TheChek News Flow

MEMRI : Signs Of Possible War In September-October

Lately there have been growing indications that a war against Israel may break out in September or October 2023. The trigger may be spiraling violent clashes resulting in many casualties, or the use of new weapons leading to many fatalities on the Israeli side, in the face of which Israel will be unable to suffice with its regular counterterrorism measures.[1] While neither Hamas nor Hizbullah are eager to start a comprehensive confrontation with Israel,[2] such a confrontation could result from an uncontrolled deterioration on the ground or from the use of new and unusually deadly weapons by these movements.

The following are some of the factors pointing to the possibility of a war breaking out in the coming months:

1. Growing Provocations By Hizbullah On Israel's Northern Border

In the recent months, Hizbullah has repeatedly instigated increasingly bold provocations on the border. These included setting up tents in the Har Dov area, inside Israeli territory;[3] dismantling surveillance cameras along the border fence near Fatima Gate,[4] and firing an anti-tank missile into Israel.[5] In addition, Hizbullah, which does not recognize the Blue Line as the international border between Lebanon and Israel, has recently made a new territorial claim, demanding that Israel give Lebanon sovereignty over the northern Rosh Hanikra railway tunnel, likewise in Israeli territory.[6] At the same time, it also demands to curtail UNIFIL's freedom of action in South Lebanon. [7]

2. Adoption Of Gaza Fighting Methods By Islamist Terrorist Organizations In The West Bank, Such As The Firing Of Rockets And Excavation Of Command-And-Control Tunnels

The Palestinian terror organizations, especially Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), seek to change the mode of operation against Israel in the West Bank by duplicating the fighting methods used by the terrorists in Gaza.[8] This is manifest in the firing of rockets from the West Bank into Israel, the excavation of "command-and-control tunnels" in the West Bank (though not, as yet, tunnels infiltrating Israeli localities), and in military cooperation between different terror organizations, following the example of the Joint War Room in Gaza. There has also been an increase in efforts by Iran and Hizbullah to smuggle weapons into the West Bank, similar to the smuggling of weapons into Gaza.[9] PIJ secretary-general Ziad Al-Nakhaleh said that, during his June 2023 meeting with Iranian Leader Ali Khamenei, the latter had "reiterated [the need to] develop the arming of the West Bank and the resistance there." Nakhaleh added: "We, as Palestinians and as resistance forces and movements, understand the importance of arming the West Bank, but this requires efforts by the Palestinians themselves, and also the assistance of our brothers in the Islamic Republic of Iran."[10]

3. Possibility Of Clashes In Al-Aqsa During The Jewish Holidays In September, Potentially Sparking Violence Outside Jerusalem As Well

During the Jewish holidays in September and October, Jews are likely to visit the Al-Aqsa compound, as happens every year. Hamas and Hizbullah spokesmen have stressed that this could lead to a regional war. Saleh Al-'Arouri, deputy chairman of Hamas' Political Bureau and head of the movement's military wing in the West Bank, said in an interview with the Al-Mayadeen channel: "There are some in the [Israeli] cabinet who are contemplating measures like taking over and dividing the Al-Aqsa mosque, and carrying out assassinations." These people, he added, "know that this may lead to regional war." He recalled statements made by Hizbullah secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah, that "any attack on the Al-Aqsa mosque or on Jerusalem will prompt a regional war." [11]

4. Increased Threats Of Comprehensive Regional War

The leaders of the terror organizations have recently increased their threats of a comprehensive regional war,[12] in response to Israeli threats to assassinate terror operatives and those who dispatch them, including Hamas leader Saleh 'Arouri. In an interview with the Al-Mayadeen channel, the latter threatened to escalate the confrontation with Israel to the point of comprehensive war: "We are preparing for a comprehensive war and are discussing this in closed chambers with all the elements and components [of the resistance axis] that are connected to this war." He added that the resistance axis has "the presence, the motivation and the desire for a regional war to occur, and has an interest in this."[13]

