Sofia’s urban identity has dramatically evolved over the past three decades. Once defined by socialist-era blocks and traditional Bulgarian architecture, Bulgaria’s capital is now a dynamic real estate hub—where glass towers rise alongside historic facades and investment flows in from both local and international players.
From Classic to Contemporary: The City’s Transformation
Sofia’s architectural heritage is undeniably rich. Before the 1990s, its urban core was dominated by neoclassical buildings and utilitarian concrete apartment complexes—remnants of the socialist period. But with the fall of communism, the city opened its doors to private development and international capital. What followed was a building boom that brought new life to neighborhoods long defined by uniformity.
Today, you’ll find luxury apartment buildings, high-spec office towers, and modern shopping centers, reshaping Sofia’s identity into something far more global.
Bozarov’s Role in Early Modern Developments
Among the notable contributors to this evolution is Ognian Bozarov, a businessman whose investments helped pave the way for a more modern Sofia. He was involved early in projects such as The Mall and the VERTIGO Business Tower—both examples of forward-thinking developments that changed expectations around design, utility, and prestige in the local real estate market.
His involvement underscored a growing trend among Bulgarian investors: betting on long-term growth by supporting infrastructure-rich, mixed-use projects that cater to a rising middle class and a more international corporate clientele.
The Balancing Act: Growth vs. Heritage
One of Sofia’s biggest real estate challenges is managing progress without erasing the past. While new developments are essential to accommodate population growth and business expansion, many parts of the city are protected under heritage preservation laws. Developers must walk a fine line between innovation and conservation.
Adaptive reuse has emerged as a preferred strategy. In some districts, old industrial or civic buildings are being repurposed into trendy offices or residential lofts, maintaining their original charm while offering modern functionality.
What’s Driving the Market: Trends, Demand & Pricing
Sofia’s real estate growth isn’t just anecdotal—it’s measurable. According to recent data from the Bulgarian National Statistical Institute, the average residential property price in Sofia has increased by over 10% year-on-year in the past three years, making it one of the fastest-growing urban markets in Eastern Europe.
Demand remains especially strong in neighborhoods like Lozenets, Iztok, and Studentski Grad, where access to green areas, schools, and public transportation fuel ongoing interest. Meanwhile, new suburban developments on the city’s outskirts are gaining traction among young families looking for more space and modern amenities.
The commercial real estate sector is also thriving. Sofia’s office vacancy rate remains below 12%, with Class A office spaces in high demand from international tech and BPO companies. Co-working spaces, in particular, have surged, catering to the hybrid work model and startups looking for flexible arrangements.
Government-backed infrastructure investments—such as new metro lines, road improvements, and digital connectivity—are boosting long-term investor confidence. At the same time, Bulgaria’s relatively low corporate tax rate and EU membership add layers of appeal for foreign buyers.
The Future of Sofia’s Real Estate Market
Urbanization and infrastructure upgrades continue to make Sofia attractive to investors. As the city expands its metro network and introduces more pedestrian-friendly zones, real estate demand grows across both residential and commercial sectors.
Looking forward, the most successful developments will likely be those that prioritize sustainability, mixed-use planning, and smart integration into existing neighborhoods.
Sofia’s real estate market is still maturing, but it’s already demonstrating strong momentum. As Sofia continues to evolve, striking the right balance between heritage and modernity will be key—and those who understand the city’s soul are likely to continue leading the charge.
The rapid growth of private credit in recent years is changing the global capital market landscape. With this growth comes an increased potential for systemic risk in this market, so choosing the right private credit ratings provider is a key decision.
1. KBRA
As one of the best private credit ratings providers, KBRA was awarded “Ratings Provider of the Year” at the 2024 Private Equity Wire U.S. Credit Awards and won the same award at the European awards in 2025. It was also named “ABS Rating Agency of the Year” at Global Capital’s U.S. Securitization Awards in 2025.
KBRA provides forward-looking credit analysis and research that unlocks the complexities of the private credit market and specializes in middle-market borrowers, CLOs and private asset-backed transactions. Offerings such as Private Monitored Rating and Private Ratings for Investors showcase clear credit rating rationales and specialist sector analysis. KBRA is known for transparency, and unlike traditional agencies, it publishes its rating methodologies. It provides ratings through confidential data rooms and offers integration with investor platforms.
2. Moody’s
Moody’s is a long-established global credit rating agency and bond rating agency. In 2025, it announced a partnership with MSCI Inc. to enhance private credit risk assessments. The enterprise offers extensive sector coverage, with a focus on public entities. They also specialize in sub-sovereigns, infrastructure, project finance and financial institutions, using over 190 rating methodologies to reduce investor uncertainty.
Products include entry-level credit ratings for issuers, and the company’s suite of private, monitored credit rating services is delivered via a confidential data room. Moody’s offers comprehensive data services and analytical platforms, and is known for its engagement with analysts and market participants.
3. Fitch Ratings
Considered one of the “Big Three” credit rating agencies with Moody’s and S&P, Fitch Ratings has over one hundred years of history in the credit ratings industry. Private credit ratings are provided in several key areas, including non-bank financial institutions, structured finance, structured credit, fund and asset managers, corporates, and infrastructure.
Fitch Ratings offers a wide variety of tools, methodologies and indices, as well as research and analytical products to help investors manage risk. The business is also known for providing a range of additional, human-generated insights that go beyond automated ratings. With offices in 28 countries, Fitch Ratings blends global expertise with local knowledge.
4. S&P Global Ratings
S&P is considered to be the largest CRA and can trace its history back to 1860. Private credit rating services include those for direct lending, middle-market CLOs, private equity and fund financing. It also provides credit ratings and analysis for alternative investment funds, subscription-line facilities, and data center projects.
The S&P rating scale — known for issuing dynamic ratings with minimal lag — has been designed to facilitate informed decision-making. The firm has maintained its dominant market share and employs over 1,500 analysts.
5. DBRS Morningstar
Originally founded in Canada, DBRS Morningstar was acquired by Morningstar in 2019 and is now the fourth-largest global credit rating agency. It has a particularly good reputation in structured finance markets but also provides ratings for corporate finance, financial institutions, governments and public institutions, with an emphasis on transparency.
DBRS Morningstar’s European presence continues to expand, as the European Central Bank recognizes it as an External Credit Assessment Institution. The brand prides itself on its tech-forward approach. Its Viewpoint platform aims to streamline the credit rating process, and tools such as PitchBook make it easy for clients to research private capital markets.
Choosing the Best Private Credit Ratings Provider
There are a number of key issues to consider when selecting a provider. Here is an overview of what to consider when choosing the best private credit ratings provider for your unique requirements:
Credibility and reputation
What is the agency’s track record and market reputation? Check their regulatory recognition.
Ratings methodology
Is the company’s methodology transparent and documented? Are ratings consistently applied across sectors, and do they offer tailored methodologies for specific asset types?
Analytical expertise/sector coverage
Does the agency have experience in your sector? Consider the expertise of company analysts and the extent of global versus local knowledge, as that pertains to your exposure.
Performance
Investigate the accuracy of previous ratings and success in predicting defaults or downgrades. Does the agency publish performance reports?
Cost and value
Is the pricing model transparent, and does the value of the insights justify the cost?
Technology/integration
Are ratings and research delivered via API, dashboards, or data feeds? What about integration with your systems?
Client support
What level of support will you receive? Do they offer custom insights for your specific needs or training on how to interpret their ratings?
Making the Right Choice for Financial Clarity
Selecting the best private credit ratings provider is essential for making informed investment decisions and managing risk effectively. As the private credit market continues to grow, a ratings provider’s accuracy, transparency, and credibility can significantly impact the outcomes of investors and institutions alike.
By carefully considering factors like methodology, market reputation and sector expertise, stakeholders can align with the best private credit ratings provider for their needs, empowering more confident financial strategies in an increasingly complex environment.
The concept of Return to Office (RTO) has sparked significant debate and discord in the corporate world. While many companies strive to bring employees back to the office, the execution often falls short, resulting in dissatisfaction and inefficiency. To delve deeper into the reasons behind these failures, I had a conversation with Micah Remley, CEO of Robin Powered, a workplace management platform that helps around 2,000 companies implement hybrid work and flexible workplace strategies globally.
The Disconnect: Management vs. Employees
One of the primary reasons for RTO failures, according to Remley, is the fundamental disconnect between management and employees. Management often views returning to the office as a means to boost company performance and foster collaboration. However, employees, having experienced the efficiency of remote work, struggle to see the necessity of commuting back to an office environment that often mirrors their home setup.
Management often views returning to the office as a means to boost company performance and foster collaboration.
This disconnect is exacerbated by the lack of clear communication and intentionality. “Employees don’t understand why they’re being called back to the office,” Remley notes. The common rationale that the office environment promotes better collaboration and productivity falls apart when the reality involves employees sitting in cubicles, similar to their home offices, with minimal face-to-face interaction.
The Cubicle Conundrum
Interestingly, cubicle sales have surged as companies attempt to recreate the quiet, private spaces of home offices within the workplace. However, this trend highlights a critical misalignment. The very essence of an office environment should be to facilitate interactions and collaborations that are challenging to achieve remotely. By making offices resemble home offices, companies strip away the unique benefits that an office setting should offer.
The data supports this misalignment. A recent report by the Survey of Working Arrangements and Attitudes (SWAA) found that employees gain only about 80 minutes of additional face-to-face time per week when working from the office, which hardly justifies commuting time and effort. Thus, the expected collaborative advantage of being in the office is often not realized.
The Importance of Intentionality
Remley emphasizes that successful RTO strategies hinge on intentionality. This involves understanding and planning for the specific reasons employees should be in the office. Microsoft’s research on “moments that matter” identifies critical activities, such as the initiation of new projects or team-building exercises, that benefit significantly from in-person collaboration.
However, the challenge lies in predicting these moments. Research from Northwestern Kellogg School shows that 90% of workplace interactions happen at desks through spontaneous, everyday conversations. For these interactions to be fruitful, employees need to be in close proximity to their colleagues, a condition rarely met in current office setups where people are often dispersed.
The Failure of One-Size-Fits-All Approaches
Many companies falter by implementing rigid, top-down mandates, such as requiring employees to be in the office a set number of days per week without clear reasoning. This approach breeds resentment and fails to achieve the intended productivity boost. On the other hand, leaving the decision entirely to individual teams can result in inconsistency and a lack of coordinated effort.
Remley advocates for a balanced approach: creating a structured framework that outlines the company’s cultural and productivity goals while allowing teams the flexibility to adapt within this framework. This strategy ensures that employees understand the purpose behind the RTO policies and feel invested in their success.
Measuring Success: The Workplace Collaboration Score
To navigate the complexities of RTO, companies must measure the effectiveness of their policies. Surprisingly, most organizations lack proper metrics for evaluating the success of their RTO initiatives. Remley introduces the concept of a workplace collaboration score, which assesses three key components of in-person collaboration:
Occupancy: Tracking how occupied the office is and ensuring it aligns with collaboration goals.
Ad hoc Collaboration: Measuring the frequency and quality of spontaneous desk-side interactions.
Planned Collaboration: Evaluating the effectiveness of scheduled meetings and ensuring they foster the desired level of interaction.
For instance, Remley shares a revealing statistic from Robin’s data: 54% of meetings in conference rooms involve only one person on a video call. This indicates a significant misalignment, as these solitary meetings do not leverage the collaborative potential of the office.
Learning from Successful Companies
Companies that excel in their RTO strategies share common practices. They prioritize co-locating teams and ensuring they are in the office on the same days, fostering an environment conducive to collaboration. Additionally, they are intentional about where employees sit, promoting proximity to high performers to boost overall productivity.
These companies also empower employees by providing data and research to guide their decisions on when and how to come into the office.
These companies also empower employees by providing data and research to guide their decisions on when and how to come into the office. This approach not only enhances buy-in but also ensures that office time is spent effectively, fostering meaningful interactions and collaboration.
Conclusion: Crafting Intentional RTO Strategies
The path to successful RTO lies in intentionality, clear communication, and a balanced approach that combines structured frameworks with team-level flexibility – that’s what I advise my clients who ask me for how to optimize their flexible work plans. By understanding the unique benefits of in-person collaboration and designing office environments to enhance these interactions, companies can bridge the gap between management’s expectations and employees’ needs. As Micah Remley insightfully points out, the key is not just to bring employees back to the office but to create a purposeful, engaging, and productive workplace that justifies the return.
When artificial intelligence is introduced into the workplace, the conversation often turns to fears of job displacement. Yet, in a revealing interview with Andrew Joiner, CEO of Hyperscience, a different narrative emerges—one where AI isn’t simply a force of replacement, but a liberating tool that takes over the tasks most employees don’t want to do. As governments across the United States adapt to a new era of digital transformation, Joiner’s perspective reframes the promise of generative AI: not as a threat, but as an enabler of more meaningful work.
Governments Leading the Way on AI Adoption
While it’s easy to imagine the private sector as the epicenter of AI innovation, Joiner points to the public sector—particularly the federal government—as surprisingly progressive in adopting and managing AI. For years, government agencies have used AI in high-stakes domains like logistics and defense. The new frontier, however, lies in back-office functions that directly serve citizens. From Veterans Affairs to the Social Security Administration (SSA), AI is now being deployed to streamline processes, reduce wait times, and enhance service delivery.
From Veterans Affairs to the Social Security Administration (SSA), AI is now being deployed to streamline processes, reduce wait times, and enhance service delivery.
What sets this government adoption apart is its maturity. “The public sector is already familiar with the benefits and challenges of AI,” says Joiner. “Now they’re expanding its use to areas that directly affect everyday people.” That expansion, according to him, comes with the benefit of oversight and structure. Governments, he argues, are not merely interested in cost savings but in efficacy—delivering services faster and more accurately to citizens.
Shifting the Focus From Job Loss to Job Transformation
Public anxiety around AI frequently centers on job security, with headlines declaring mass layoffs as generative models become more capable. Joiner acknowledges that some roles, particularly those involving repetitive tasks like taking phone calls or summarizing citizen interactions, will indeed be automated. But he is quick to draw a distinction between task automation and job elimination.
“These tools allow employees to focus on the parts of their jobs that matter most,” he explains. “No one is excited to spend their day cross-checking signatures across dozens of documents or interpreting inconsistent grading systems from global transcripts. That’s where AI thrives—handling the tedious work so people can do what they’re best at.”
At Hyperscience, this philosophy guides their partnerships with agencies like SSA, where they process billions of documents annually. The automation supports them, freeing up time for higher-level thinking, decision-making, and person-to-person service.
Building Guardrails for Responsible Use
Concerns over biased AI decisions and errant model outputs are valid—and Joiner doesn’t shy away from them. He outlines a framework for responsible AI use that includes “human-in-the-loop” processes. These systems are designed with confidence thresholds, where the AI acts autonomously when it’s certain and defers to human review when it’s not.
“This isn’t about letting machines make all the decisions,” he says. “It’s about creating a dynamic where AI handles the grunt work, but humans are still steering the ship.” Hyperscience also supports agencies in training specialized models tailored to their unique data, a critical step given the messy, unstructured nature of government information.
That includes complex formats like scanned W2s, handwritten claims, and visa applications with varying international standards. The goal is to convert this data into structured, readable formats that AI—and human analysts—can understand.
Empowering Employees, Not Replacing Them
AI’s promise isn’t just about speed or accuracy—it’s about making people’s jobs better. “Think of it like when word processors first arrived,” Joiner says. “It changed the way we work, but it didn’t eliminate writers.” Similarly, the shift from manual document processing to AI-assisted workflows allows employees to be more effective, not redundant.
To ease the transition, Hyperscience works directly with agency employees, engaging them in the training and deployment of AI tools. This approach fosters ownership and reduces resistance. “People are understandably cautious,” Joiner notes. “But once they see how these tools reduce their mental load, the anxiety starts to fade.”
Take the Department of Justice, for example. Investigators there once spent years poring over international banking records to track corporate fraud. Now, AI models can structure those documents in a matter of hours, enabling investigators to focus on case-building instead of data entry.
A Future of Frictionless Government Services
Emerging technologies like agentic AI systems could soon autonomously initiate tasks, retrieve supplementary information, and resolve issues before a human even notices a problem.
Looking ahead, Joiner envisions a future where government workflows are not just enhanced by AI, but transformed. Emerging technologies like agentic AI systems could soon autonomously initiate tasks, retrieve supplementary information, and resolve issues before a human even notices a problem. This vision isn’t speculative—it’s already beginning to take shape.
For veterans dealing with 20,000-page medical histories, AI can now extract relevant data quickly, enabling faster decisions about benefits and care. For immigrants applying for visas, AI can normalize disparate international educational records and flag inconsistencies automatically. “These are systems built to improve lives,” says Joiner, “not just balance spreadsheets.”
As the federal government continues to scale these technologies, the ripple effects will be profound. More citizens will receive timely, accurate, and respectful service. More employees will spend their days solving problems instead of sorting papers. And more agencies will realize that the key to digital transformation isn’t replacing the human touch—it’s removing the digital noise that gets in the way of it.
The conversation around AI doesn’t need to be dominated by fear. As Joiner sees it, the real story is about freedom—freedom from tedious work, from inefficient systems, and from the limits of old technology. When done right, AI doesn’t take jobs. It takes the worst parts of them.
President Donald Trump’s announcement that the United States launched airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear sites, including the Fordow facility, drew swift and wide-ranging reactions from leaders around the globe.
Calling the operation a “very successful attack,” Trump celebrated the strike as a turning point. “This is an HISTORIC MOMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ISRAEL, AND THE WORLD,” he posted on Truth Social. “IRAN MUST NOW AGREE TO END THIS WAR.”
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi condemned the assault, accusing Washington of violating international law and the UN Charter. He said Tehran “reserves all options” in defending its sovereignty and described the strike on what he called “peaceful nuclear installations” as an act of aggression.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised Trump’s decision, calling it a bold move that could reshape history. “First comes strength, then comes peace,” he said in a televised address.
United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres urged restraint, warning of dire consequences if tensions spiral. “There is no military solution,” he stated. “The only hope is peace.”
China’s UN envoy Fu Cong denounced the attack, especially Israel’s involvement, and called for an immediate ceasefire. Leaders across the Asia-Pacific region echoed similar concerns. Japan urged calm, while Australia backed the U.S. operation. South Korea reviewed its response in a National Security Council meeting.
In Europe, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer pushed for renewed dialogue, while EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas urged all parties to de-escalate and resume negotiations. Iran responded by rejecting the notion that it had abandoned talks.
Middle Eastern neighbors including Saudi Arabia and Qatar expressed alarm over rising tensions and called for diplomatic solutions. Iran’s regional allies, such as the Houthis in Yemen and Hezbollah in Lebanon, issued statements condemning the strikes and warning of broader instability.
Russia’s Dmitry Medvedev criticized Trump’s leadership, casting doubt on his reputation as a peace advocate. Venezuela and Cuba also sharply rebuked the military action, calling it a breach of international norms.
Pope Leo, addressing the faithful in St. Peter’s Square, urged global leaders to choose diplomacy over destruction. “No armed victory can compensate for the pain of mothers or the fear of children,” he said.
As diplomatic fallout continues, world leaders remain divided over the strike’s implications for regional stability and the future of global security.
PETERSBURG, June 18 – The real fintech revolution is happening in the Global South, not Wall Street, Brazilian technology executive Thiago Ruediger told international business leaders at the opening of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) on Tuesday, signaling a significant shift in global financial innovation from traditional Western centers to emerging markets.
“Forget Wall Street—the fintech revolution is happening in the Global South,” declared Ruediger, CEO of Tanssi Foundation, during the forum’s opening session, “Shaping a New Platform for Global Growth.”The Brazilian executive emphasised that blockchain technology is making money and assets programmable, and when combined with artificial intelligence, it provides a powerful catalyst for transforming the entire financial sector.
The four-day forum, running through June 21 in Russia’s cultural capital, has attracted global business leaders and policymakers to discuss pressing economic challenges amid a turbulent international landscape. The opening session, organised by the National Centre “Russia,”presented findings from the International Open Dialogue focusing on economic fragmentation, demographic shifts, breakthrough technologies, and growing social and technological divides within and between nations.
Ruediger’s bold assertion challenges conventional wisdom about financial innovation originating in established Western financial centres. “Fintech is changing the rules of the game, impacting traditional banks and opening new opportunities for millions of people,” he said, highlighting how emerging markets are leapfrogging traditional banking infrastructure through mobile and blockchain technologies.
The Brazilian executive expressed particular enthusiasm about the potential for reducing transaction costs in global financial markets. “I believe this will help people reduce costs for operations in global financial markets. I’m ready to discuss this with enthusiasm. I’m waiting for these processes to come to Brazil and the whole world,” Ruediger stated, noting that Brazil and Russia are actively sharing experiences in fintech development.
Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Administration Maxim Oreshkin, who moderated the session, placed these technological developments within a broader geopolitical context. “This year’s St. Petersburg International Economic Forum is taking place against turbulent world events. This includes the situation in the Middle East and trade wars,” Oreshkin noted, emphasising that while current crises demand attention, long-term trends and fundamental challenges remain crucial.
Oreshkin stressed the importance of focusing on structural issues shaping the global economy. “We must not forget which long-term trends and challenges are basic and defining. It’s important to conduct open dialogue about how we build the world of the future, how to form a new platform for global growth,” he said.
The session explored critical questions about the geography and nature of future economic growth. “Which countries will drive this global growth, which technologies will it be built on, what principles and cultural codes will guide it—these are the fundamental questions we must address,” Oreshkin explained. He emphasised that progress must benefit people in all countries working toward the future, with open dialogue as the foundation for building shared understanding.
The discussion highlighted how emerging markets, particularly Latin America, Africa, and Asia, are pioneering financial technologies serving populations traditionally excluded from formal banking systems. This shift represents technological advancement and a fundamental restructuring of global economic power dynamics, with innovation increasingly flowing from South to North rather than following traditional patterns.
Speakers at the session also discussed the comprehensive report prepared by the Centre for Cross-Industry Expertise, “Third Rome”, following the Open Dialogue initiative. The session format featured sequential discussions examining economics, technology, and human factors in a rapidly changing world, providing a multifaceted analysis of contemporary challenges and opportunities.
The insights shared during this opening session will shape discussions throughout SPIEF-2025’s business program. The forum continues to serve as a crucial platform for international dialogue on economic development, with this year’s focus on how emerging markets are reshaping global financial systems through technological innovation.
The session’s proceedings underscore a significant shift in global economic dynamics, with the Global South emerging as a leader in financial innovation rather than a follower of Western models. This transformation has implications for financial services and broader questions of economic development, technological sovereignty, and international cooperation.
As SPIEF continues through June 21, participants will further explore these themes, examining how the fintech revolution in emerging markets might reshape global economic relationships and create new opportunities for inclusive growth. The complete recording of the “Shaping a New Platform for Global Growth” session is available on the National Centre “Russia” website for those seeking more profound insights into these transformative discussions.
All the photos in the article are provided by the company(s) mentioned in the article and are used with permission.
At the University of California, Irvine, the Human Resources office sits at the intersection of tradition and transformation. Ramona Agrela, Vice President, UCI Health, and Vice Chancellor, Human Resources, UC Irvine, is steering the HR team that supports this 34,000-employee institution through the early phases of generative AI (Gen AI) adoption with both pragmatism and hope. As she reflects on UC Irvine HR’s (UCI HR) journey in her interview with me, a clear picture emerges of how higher education’s distinct culture, constraints, and commitments are shaping its path forward.
Balancing Innovation With Infrastructure
Unlike nimble tech startups or resource-rich corporations, universities operate in layered bureaucracies. At UCI, this complexity is amplified by its unique structure: a main academic campus, a College of Health Sciences, and the sprawling UCI Health clinical enterprise. While many organizations are sprinting ahead with AI adoption, higher education often has to walk before it can run.
Rather than viewing AI as an isolated project, it is woven into the university’s broader goals.
Agrela describes UCI HR’s Gen AI initiative as being in its foundational stage, focused on improving operational efficiency. “It’s a lot of looking at self-service functions,” she explains. “How to take the mundane tasks—those routine, repetitive ones—and use Gen AI to support them, freeing up time and energy for more strategic HR work.”
These ambitions are measured not by traditional AI success metrics, but by UCI HR’s own “North Star” framework: employee engagement, talent destination positioning, and process effectiveness. Rather than viewing AI as an isolated project, it is woven into the university’s broader goals. If AI helps move the needle on these benchmarks, it’s considered a success.
Time and Training: The True Costs of AI
Despite the promise, