TheChek News Flow

There has been no soft landing for the formerly high-flying Phil Falcone.

Once a hedge-fund superstar worth $2 billion, bad investments have left him having to sell off his prized possessions to pay his bills: Upper East Side townhouses, a Hamptons mansion, a custom made grand piano, all gone.

Now he is in a legal tussle with a pawnbroker over millions of dollars of goods he and movie producer wife Lisa Maria Falcone put up as collateral, according to court records. It’s a long fall from grace from making a name as philanthropists and hosting movie stars.

But Falcone, who hauled in most of his cash betting huge against sub-prime mortgages like in movie “The Big Short,” remains optimistic about a comeback, even as others wager against him.

But first, he has to get his wife’s ring back. The pink-colored 20.45-carat diamond ring came from the elite jeweler Harry Winston and Falcone claims it is worth $6.3 million. It was one of the items pawned.

“I was prepared to buy the ring back. They sold the ring before the note was due,” the blustery Falcone claimed to The Post.

Told that the ring was sold at a foreclosure auction, Falcone claims it was a likely a set up.

“They probably sold it to one of their friends for pennies,” he added. The pawn company maintains he didn’t buy it back in time.

It’s quite a comedown for the cofounder of Harbinger Capital, which managed $26 billion at its peak.

The company’s undoing came amid SEC allegations Falcone improperly used $113 million of investor funds to pay his personal taxes. He denied this to The Post and said the money came from his own capital account.

At any rate, it resulted in an $18 million settlement and Falcone being barred from the securities industry for at least five years.

The investigation was also a harbinger of worse to come. An all-in investment ended badly, contributing to the company’s decimation and leaving Falcone to pawn some of his precious artworks to secure a loan for $92.5 million back in 2013.

Rarefied pieces including Richard Prince’s “Untitled (Cowboy),” Pablo Picasso’s “Deux Nus” and Damien Hirst’s “I love you, love buds” and “A Playful Bubblegum Kiss” were all used as guarantees.

Just one problem: It’s alleged in court papers the artwork was pledged for two different loans to two different lenders.

That’s led to a still-unresolved legal tangle between Falcone and lender BLCE. A judge ruled he should have known he couldn’t put the same asset up two different lenders, Falcone and his lawyer are appealing, contending the value of the art could have been shared by the two parties.

“These guys are professional lenders,” Falcone told The Post. “They entered into this with eyes wide open.”

Falcone insisted he is “not losing sleep over the ring and the art,” but it is the latest chapter in what appears to be an embarrassing third act in an up-from-nothing story that now includes the public liquidation of Falcone and his wife Lisa Maria’s valuable assets.

Last year, the Falcones sold a Sagaponack beachfront mansion for $14 million in an all-cash transaction. Their place in St. Barths went for $57 million. In 2019, he scored $77 million on the sale of a townhouse on 14-16 East 67th Street. Once the home of Bob Guccione, it benefited from a $10 million renovation carried out by the Falcones.

The luxe digs sported a dry-cleaning setup in the basement, a bar in one of Lisa’s walk-in closets and a heated sidewalk to keep snow from accumulating, possibly the best revenge for a guy who grew up in the frigid climes of Minnesota. At the time, it was the highest priced residential sale in New York City history.

Another Upper East Side townhouse of the Falcones went for $27 million, and all the furniture in the place was sold in what The Post dubbed “a fire sale.”

Among the top accoutrements: a custom white lacquer Steinway grand piano with a sterling silver frame (bought for $180,000 and sold for $50,000), a neoclassical artwork by Merry-Joseph Blondel and his partner Joseph Dufour went for $7,500 after being listed at $23,500 and a leather sofa (just $3,750).

In 2022, when he was called out for unloading the stuff, Falcone referenced an upcoming trial from which he hoped for a 10-figure settlement. “It’s a $5 billion lawsuit,” he told a Post reporter. “Do you think that’s worth nothing?”

Now he says, “It’s my money and these things are mine to sell.”

Other complaining creditors over the years have included a limousine company (the Wall Street Journal reported that he owed $34,000), a landlord and the law-firm that represented him in the SEC case, who all accuse Falcone of owing them money.

In 2021, the Journal reported that his one-time attorney won a $14 million judgment against him. In 2021, the attorney said Falcone has made “modest payments … as a result of our endlessly chasing him.”

Upon hearing this, Falcone said, “I’m still dealing with the lawyer, but the others have been settled. It’s been a rollercoaster.”

Once famous for owning a pot-bellied pig named Wilbur, hanging out with Alicia Keys and her husband Swizz Beatz and swanning it up at big-ticket fundraisers, Falcone and his wife hosted lavish parties where Madonna and Edward Norton would regularly attend.

Fast forward to a 2020 court appearance and Falcone was representing himself, claiming to be unable to afford a lawyer. He told the judge, “I’m behind on virtually every one of my bills. Including my kids’ tuition.”

When asked if he’s broke, Falcone shrugged it off and told The Post, “There’s a difference between liquidity and illiquidity.”

Still, headlines like “How to lose $2 billion in 10 years” do him no favors.

However, to lose $2 billion, you need to make it first. On his path to success, Philip Falcone lived the great story of the brainy New York arriviste.

Fresh out of Harvard and one season as a professional hockey player in Sweden, in 1985, he landed his first Wall Street job: trading junk bonds and earning $20,000 per year. In 1992, he met Lisa Marie Velasquez, a model. They fell in love, married in ‘97 and once shared a studio apartment with an air mattress on the floor.

Then he hit big with the his hedge fund, and hit it even bigger with the prescient and ongoing $15 billion wager that subprime mortgages would collapse.

When the sub-primes went to hell, he made money and made headlines. Lisa Marie became a big booster of the Metropolitan Opera and at an event for Friends of the High Line, she announced an apparently spontaneous $10 million donation.

Lisa Maria got involved in producing movies and bragged to W about “not making any money” from the productions. “Zero … Everyone knows I don’t have to work,”

Some of the movies, including “Mud” with Matthew McConaughey and the bio-drama “127 Hours,” starring James Franco, were profitable. Falcone, meanwhile, purchased the Minnesota Wild, an NHL team. That’s since gone the way of the fancy houses.

“That’s one thing I probably should have held onto,” he said with remorse. “When I sold it, it had a $300 million valuation. Now they’re saying it’s worth $1.6 billion. It was part of my selling assets to pay down debt. But, you know, it doesn’t mean I can’t do it again.”

Still, he remains upbeat and warns he may appear down, but he’s not out.

“People say I’ve fallen on hard times. I don’t even know what the hell that means. It’s not like I am having chemotherapy for God’s sake.

“I’m happy and thriving. I came from nothing. I lost a little bit of money. People say I am sitting on death’s door and I’m not. Not even close.”

WASHINGTON—The Pentagon has for months been blocking Ukraine’s use of long-range missiles to strike inside Russia, U.S. officials said, limiting Kyiv from employing a powerful weapon in its fight against Moscow’s invasion.

A high-level Defense Department approval procedure, which hasn’t been announced, has prevented Ukraine from firing any U.S.-made long-range Army Tactical Missile Systems, or Atacms, against targets in Russia since late spring, the officials said. On at least one occasion, Ukraine sought to use Atacms against a target on Russian territory but was rejected, two officials said.

The U.S. veto of long-range strikes has restricted Ukraine’s military operations as the White House has sought to woo the Kremlin into beginning peace talks.

Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon’s undersecretary for policy, developed the “review mechanism” to decide on Kyiv’s requests to fire long-range U.S.-made weapons as well as those provided to Ukraine by European allies that rely on American intelligence and components.

The review gives Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth final say over whether Ukraine can employ the Atacms, which have a range of nearly 190 miles, to strike Russia.

“President Trump has been very clear that the war in Ukraine needs to end. There has been no change in military posture in Russia-Ukraine at this time,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement. “Secretary Hegseth is working in lockstep with President Trump.”

The Pentagon and Ukrainian officials didn’t respond to requests for comment.

The Pentagon’s approval requirement has effectively reversed a decision by President Joe Biden in his final year in office to permit Ukraine to strike inside Russia with Atacms.

In a social-media post Thursday, Trump said Ukraine couldn’t defeat Russia unless it could “play offense” in the war, which has lasted longer than three years following Moscow’s invasion.

“It is very hard, if not impossible, to win a war without attacking” the invading country, he wrote. “There is no chance of winning!”

U.S. officials said Trump’s statement didn’t signal a policy change that would dispense with the Pentagon’s review mechanism or encourage Ukraine’s use of Atacms and other long-range Western systems. But a senior White House official said Trump could change his mind about facilitating expanded offensive operations against Russia.

As president-elect, Trump said it was “stupid” of Biden to allow Ukraine to attack inside Russia. “We’re just escalating this war and making it worse,” he said in a December interview with Time.

U.S. Atacms and other long-range weapons, such as Britain’s Storm Shadow cruise missile, haven’t been game-changers for Ukraine. But they have enabled it to threaten Russian command-and-control headquarters and airfields far from the front lines, as Moscow presses its advantages in manpower, weaponry and resources.

The Pentagon review procedure also applies to Ukraine’s use of the Storm Shadow as it relies on U.S. targeting data, according to two U.S. officials and a British official. The U.K. government declined to comment.

Trump has threatened to increase sanctions on the Kremlin and tariffs on its major trading partners unless Moscow agrees to a cease-fire. But a decision on that has been deferred following his summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, in which the Kremlin chief convinced Trump he was serious about making peace.

Trump vowed in July to provide Kyiv with new weapons as long as Europe agreed to pay for them, a decision that came after a brief pause in U.S. arms shipments while the Pentagon examined whether there were shortfalls in its own stockpiles. Trump told reporters that month that “we’re not looking” to provide longer-range weapons to target Moscow.

While the U.S. hasn’t announced any plans to provide more of the missiles, other types of weapons that European governments are buying from the U.S. could help Ukraine within its own borders. They include air-defense systems and the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System, which has a 90-mile range.

The administration this past week approved the sale of 3,350 Extended Range Attack Munition air-launched missiles, or ERAMs, which are set to arrive in Ukraine in about six weeks, two U.S. officials said. The $850 million arms package, mostly funded by European nations and which includes other items, was delayed until after Trump’s summits with Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Several U.S. officials said use of the ERAM, with a range between 150-280 miles, would require Ukraine to seek approval from the Pentagon. The State Department didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The Biden administration provided hundreds of Atacms to Ukraine starting in 2023. The restrictions on Atacms attacks inside Russia initially imposed under Biden were removed in the fall of 2024 after North Korean troops entered the war alongside Russia.

The last of the Atacms authorized to be sent to Ukraine by the Biden administration arrived during the spring, and Kyiv has a small supply left, according to U.S. officials.

Ukraine has developed some of its own long-range weapons to strike targets inside Russia, specifically drones that it has used to strike Russian oil refineries and aircraft.

Zelensky said recently that his country was developing a new cruise missile—the Flamingo—that could be produced in significant quantities by the end of this year or early next year.

“Drones are great for certain things, but they have their own vulnerabilities too,” said James Townsend, who was the top Pentagon official for North Atlantic Treaty Organization issues during the Obama administration, about the restrictions on use of Atacms. “You don’t want to limit the Ukrainian ability to put pressure on the Russians.”

In addition to requiring approval for missile attacks, Colby, the Pentagon’s third-ranking official who has long been concerned about husbanding Pentagon resources to deter China, tightened control over additional munitions for Ukraine. In a June memo he established three categories—green, yellow and red—for assessing whether U.S. stockpiles of weapons were adequate to allow some to be shared with Kyiv.

The green category consisted of systems that the U.S. had in abundance and that could readily be provided to Ukraine, while yellow and red systems are in shorter supply. It gave Hegseth authority to reclaim weapon systems earmarked for Ukraine that fell in the yellow and red categories.

Russia Covets This Ukraine Province Above All. These Maps and Charts Show Why.

Putin wants to win territory in peace talks that he hasn’t managed to seize militarily

Peace talks with President Trump have prompted international discussions around a key aim that has eluded Russia’s Vladimir Putin in more than a decade of war: full control of Ukraine’s industrial eastern province of Donetsk.

The Kremlin leader thinks he can make a hugely significant strategic gain at the negotiating table rather than on the battlefield, where it could take years and cost hundreds of thousands of lives. Taking the territory would make further advances easier by bypassing Ukraine’s main defensive line.

These five maps and charts show why Putin is eager to get his hands on the land.

Russia has failed to fully take any of the four provinces in southeastern Ukraine that it has sought to annex. While Russian forces control almost all of the easternmost Luhansk region, they still don’t hold around a quarter of the other three regions. U.K. military intelligence estimates that seizing all of them would take Russian forces a further 4.4 years of fighting and cost around 2 million casualties in killed and wounded troops—a cost Putin would like to avoid with talks.

If Ukraine were to hand over the rest of the Donetsk region to Russia, it would move the front line of the war beyond the fortified cities of Slovyansk and Kramatorsk that have served as military hubs for Ukraine since 2014. West of Donetsk, the land is much flatter, opening up a swath of territory on the eastern bank of the Dnipro River that the Kremlin could try to make a grab for by resuming its invasion.

Russia has been advancing in eastern Ukraine for months, but the rate of progress has been glacial. Ukraine has successfully slowed down the Russian advance primarily using explosive drones to eliminate vehicles and infantry soldiers. As a result, Russia has been unable to make a breakthrough, and its advance in some areas, such as around the eastern city of Kupyansk, has been slower than the British and French advance at the Battle of the Somme in World War I.

Russia’s wasteful style of warfare, which commits infantry troops to risky assaults in search of incremental advances, has caused heavy losses. The Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank, has estimated that as many as a quarter of a million Russian soldiers have been killed in 3½ years of war. The Kremlin has had to offer huge bonuses to attract volunteers to bolster its army. Ukraine’s losses have been smaller, but its population is also much smaller, around a quarter of Russia’s, meaning it is also struggling for manpower.

Who owns the copyright for AI work?

The US may not think prompts warrant authorship but China disagrees

Generative artificial intelligence poses two copyright puzzles. The first is the widely discussed question of compensation for work used to train AI models. The second, which has yet to receive as much attention, concerns the work that AI produces. Copyright is granted to authors. So what happens to work that has no human author? 

The US has drawn the clearest line in the sand to date. In 2023 the US Copyright Office granted copyright protection to the graphic novel Zarya of the Dawn but rescinded protection for any AI-generated images — protecting only the human-authored text and arrangement. More definitively, a federal appeals court ruled in March that the pretty, purple and green AI-generated artwork “A Recent Entrance to Paradise” could not receive copyright protection because works must be “authored in the first instance by a human being”. The message is unambiguous: AI prompts, however sophisticated, are not enough alone to warrant authorship. 

China has taken the opposite path. In 2023, the Beijing Internet Court ruled that AI-generated images could receive copyright protection, finding that a user’s intellectual investment in selecting prompts and refining outputs constituted human creativity. 

So far, the UK and Ireland occupy a curious middle ground. Both jurisdictions provide copyright protection for “computer-generated works”. But this protection may be on shaky ground. A consultation from the UK government last year asked whether it should be removed. Ireland’s AI Advisory Council has made a similar recommendation.

Global divergence in legal frameworks can create problems for businesses. The same AI-generated content could be legally protected intellectual property in Beijing while residing in the public domain in Boston. That means an AI-generated jingle or AI-generated marketing copy made in the US could, in theory, be used by anyone.

This issue doesn’t just affect writers, graphic artists and composers who use AI for their work. If your business is creating software, you could be even more exposed. In the US and other jurisdictions, any individual lines of code generated by AI would not be protected even if the software product as a whole was. This has the potential to impact corporate transactions where deals pivot on what a company actually owns.  

Contracts with employees and external contractors fall under the same category. Most such documents have provisions noting that any copyright material generated by an employee or contractor is assigned to the company. But you cannot assign something that does not yet exist.

It is unrealistic to stipulate that employees and contractors cannot use new technology like AI. Such a request would be as archaic as asking them to submit handwritten work.

Lawyers need to find alternative solutions. If AI-generated code is not protected by copyright, for example, then new contracts need to be drawn up that treat it as a trade secret. 

The Irish AI Advisory Council on which I sit has gone further — recommending that the government introduce a limited form of IP protection for certain AI-generated works. However, this has been met with pushback from the creative sector. It will be difficult for one country to implement such a policy alone.

Victorian-era copyright rules are breaking under the weight of machines that can compose, code and create at scale. Litigation against AI companies from the likes of Getty Images and The New York Times centre on exploitation of existing works. So far the ownership of AI-created content has remained largely untested before the courts. But that could soon change.

AI is reshaping authorship. Surviving the transition requires rewriting contracts, restructuring IP strategies and building protection through trade secrets and confidentiality. Relying on copyright protection that may no longer exist is not enough.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei strikes defiant note and accuses Washington of seeking Iranian surrender

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has ruled out direct negotiations with the US, accusing Washington of seeking an Iranian surrender.

In his first full public appearance since the 12-day war with Israel in June, Khamenei addressed thousands of people on Sunday, according to local media, after weeks of issuing only brief video messages and making limited ceremonial appearances.

His absence — following Israeli threats to assassinate him — had raised concerns over the stability of the Islamic republic’s leadership, amid growing domestic pressure on the regime to change course and pursue a rapprochement with Washington.

“This person who is currently in charge in the US revealed the essence of their hostility towards Iran — essentially, that they want the Iranian nation and the Islamic republic to surrender,” Khamenei said, without naming US President Donald Trump.

Khamenei criticised Iranian politicians advocating direct negotiations with Washington as “superficial”, insisting that “the Iranian nation will stand firmly against such [US] demands”.

Iran’s foreign minister said last month he had been in touch with US envoy Steve Witkoff, who had proposed resuming talks.

The remarks come at a critical time as reformist voices within Iran increasingly push for a diplomatic reset with the US, including the suspension of Iran’s uranium enrichment and a return to negotiations aimed at de-escalating tensions and ending decades of hostility.

Pro-reform politicians such as political prisoner Mostafa Tajzadeh have argued that engagement could usher in vital economic and political reforms.

Hardline factions, however, have responded sharply, particularly in parliament and during Friday prayer sermons.

Some have even suggested that reformist President Masoud Pezeshkian, elected last year, should be removed.

But Khamenei backed Pezeshkian, warning against internal strife.

“The people should support those who serve the nation, especially the president, who is hardworking and persistent,” he said, in a clear rebuke to hardliners calling for Pezeshkian’s ousting.

Public anxiety remains high following the June war with Israel, which claimed more than 1,000 civilian lives and resulted in the deaths of dozens of senior Iranian military commanders and nuclear scientists. The US joined Israel in bombing Iranian nuclear sites during the conflict.

Although open hostilities have ceased, no formal ceasefire has been reached, and fears persist of renewed conflict. Ongoing reports of fires across the country have further fuelled public concern that a shadow war remains under way, a claim that authorities deny.

Despite mounting pressure, Tehran has shown no intention of curbing its nuclear programme.

On Friday, the E3 — Britain, France and Germany — held telephone talks with Iran’s foreign minister as they reviewed the possibility of invoking a sanctions “snapback” mechanism ahead of the October 18 deadline.

This mechanism, envisaged in the 2015 deal over Iran’s nuclear programme, enables UN sanctions to be reimposed if Iran is found to be failing to comply with the agreement on curbing its nuclear activities.

October 18 is the last date on which the mechanism could be used, but in order to do so, the E3 would need to begin the process weeks beforehand.

The US unilaterally withdrew from the deal in 2018, and Iran claims the agreement is already void because the E3 failed to fulfil commitments to help lift sanctions in exchange for Tehran rolling back most of its nuclear activities.

Tehran has dismissed the E3’s threat and has so far shown no willingness to resume negotiations with the US or restart its co-operation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has been suspended since the June war.

Ali Larijani, the newly appointed secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, told domestic media on Friday that Iran would not accept an extension to the current snapback deadline, even if the E3 was considering extending the date as a temporary solution should Iran resume negotiations with the US.

“If we agree today, in six months we will be asked to do the same again. This is not sustainable,” he said.

The race to stop mirror organisms

If created, these versions of the building blocks of life could lead to environmental and ecological disaster

This year I witnessed something I never expected to see in my scientific career: more than 150 scientists, policymakers, science funders and ethicists came together at the Institut Pasteur in Paris seeking to prevent a global threat that does not yet exist.

Within the next few decades, scientists will probably be able to build mirror life — organisms built from molecular components that are mirror images of the versions used in nature.

I am a synthetic biologist. Engineering cells and bacteria is my trade. I was part of the team that, in 2010, created the world’s first living bacterial cell with a chemically synthesised genome. For decades, my colleagues and I have sought to scale the beneficial applications of this technology, helping to create vaccine strains, biofuels, pharmaceuticals and other molecules that could create new sources of clean energy, cure diseases and clean up the planet.

Mirror life represents a profound break from this work. It would be created using entirely different building blocks, not the same molecules that are found in all known life. The organism’s DNA would twist to the left where ours twists to the right; their ribonucleic acids, essential to biological functions, would loop and bulge in the opposite direction.

Research into mirror cells has only been a tiny part of synthetic biology. But efforts to build a mirror ribosome — the cell’s protein factory — are under way. Once it is possible to build a mirror cell, it would be comparatively easy to engineer many more kinds of mirror bacteria — the simplest form of mirror life.

If this is achieved and Pandora’s box opens it could pose extraordinary risks. Mirror bacteria could evade our immune systems, confound our medicines and escape many of nature’s checks and balances.

To the best of our knowledge, our immune systems produce very weak antibody responses against mirror molecules, if any. Having even one immune deficiency can cause a patient to die of overwhelming bacterial infections; a mirror bacterial infection might be like having many immune deficiencies at once.

In the environment, predators including viruses and amoebae control bacterial populations. Mirror bacteria would be resistant to many of these predators. With fewer constraints, they could spread across ecosystems, disrupt food chains and cause fatal infections across species. Contaminated areas could become irreversibly uninhabitable, compromising our agriculture and natural world. Huge numbers of people, animals and plants could be wiped out, with some driven to extinction.

We have realised these dangers well before the point of no return. The Paris conference was a historic gathering: the first time scientists, ethicists, science funders and experts from the WHO and the UN came together specifically to discuss the threat from mirror life. 

Many argued that we need regulation and law to ensure that it is not created. I agree. This will require precision about what research can continue and what should cease. Some research could make it easier to create useful drugs, for example. Each major technological breakthrough offers a chance to assess whether going further increases the risks to people and the planet.

However, developing laws can require years of deliberation. Funding agencies can help create concrete barriers today. The Alfred P Sloan Foundation has already made clear that it will not support research with the goal of creating mirror organisms. Similar commitments from other funders would send a powerful message.

Over the next year, stakeholders will meet at the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, the University of Manchester, the National University of Singapore, Rikkyo University in Japan, Harvard University, Yale University and elsewhere to try to establish these boundaries. What technical milestones towards mirror life require red lines that protect people and planet, while preserving the benefits of synthetic biology that have nothing to do with mirror life?

This moment echoes the best of scientific responsibility, such as when researchers recognised the ozone crisis and united to ban chlorofluorocarbons. We have an even rarer opportunity now to prevent a global threat before it causes any harm. The solution is clear: we should choose not to build mirror life and pass laws to ensure nobody can. The question is not whether we are able to prevent this threat — it is whether we will act while we still can.

Saudis, Emiratis and Kuwaitis are enticed by TikTok campaigns and easy visas as airlines open new routes

Tourists from Gulf states are flocking to Russia as the country deepens its ties with the region after years of western sanctions, enticing visitors with easy visas, cultural riches and even “action packed” military tours.

Cut off from many western travellers and in need of foreign revenue streams to fund its war in Ukraine, Moscow has simplified its online visa process for many countries and Russia has sponsored trips for Arabic-language TikTok and Instagram influencers.

The moves have paid off, with Gulf citizens a growing target market for its tourist destinations as the region plays an ever greater role in the global economy.

Total visits from the Gulf more than quadrupled between 2019 and 2024, according to the Russian tour operators association. The number of Saudi visitors to Russia grew six-fold between 2023 and 2024, Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov said in July.

Tourism has become an important strand of Russian-Saudi efforts to deepen diplomatic ties, and the two were close to agreeing a visa waiver programme, the countries’ foreign ministers said.

Saudi budget airline Flynas began operating three direct flights per week from Riyadh to Moscow in August and state-owned Saudia is planning flights to Russia’s capital this autumn. The United Arab Emirates-based budget airline Air Arabia has also announced it would launch seasonal flights between Abu Dhabi and Yekaterinburg in October.

The two countries’ foreign ministers “spoke highly about the growth of our tourist exchanges” at a July meeting in Moscow, Lavrov said.

The Middle East, Egypt and Turkey are still the top destinations for Gulf tourists, followed by western Europe when escaping the region’s searing summer temperatures. But more and more are now going to Russia for the lower cost and novelty of visiting somewhere new, encouraged by a flood of social media posts from the influencers visiting the country.

“The prices and marketing made me decide to go,” said Aqeel al-Dejani, a 27-year-old Saudi. There was “a lot of promotion for Russian tourism on social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram”.

He spent 10 days in Moscow and Saint Petersburg in June and was particularly impressed by the architecture and history. “The Peterhof Palace with its huge gardens was magnificent,” he said.

Ostrovok, a Russian hotel booking website, said demand from Middle Eastern tourists grew by about a third in the first half of 2025 compared with the same period last year. Those tourists on average spent 30 per cent more per night than European counterparts, with nearly 80 per cent booking 4-star or 5-star hotels, said Daria Kochetkova, Ostrovok’s managing director.

Some are even braving the Russian winter for the thrill of something new.

“We were shocked by the weather,” said Hasan al-Qattan, a Saudi doctor who visited in February and said bundling up in temperatures of -10 Celsius was “part of the experience”.

“We knew it would be cold but we did not expect it to be that cold,” said the 28-year-old. “We come from a desert environment so we are not used to this kind of freezing cold weather.”

Inspired by videos of influencers marching in Russian army gear, Qattan booked a “military tour” that he said was the highlight of the trip. “The one we did is the ‘war experience’, where they give you a ride in a tank, do some light military drills, shoot a Kalashnikov and RPG. It was exciting and action packed.”

Gulf states have taken a neutral stance on Russia’s war with Ukraine. Despite pressure from western allies, the region has continued co-ordinating with Russia on oil production, helping President Vladimir Putin bankroll his war economy while also playing the role of mediators to exchange prisoners and hosting peace talks.

While Gulf visitors said they felt safe due to visible police presence in tourism hotspots, war-related sanctions have required some changes to travel practices. Credit cards such as Visa and Mastercard no longer work in Russia, forcing tourists to carry large amounts of cash and spend carefully for fear of running out of money.

And as Moscow jams GPS signals to prevent drone attacks, apps such as Google Maps and Uber have become unusable in the centre of the capital. “You are dependent on taxis even if the distance is not that far,” said a Saudi tourist.

But the sanctions-enforced absence of global brands did not bother Qattan and his friends, who mainly wanted to buy traditional souvenirs and praised the wide availability of halal food and variety of chocolate.

“We tried the ‘Alyonka’ chocolate with the legendary little girl on the cover, it was delicious,” he said. “We also picked up some Russian matryoshka dolls.”

Under new guidelines, producers must report data on the flow of strategic materials, including those coming from abroad for refining

China on Friday announced tightened rules over the mining and processing of rare earths, extending controls to imported minerals and requiring enterprises to report the flow of the strategic materials monthly.

The rules were released as guidelines on the implementation of the country’s Rare Earth Management Regulations, which took effect in October. The rules specify that China’s quota system applies not only to domestically produced materials but also to those coming from abroad for refining – a change that some fear could put further pressure on global supply.

Rare earth production enterprises should, by the 10th day of each month, enter the previous month’s data on the flow of rare earth products into a newly established information system, according to the document issued by three departments led by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT).

The latest move came as China, the world’s largest rare earth producer and refiner, tightens control over the production and export of the critical materials, which are widely used in hi-tech products ranging from smartphones to electric vehicles.

The document, effective immediately, provides detailed guidelines on how government agencies should manage quotas for designated companies and make the flow of rare earth products traceable.

In an interpretation of the new rules, the MIIT noted that rare earths were important strategic mineral resources, and changes in the industry meant that earlier rules were no longer suitable for current needs.

Rare earth elements are considered a critical bargaining chip for Beijing in its trade talks with Washington.

As in past years, Beijing has allocated an initial set of quotas to two rare earth producers for this year. However, this time it did not disclose details about the decision – a move seen as a deliberate strategy amid the trade war, according to mainland media reports.

“Compared to the previous quota system, which only regulated domestic raw materials, the new measures explicitly regulate imported ones, further enhancing China’s control over the rare earth supply chain,” said Li Chao, chief analyst at Guojin Securities, in a research report in February when the measures were issued for public comment.

In the first half of 2025, China imported 38,600 tonnes of various rare earth smelting and separation products, a year-on-year decrease of more than 12 per cent, according to Chinese customs data.

Imports of rare earth permanent magnets – powerful permanent magnets made from rare earth element alloys that are widely used in mobile phones and robots – reached 1,056 tonnes in the first half of the year, up by 11 per cent year on year.

As the country with the most abundant rare earth resources, China’s rare earth mineral production accounted for over 60 per cent of the global total in 2023, according to data from the International Energy Agency.

The country has mastered key technologies in the rare earth industry over the past few decades, increasing the scale of rare earth raw material imports from abroad while exporting deeply processed products.

From January to June, China’s cumulative exports of rare earth smelting and separation products totalled 32,000 tonnes, a year-on-year increase of 11.3 per cent. Exports of rare earth permanent magnet materials reached 22,000 tonnes, down by 19 per cent from the same period last year.