In this context, the heads of the resistance axis held a series of meetings in Lebanon.[14] Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian met in Beirut with PIJ Secretary-General Al-Nakhaleh, Hamas official Al-'Arouri and other PIJ and Hamas senior officials. In the meeting Abdollahian stressed the statements of Supreme Leader Khamenei about the need "to help the West Bank" and about Iran's "ongoing [commitment to] assisting the resistance with all its might."[15] He added that "the establishment of the joint Hamas-PIJ [war] room reflected a smart move on the part of the resistance."[16]

Abdollahian also met with Hizbullah Secretary-General Nasrallah,[17] who then met with Al-'Arouri and Al-Nakhaleh to "make a joint assessment of the situation in the West Bank, the escalation of the resistance activity and the latest Israeli threats." The participants of this meeting underscored "the steadfastness and steadiness of all the forces of the resistance axis in the struggle against the Zionist enemy," and the importance of coordination between the "resistance movements" in Palestine and Lebanon.[18]

5. Possibility Of Unprecedented Rise In Number Of Israeli Fatalities Following Use Of Deadly New Weapons, Compelling Israel To Respond Even At Cost Of Comprehensive War

There have recently been increasing reports about the potential use of new weapons by Hizbullah, Hamas and the PIJ that can cause a large number of Israeli fatalities. In this situation, Israel will likely be compelled to undertake a large-scale response, above and beyond its routine counterterrorism measures, even at the cost of an all-out war.[19]

It was reported lately that Israel had thwarted an attempt to smuggle into the West Bank, via Jordan, powerful explosive devices manufactured in Iran that spread large amounts of deadly shrapnel. The use of such explosive devices seriously threatens Israeli troops operating in the West Bank and can result in numerous casualties. Journalist 'Abd Al-Bari 'Atwan, editor of the online Arabic daily Al-Rai Al-Yawm, wrote in an article that "the coming days and weeks will see the resistance [fighters] in the West Bank receiving advanced weapons, provided by a number of countries and organizations, including Kornet anti-tank missiles."[20]

MIT economists Arnaud Costinot and Iván Werning discuss the potential impact a proposed 'robot tax' could have on automation and jobs

A big and often unremarked upon aspect of being a reporter is knowing your audience. It’s not always as straightforward as it sounds — particularly when writing about tech. You’re always walking that tightrope between over- and under-explaining. Assuming too much knowledge makes text impenetrable for the non-expert, but getting caught up the finer details is recipe for condescension.

On Friday, I asked LinkedIn to air their annoyances about mainstream robotics coverage (i.e., big publications that don’t specialize in the topic or even technology more broadly). For me, the headline “The Robots Are Coming” has been a minor source of annoyance that seems to crop up at least once a week.

Other people’s responses are more or less what I was anticipating: robopocalypse/killer robots, a lack of historical context, too much focus on gimmicks and flashy form factors like humanoid robots. That’s all fair and certainly feedback I will apply to my own work going forward. “Robopocalypse” is a term I dropped from my vocab a while back, aside from references to the internet’s knee-jerk reaction to any new robot.

Another thing that cropped up in people’s complaints is the job conversation. As with robopocalypse headlines, I absolutely agree that things trend toward the sensationalistic. The “Robots Are Coming” is often amended to include “For Your Job.” It runs parallel to the “AI is taking your job” talking point. As a general rule, the AI conversation focuses on white-collar jobs and the robots on blue. It’s not one to one, but that’s largely how these things go: a robot in the factory, an AI in the office.

Sensationalism isn’t just a robotics thing. It’s an online journalism thing. My industry has been dying for longer than I’ve been a part of it (which is, itself, quite a long time). There are days when it feels like we’re all fighting for the same scraps of attention, hoping people can look up from TikTok long enough to skim a news article. When you’re vying for ever-shortening attention spans along with every other piece of instantly accessible information, you think a lot about framing.

Such blunt force not only does a disservice to the robotics industry, but it also drains all subtlety from what needs to be a truly nuanced conversation. I’m sure there are those who would rather skip the jobs conversation altogether, but I firmly believe that approach is equally problematic.

So let’s start from a point I think we can all agree on: Robots have and will continue to impact jobs. The presence of robots in the workforce is growing at a rapid rate. The more prevalent and sophisticated automation becomes, the greater impact it will have on the way we work.

I very intentionally chose “impact” as a neutral term. From a purely semantic standpoint, it’s neither inherently negative nor positive. The workforce of the future will be different, and robotics will almost certainly be a primary driver of that change.

I’ve attempted to take a nuanced approach to the jobs question in the pages of TechCrunch. Ultimately, it’s up to you to figure out whether I’ve succeeded on that front. A vast majority of people I speak to believe the impact will be positive — that the robots will either replace bad jobs or at the very least make them better. There’s plenty of truth in these statements, but I try to remain conscious of the fact that most of the people I speak to about robots are either roboticists or investors — roles that require a general sense of bullishness.

I don’t believe my role is devil’s advocate, but I do feel a sense of responsibility to remind readers that jobs aren’t just numbers. There’s a human behind each of them. In a position that requires me to frequently write stories about layoffs in the tens of thousands, it’s very easy to lose sight of that fact. I’ve certainly been guilty of leaning into the abstraction. This is why, for example, I frequently post job listings in Actuator. For a vast majority of us, our survival hinges on our ability to work. That’s just how the world operates.

It’s important to have conversations about automation’s long-term impact. It’s debate that will continue to rage on into the foreseeable future, and I’m glad any time people are discussing it with all of the context and nuance required. I do, however, believe that we often discuss it at the expense of short-term impact — that is, those jobs that are immediately affected. This is where the controversial and less controversial topics of safety nets and upskilling come in. Those are topics we’ll have to dive into some other day.

We are not, however, avoiding controversy outright this week. In fact, in some circles the topic du jour is even more radioactive than either of the above — the robot tax. It’s also something we’ve not discussed much in Actuator, so it felt like time. Given the nature of this newsletter, what follows is going to be far from the be-all and end-all on the subject, but it’s a good opportunity to address something that has been in the ether for a long time.

Brookings described the concept thusly:

The basic idea behind a robot tax is that firms pay a tax when they replace a human worker with a robot. Such a tax would in theory have two main purposes. First, it would disincentivize firms from replacing workers with robots, thereby maintaining human employment. Second, if the replacement were made anyway, a robot tax would generate revenues for the government that would cover the loss of revenue from payroll taxes.

The Institute’s views on the topic notwithstanding, I think that largely covers the idea in broad strokes, though I would add to it. When I consider the concept, the “loss of revenue from payroll taxes” is secondary to the more pressing issue of the potential human toll.

Way back in 2017, we ran a column by Steve Cousins that concluded with:

Getting companies to pay their fair share of taxes won’t solve the larger societal challenge that automation will eventually displace low-skilled workers, nor would a robot tax. Instead, governments should focus on using corporate tax revenues to create free or low-cost education programs to prepare people to work alongside automation.

For those unable to find work in tomorrow’s tech-driven society, governments could provide universal basic income or other safety nets for the least-advantaged.

To which I say, these concepts are far from mutually exclusive. In fact, from where I sit, funding a social safety net is perhaps the strongest argument in favor of a robot tax. The following statement is the most political I’m going to get in today’s newsletter. Ready? Okay. I believe that feeding and housing those without means should be regarded as an essential function of government. So pairing these two concepts seems logical.

That said, I am neither advocating for or against a robot tax. Honestly, I’m currently riding the fence on the subject. There are valid points on either side. Having discussed some of the pros above, I would say the primary argument against is concern over stifling innovation. At its heart, it’s the same basic argument against any manner of business tax, though with the robot tax, I would suggest that slowing innovation is kind of, sort of the point.

The question ultimately, I think, comes down to what’s more important — maintaining workplace status quo in an effort to keep more people employed or maintaining U.S. competitiveness? Again, I’m not operating under any illusion that you’re going to find the answers in this week’s robot newsletter. If I get more people thinking about the topic, however, I’ll consider it a job well done.

Hopefully at some point in the near future, I’ll have the time and bandwidth to do a deeper dive on the topic. For this week, however, I’m leaning heavily on a study out of MIT published late last year.

Published in the Review of Economic Studies, “Robots, Trade, and Luddism: A Sufficient Statistic Approach to Optimal Technology Regulation” seeks to a provide “general theory of optimal technology regulation.” The MIT economists behind the study — Arnaud Costinot and Iván Werning — ultimately settle on a sweet spot that includes modest taxation.

“Our finding suggests that taxes on either robots or imported goods should be pretty small,” Costinot told MIT at the time. “Although robots have an effect on income inequality . . . they still lead to optimal taxes that are modest.”

Prominent figures, including Bill Gates and Bernie Sanders, have called for some form of taxation over the years. In 2017, Gates told Quartz, “You ought to be willing to raise the tax level and even slow down the speed.” He cited, among other things, a broad, simultaneous displacement of jobs across a spectrum of industries.

Asked on CBS Sunday Morning about Gates’ position on the subject, Sander answered, “That’s one way to do it. Absolutely.” His broader take on automation is exactly what you’d expect from the Vermont senator: “So if we can reduce the workweek, is that a bad thing? It’s a good thing. But I don’t want to see the people on top simply be the only beneficiaries of this revolution in technology.”

For a counterargument, we go back to Brookings, which highlights the aforementioned potential for automation to create more jobs in the long run:

“[T]he existing research suggests that firms adopting robots actually experience an increase in employment, undercutting a main argument in favor of a robot tax,” writes senior fellow Robert Seamans. “In addition, a robot tax would necessitate a definition of what comprises a robot. Settling on an appropriate definition will not be easy. Instead, policymakers should consider other policy changes to help workers, potentially including changing how capital and labor are taxed, but also focusing more broadly on labor market reforms.”

To date, only South Korea has come close to passing legislation, though that country’s approach is reducing tax credits by two percentage points, rather than introducing an altogether new tax.

To understand their research a bit better, I conducted an email interview with Costinot and Werning.

Automatic mass production line with robots and automated machines running by itself. which there is no human to control. Business and automation technology and industry concept. 3D illustration rendering

TC: “Robots, Trade, and Luddism” was published late last year. Have any more recent developments impacted your findings?

AC/IW: Since we wrote the paper, there have been huge advances and concerns about AI technologies. The results of our paper can be applied to this technology.

We provide a general formula that takes as input the impact of technology on the distribution of wages. This important input is not known for AI, and there is much ongoing work and speculation.

When discussing “redistribution,” is the idea that the taxes collected will directly benefit those whose jobs have been displaced by automation?

The main point is not the revenue from the robot tax, as much as the fact that the tax will shape demand for labor and thus wages and jobs. In particular, the potential wages people can earn may become more unequal with new technologies and the idea is that the tax can mitigate these effects. In a sense, one can think of this as pre-distribution, affecting earnings before taxes, instead of redistribution.

I’ve seen very mixed reactions with regard to the efficacy of “upskilling.” What is your sense on such campaigns when it comes to displaced blue-collar roles?

We have not studied this in detail. At a general level, the same forces are at play: Skill acquisition can be approached with an analysis similar to ours, and it represents the other side of the coin. If training can improve the distribution of skills, there is a force for subsidizing it. However, we have not surveyed the empirical literature on its efficacy or studied this question in detail.

You suggest that 1% to 3.7% on value is the sweet spot for taxing these systems. What begins to change above that threshold?

Yes, to be perfectly clear, this is what our formulas deliver given the available tentative evidence. But the impact on the wage distribution from automation is a key input for which there is much uncertainty.

To your question: At the optimum, you are trading off improving the pre-tax wage distribution with the efficiency losses of the tax, reaching a sweet spot. If the tax is too high, you have gone too far along this trade-off and the efficiency losses have started to be more important. A key element in evaluating this trade-off is whether you have other tools to redistribute: If you do not, then you may want higher taxes. However, in our benchmark, we allow for a nonlinear income tax as is available in the U.S. and advanced countries. In our calibration, in line with the literature, this income tax turns out to be relatively efficacious, explaining why we find a relatively low tax rate.

We didn’t come into this expecting this, and the relatively low number did surprise us. But the theory and the evidence pointed us there.

Does the implementation of a robot tax risk stifling innovation/competition? Is it viewed as an obstacle to increasing domestic manufacturing?

Yes, it would have both effects in principle, unless they are counterbalanced with other policies. In general, you can think of these as some of the efficiency losses [that] are part of the trade-off we considered, as discussed above, and the reason the tax is not found to be higher.

Professor Werning told MIT, “We think it’s incorrect to discuss this tax on robots and trade as if they are our only tools for redistribution.”

What are other potentially more impactful tools for addressing inequality?

The income tax in the U.S. (consolidated with state taxes, EITC [Earned Income Tax Credit], etc.) is a very important tool for redistribution and is a key policy instrument (as reflected by its size and broadness and the discussion and political debates about it). This to us is key and we feel that many discussions surrounding these issues seem to not incorporate this.

New York Fashion Week kicks off on Friday, bringing the return of Ralph Lauren and Peter Do’s first collection for Helmut Lang. Plus, what else to watch for this week.

September is here, and with it, another New York Fashion Week.

The city’s Spring/Summer 2024 showcase — which begins with Peter Do’s Helmut Lang debut and ends with Raul Lopez’s homegrown-and-hyped Luar — is noticeably slimmer than past iterations. Around 70 designers are on the official schedule, down from over 100 last September, including absences from CFDA chair Thom Browne and Do’s namesake line. NYFW fixtures such as Michael Kors, Carolina Herrera, Altuzarra, Gabriela Hearst and Jason Wu are all set to show.

The dominant sentiment around New York Fashion Week over the past decade has been that it’s lacking in comparison with its European counterparts in Milan and Paris. That’s been underscored by the fact that several standout American designers, once they reach a certain level of success, begin showing in Paris; beyond Do, The Row, Vaquera and Rick Owens are all on the schedule in Paris. Meanwhile, other New York-born standouts like Marc Jacobs and Telfar opt to show off-schedule or not at all, and Tom Ford, once the week’s centre of gravity, is headed to Milan under its new creative director Peter Hawkings.

Even so, there’s still lots to look out for. Ralph Lauren is on the schedule for the first time since September 2019; Jonathan Cohen and Philip Lim are also returning. NYFW mainstay Coach will technically present off-calendar with a show on Sept. 7, the day before the week’s official kick-off, celebrating creative director Stuart Vevers’ 10 years with the brand. The industry will also be watching for clues as to whether Do will be able to breathe life back into the once-agenda-setting, now-sleepy Helmut Lang brand, which underwent restructuring in 2018. Expect a marriage of Do’s clean tailoring and modernist perspective with Helmut Lang’s minimalism and deconstructive bent.

Lately, though, it’s the newer names that are driving excitement in New York. Post-pandemic, emerging designers seized on the opportunity to fill the quiet left by mega-brands. Perhaps most popular among them is Khaite, a favourite of TikTokkers and fashion insiders alike, which opened its first store on Mercer Street earlier this year. Luar and Puppets & Puppets, both known for their popular bags and community-focused ethos, continue to draw fans. Bach Mai, increasingly a red carpet fixture, will put on his first runway show. Newcomers to the schedule include Advsry, the label from 22-year-old Keith Herron; and Fforme, led by former The Row designer Paul Helber.

But as New York’s place on the global fashion circuit continues to be in flux, the spotlight, it seems, is anyone’s for the taking.

Monday

Labour Day (US)

Wednesday

American Eagle, Express report earnings

Thursday

G-III Apparel, Designer Brands report earnings

Coach stages Spring/Summer 2024 show

Toronto International Film Festival begins

Friday

Rent the Runway reports earnings

NYFW Day 1: Helmut Lang, Christian Siriano, Ralph Lauren

Saturday

NYFW Day 2: Proenza Schouler, Khaite, Eckhaus Latta

US Open women’s singles final

Sunday

NYFW Day 3: Jason Wu, Phillip Lim, Area, Staud, Who Decides War

US Open men’s singles final

State subsidies follow steel and solar panel playbook in reinforcing race for market share

China is building battery plants far beyond levels needed to meet domestic demand for electric cars and grid energy storage, underlining vast state subsidies and unchecked bank lending that are expected to underpin the international expansion of Chinese manufacturers. 

Production capacity at China’s battery factories is expected to reach 1,500 gigawatt hours this year — enough for 22mn EVs — more than twice demand levels, forecast at 636GWh, according to data from CRU Group, a research firm.

Battery manufacturers are following a pattern exhibited in other industries such as steel, aluminium and solar panels, industry executives warned, where Chinese companies benefit from subsidies to take a huge share of the global market and squeeze out competition internationally.

“We are worried,” said Olivier Dufour, co-founder of Verkor, a French battery start-up backed by Renault. “What I see there is very similar to what I knew in aluminium. It’s more than preoccupying,” added Dufour, a former executive at mining company Rio Tinto.

Regions of China are racing against each other to take advantage of government subsidies and become production epicentres for batteries in anticipation of surging future demand, risking a glut of production.

The battery production rush has concerned Chinese leader Xi Jinping, who warned the industry in March about the risk of over-expansion and the potential for a boom and bust cycle, which has befallen some fast-growing Chinese industries, including property and solar.

Sam Adham, head of battery materials at CRU Group, said Chinese battery production at roughly 550GWh last year outpaced the 450GWh that went into end products and were exported. “Many manufacturers are overproducing and continuously building up their stocks,” he said.

Based on announcements to build battery plants, the overcapacity is set to surge to nearly four times what the country needs by 2027, its data shows, and twice the volume of what China’s entire car fleet would need to go completely electric by 2030.

According to one senior western motor industry executive in China, manufacturers’ expansion plans are “totally unrealistic” and have come despite hopes of industry consolidation. Now, as overcapacity issues worsen, there is a risk that more companies turn to exports, in line with the solar industry, and add to geopolitical tensions between China and the west.

“Will they dump them on other markets? We don’t know. But it is certainly a possibility,” the person said.

In a presentation to EU officials seen by the FT, Verkor warned that a 500GWh supply gap in Europe in 2030 could be “compensated” by 1,100GWh of overcapacity in China.

Patrik Andreasson, vice-president of strategy and sustainability at Northvolt, the Swedish battery manufacturer, warned that Europe’s grid energy storage sector is particularly vulnerable to Chinese exports. “A large import of Chinese, low-budget batteries would decrease” Europe’s sustainability ambitions and “likely be seen as a strategic mistake”, he said.

While China is likely to face obstacles in flooding the global market with battery exports, its battery makers are being incentivised to set up locally because of protective policies and incentives in Washington and Brussels.

Despite bans and restrictions on its technology, China’s battery manufacturers including CATL, the world leader with 37 per cent global market share, are planning to expand into the US and Europe.

CATL — the only battery maker making full use of its factories in China — signed a deal in February with Ford to license its technology for use in the US carmaker’s Michigan plant, while AESC is set to play a key role in Tata’s UK battery factory.

Some argue overcapacity fears are overblown as batteries are poised to play a key role in China backing-up electricity from intermittent renewable energy during a historic transition from coal. Goldman Sachs has forecast that China’s battery energy storage requirements will increase 70-fold by 2030.

However, as it stands, the average estimated utilisation rate, which measures actual battery production versus the capacity to which a plant is designed to produce at, is 55 per cent, CRU analysis shows.

In contrast, European battery plants cannot receive debt financing unless they can guarantee a rate above 70 per cent, says Adam Panayi, chief executive of Rho Motion, a battery consultancy.

Rolex buys Bucherer: the battle of hard luxury titans begins

This surreal 17th-century townhouse on Boulevard Saint-Germain is the latest project of historian-turned-restaurateur-turned-mixologist Franck Audoux in collaboration with Moët Hennessy.

Where can you find a bookstore, two cocktail menus, three centuries’ worth of French culture — and a music kiosk?

Neatly packed in a 2,700-square-foot 17th century townhouse on Boulevard Saint-Germain that is now home to Cravan, the five-story cocktail-centric venue imagined by historian-turned-restaurateur-turned-mixologist Franck Audoux.

A cursory glance from the street could lead one to believe this is just another chic cocktail bar, with stools neatly lined at a wood counter and a clutch of alcoves dotted along wood-paneled walls.

But from the entrance with its 1:15-scale model of the building that contains an even tinier replica of itself, stepping inside is the start of a surreal continuation of the universe Audoux created in the first Cravan bar — a 17-seat slip of a place located in a 1911 building in the 16th arrondissement. They are named after Arthur Cravan, a poet, boxer and Dadaist figure who was a nephew of Oscar Wilde.

The 120-seat Saint-Germain townhouse means to be “the kind where you can get lost in,” where “the higher you go, the deeper you are steeped in references that nourish Cravan,” explains Audoux, who before veering into mixology spent a decade working in contemporary art and another in gastronomy as one of the cofounders of noted fine dining restaurant Le Chateaubriand in the 10th arrondissement.

The original bar applied what he learned during the research for his “French Moderne: Cocktails from the 1920s and 1930s” book, published in 2019 at Rizzoli. Tapping into their history as an embodiment of a time of social and cultural change, Audoux turned the idea of “French excellence in an American or English drink” into contemporary concoctions that drew rave reviews.

They continue to be the star here, served without flourishes or fancy garnish. Ice cubes only appear in long drinks and if there’s one secret Audoux is willing to share, it’s that a dry, rather than sweet, finish is key to avoid saturating the taste buds and to make the next sip as palatable as it is desirable.

For all the sophistication and legerdemain involved in these beverages, “apparent simplicity” remains key for its founder, whose work hinges around two to three ingredients at most.

“That opens a door towards gastronomic complexity. But the base ingredient had better be top notch,” he says, explaining that a cocktail is above all “about the tension between ingredients.”

Case in point: the Royal Basilic, on the menu at both Cravan outposts. This two-ingredient cocktail, an infusion of Sicilian basil flowers bolstering a floral facet in Ruinart’s Brut Champagne, is the very first Cravan recipe and “encapsulates all of Cravan’s know-how” for Audoux.

He took the idea further with Cravan’s bottled cocktails, one of the stars of the new venue.

The principle behind these tipples, developed in conjunction with 75-year-old distillery Nusbaumer, a family-owned company based in the eastern French region of Alsace, is “how to work on a spirit, barely touching it, keeping its typicality and playing with it,” hand-in-hand with cellar masters.

Take “Archi,” an 18-year-old Glenmorangie whisky whose pear notes were bolstered by the tart twist of a pear cordial. That particular conversation had him feeling like a watchmaker adjusting minute gears before heading to Edinburgh to consult “Doctor Bill,” the single-malt distillery’s director of distilling, whisky creation and whisky stocks Bill Lumsden.

“It’s important to have a conversation, an exchange of know-how and a common vision,” says Audoux, who developed six bottled recipes. Two, including Archi, can also be bought to be enjoyed at home.

Congruent with the idea of liquid gastronomy and offering ingredients in their truest expression, drinks are left unfiltered to give a fuller-bodied sip. “If you remove texture, it would be like serving a dinner with nothing but espumas,” quips Audroux.

The same ideas holds true for the sharing plates, eclectic recipes meant as a travel diary of sorts, including the Gilda, a famous pintxo finger food from the Spanish border town of San Sebastian made of a guindilla pepper, an anchovy fillet and an olive; a “tamago” onsen egg parfait, floating in an impeccable dashi broth; as well as the “Eton bleau,” a moreish strawberry, cream and meringue that’s a hybrid between England’s Eton mess and France’s Fontainebleau.

More than sustenance, however, Audoux sees each creation — alcoholic or not, drink or dish — as a key that unlocks a gateway toward “books you wouldn’t normally reach for, music you’d not listen to, stylists or designers you wouldn’t know, films you wouldn’t see elsewhere,” he explains.

This second iteration of Cravan was born in the dog days of France’s lockdowns, when, like others in gastronomy and hospitality, Audoux felt there was a need for reinvention. He reached out to the wine and spirits division of LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton, seeking a partner to “amplify what was done in the ‘Petit’ Cravan to make it accessible to a greater audience.”

With its “very sophisticated experience around fine, elegant cocktails, and discoveries,” Audoux’s concept fell in step with Moët Hennessy’s stated ambition of “crafting experiences,” offering an approach that goes from the gustative to the intellectual, recalls its chairman and chief executive officer Philippe Schaus.

Describing Cravan as “a unique fusion between a very chic cocktail bar in a beautiful hotel, a private club open to the public and the home of an interior decoration buff,” the executive said it and projects like the six-month pop-up experience of Casa Eminente or Harrods’ Moët bar were milestones “towards more proximity with the consumer, more competency in creating experiences and bringing them alive — every time you pass a step like this, you’re enlarging your horizon.”

Each floor at Cravan has been imagined as “a 17th-century house, with cubes telling the story of another time slotted in.” Paris-based Belgian designer Ramy Fischler sourced 80 percent of the materials through reclamation, from unused theater decors to deadstock luxury textiles drawn from Nona Source.

Plywood structures, apparent upon exiting each bar space, recast the place as a succession of decors to embody the idea that “since we are telling stories, we embrace that the settings are stages,” according to Audoux.

The ground floor is an apothecary, with a replica of the Petit Cravan (bar and painted ceiling included) simply slotted in the middle of the space; the first floor contains an elegant salon bisected by a stainless steel and marble bar redolent of ’70s architecture icon the Drugstore Publicis on the Champs-Elysées.

Then comes the second-floor library, where the “contemporary box” is Paris’ first and only Rizzoli bookstore where tomes can be browsed or bought on everything from Japanese designers and streetwear labels to skater Mark Gonzales and Spike Jonze’s book on the Beastie Boys, selected with editor-turned-friend Ian Luna.

The third floor, with its stately chimney, faux-peeling frescoes and antique rugs collaged together, is home to Cravan’s bottled cocktails. One floor up is an artist’s workshop only accessible by invitation, lined with shelves filled with Cravan’s eclectic book collection and fitted with a cinema screen and state-of-the-art music system, which is slated to open in September.

And that music kiosk? Another metal spiral staircase hidden behind a wall of realistic-looking fake book spines — not stately tomes but smart paperbacks that you could find in any French household — leads up to the roof, where it is improbably (but securely) perched.

It’s not one of those party rooftops with sweeping vistas of the City of Light and its monuments. Instead, there’s the Saint-Germain-des-Prés church and a plunging view on Café de Flore and neighborhood favorite bookstore L’Ecume des Pages, a sight he finds refreshingly domestic.

But cinematic as the townhouse may be, Audoux is adamant it serve as a mere backdrop for a moment to have a very good drink. No bottles on display, no shakers being thrown in the air, elegant glassware that highlights the contents without distracting from them. There’s the sense that even the backstory of Cravan could be optional since the cocktail and its mixologist are the start of the story.

“Less is more,” he says. “Taste, flavor, balance, your experience of the cocktail. And then we can talk about it – if you so wish.”

Cravan, 165 Boulevard Saint-Germain, 75006 — open Tuesday to Thursday, from 5 p.m. to 1 a.m.; Friday and Saturday, from 5 p.m. to 2 a.m.

The parting between the Prada and Miu Miu design director and the Italian brand is said to be amicable.

After more than four decades working closely with Miuccia Prada, Fabio Zambernardi will exit the Prada Group, according to market sources.

The parting is said to be amicable and Zambernardi is expected to leave his role as Prada and Miu Miu design director in October following the spring 2024 collections for both brands.

The Prada Group did not comment.

Zambernardi, 59, was named to his current role in November 2002 for all divisions ranging from ready-to-wear to footwear and accessories.

He has been collaborating with the brand since 1981. He was promoted shoe design director in 1997 and design fashion coordinator in 1999.

While known to keep a low profile, Zambernardi is very much respected in fashion circles and is considered influential within the company. He also worked with Prada and her husband Patrizio Bertelli, group chairman and executive director, on the development of image strategies.

Prada Group, as reported, has been enjoying strong brand momentum at both Prada and Miu Miu, which helped register strong profitability and revenues in the first half. In the six months ended June 30, group net profit soared 62 percent to 305 million euros and revenues amounted to 2.23 billion euros, up 17 percent compared with the same period last year.

Andrea Guerra joined the group as chief executive officer in January.