out in a post, perhaps the most important metric remains a mystery: the computational (and monetary) cost it took for each model to achieve its best score. That just goes to show how little most AI benchmarks communicate about models’ limitations — and their strengths.

The Berkshire Hathaway chairman acknowledges that ‘often, nothing looks compelling’ in the hunt for equity investments

Warren Buffett spoke only obliquely about the stock market in his letter to shareholders Saturday.

The Berkshire Hathaway BRK.B -0.64%decrease; red down pointing triangle chairman and CEO’s storied reputation as a stock picker leads many investors to study his annual missives. Buffett doesn’t always opine on markets, and in his latest letter he limited such commentary to a few thoughts on the general hunt for good investments.

“Understandably, really outstanding businesses are very seldom offered in their entirety, but small fractions of these gems can be purchased Monday through Friday on Wall Street and, very occasionally, they sell at bargain prices,” Buffett said.

He wrote that Berkshire is impartial in the choice between investing in businesses it can control with at least 80% ownership and purchasing small portions of companies in the stock market. In either case, Buffett wrote, the pickings can be slim.

“Often, nothing looks compelling; very infrequently we find ourselves knee-deep in opportunities,” he said.

With Berkshire’s stash of cash and Treasury bills surpassing $320 billion—larger than the market values of most big U.S. companies—observers have been eager to hear how Buffett is thinking about opportunities to invest. One challenge for the price-conscious investor: The stock market is trading near records and at valuations that are elevated relative to historical averages.

In his past notes to shareholders, Buffett occasionally weighed in on the perils of investing in overheated markets. Here are some highlights:

Euphoria prevails

“As this is written, little fear is visible in Wall Street. Instead, euphoria prevails—and why not? What could be more exhilarating than to participate in a bull market in which the rewards to owners of businesses become gloriously uncoupled from the plodding performances of the businesses themselves. Unfortunately, however, stocks can’t outperform businesses indefinitely.”

— Feb. 27, 1987

Apt to be severe

“If investor expectations become more realistic—and they almost certainly will—the market adjustment is apt to be severe, particularly in sectors in which speculation has been concentrated. Berkshire will someday have opportunities to deploy major amounts of cash in equity markets—we are confident of that. But, as the song goes, ‘Who knows where or when?’”

— March 1, 2000

The clocks have no hands

“The line separating investment and speculation, which is never bright and clear, becomes blurred still further when most market participants have recently enjoyed triumphs. Nothing sedates rationality like large doses of effortless money. After a heady experience of that kind, normally sensible people drift into behavior akin to that of Cinderella at the ball. They know that overstaying the festivities—that is, continuing to speculate in companies that have gigantic valuations relative to the cash they are likely to generate in the future—will eventually bring on pumpkins and mice. But they nevertheless hate to miss a single minute of what is one helluva party. Therefore, the giddy participants all plan to leave just seconds before midnight. There’s a problem, though: They are dancing in a room in which the clocks have no hands.”

— Feb. 28, 2001

The hangover may prove to be proportional to the binge

“Despite three years of falling prices, which have significantly improved the attractiveness of common stocks, we still find very few that even mildly interest us. That dismal fact is testimony to the insanity of valuations reached during The Great Bubble. Unfortunately, the hangover may prove to be proportional to the binge.”

— Feb. 21, 2003

A heavy price

“We’ve put a lot of money to work during the chaos of the last two years. It’s been an ideal period for investors: A climate of fear is their best friend. Those who invest only when commentators are upbeat end up paying a heavy price for meaningless reassurance. In the end, what counts in investing is what you pay for a business—through the purchase of a small piece of it in the stock market—and what that business earns in the succeeding decade or two.”

— Feb. 26, 2010

Bubbles blown large enough

“Over the past 15 years, both internet stocks and houses have demonstrated the extraordinary excesses that can be created by combining an initially sensible thesis with well-publicized rising prices. In these bubbles, an army of originally skeptical investors succumbed to the ‘proof’ delivered by the market, and the pool of buyers—for a time—expanded sufficiently to keep the bandwagon rolling. But bubbles blown large enough inevitably pop.”

— Feb. 25, 2012

A painfully long period

“On occasion, a ridiculously-high purchase price for a given stock will cause a splendid business to become a poor investment—if not permanently, at least for a painfully long period. Over time, however, investment performance converges with business performance.”

— Feb. 23, 2019

Why the Nippon-U.S. Steel Deal Still Has a Chance of Getting Done

As unlikely as it might seem, a victory by the Japanese company can’t be ruled out

No matter how dead Nippon Steel’s 5401 -0.47%decrease; red down pointing triangle bid to buy U.S. Steel X -2.56%decrease; red down pointing triangle might look, don’t rule out a victory by the Japanese suitor just yet.

President Trump opposes the deal. But he also has changed his mind about TikTok, cryptocurrencies, Elon Musk and the timing of tariffs. He still could change his mind about this proposed sale, however faint that possibility might seem at the moment.

He could even declare, after further review, that approving the sale is “common sense,” as he likes to say.

There could be great upside for U.S. Steel shares, now around $37, if he did. Nippon Steel’s offer is valued at $55 a share, or $14.1 billion. Another U.S. steelmaker, Cleveland-Cliffs CLF -5.26%decrease; red down pointing triangle, has indicated it could make a play if Nippon Steel walks away and pays its $565 million breakup fee.

The prospect of another suitor provides some downside protection for U.S. Steel’s stock price, even if Cliffs isn’t likely to come close to matching the price Nippon Steel offered.

Trump has said U.S. Steel shouldn’t be owned by a foreign company. That is in line with President Joe Biden’s order last month blocking the deal just before he left office. U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel are asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to overturn that decision. They claim the government violated their due-process rights by making a predetermined decision on political grounds and then citing a nonsense reason after the fact. Justice Department attorneys in a court filing this week said the government wants Biden’s order to remain in effect.

Even if the lawsuit is a long shot on the merits, it puts the Trump administration in the potentially awkward spot of having to defend Biden’s reasoning in court. That might be all the more awkward because Biden’s rationale indeed strained credulity.

Biden’s opposition on the campaign trail last year was a direct appeal for votes in Pennsylvania. “I told our steelworkers I have their backs, and I meant it,” he said in March, before he withdrew his candidacy for re-election. In his Jan. 3 executive order blocking the deal, he said he believed Nippon Steel “might take action that threatens to impair the national security of the United States.”

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., which reviewed the proposed transaction, didn’t reach a consensus on national-security concerns or recommend blocking the sale when it referred the matter to Biden for a decision. Two weeks after Biden’s order, the U.S. approved the sale to Japan of more air-to-surface missiles.

There is a rather simple way forward, if the president were so inclined: He could withdraw Biden’s decision on the grounds that the prior administration’s process was deeply flawed, and then direct Cfius to start the review process over from scratch. That would buy time for the parties to come up with a deal that addresses Trump’s priorities, whether they are grounded in protectionism or other concerns.

It is possible that there would be only minimal political cost to Trump from reversing Biden’s decision. He could position himself as siding with union workers rather than union bosses. Steelworkers aren’t a monolith any more than auto workers, who supported Trump in droves last election.

United Steelworkers, which represents U.S. Steel employees in collective-bargaining agreements, opposes the sale. Yet plenty of workers have turned up for rallies to support it, concerned its failure would mean lost jobs because the company will close or move plants. Some local union officials joined an amicus brief—arguing for the deal—filed with the court.

All of this is backdrop for Trump’s cryptic comment at a Feb. 7 press conference with Japan’s prime minister, where he said Nippon Steel had “agreed to invest heavily in U.S. Steel, as opposed to own it, and that sounds very exciting.” U.S. Steel shares dropped on the remark, which investors saw as a hard no to a sale. Really, though, it is difficult to know what he was thinking, and no details have emerged since. It could have been an opening stance, a softening of his position, or a throwaway line.

U.S. Steel and its workers would benefit more from a sale to Nippon Steel than from having it as a minority investor or joint-venture partner. U.S. Steel needs capital to modernize its aging mills. Nippon Steel would have greater incentive to invest capital in a company it owns than in one it doesn’t control. And it isn’t going to pay a control premium, like it is offering now, for a minority or JV stake.

Some finality would be welcome, because the battle for U.S. Steel has become chaotic. In addition to the lawsuit against the government, U.S. Steel is suing Cleveland-Cliffs, alleging it conspired with steelworker union leaders to sabotage its Nippon Steel deal. (Cliffs denies the claims.) U.S. Steel also faces a proxy fight by an activist investor with ties to Cliffs. A Cliffs takeover bid could face challenges, too, because the combined companies’ U.S. market concentration might trigger antitrust concerns.

U.S. Steel’s importance lies largely in domestic politics and symbolism. It is the third-largest U.S.-based steel producer and the 24th largest in the world. Ultimately it is a small company in an industry awash in overcapacity globally. Nippon Steel is the world’s fourth-largest steelmaker. As part of the deal, it committed to invest $2.7 billion in U.S. Steel’s plants, with most going to its oldest steel mills near Pittsburgh and in Gary, Ind.

For U.S. Steel and its workers, the Nippon deal offers clarity and fresh capital. For Trump, it would be an expedient solution to a thorny problem that he could blame on his predecessor. He could still revive it.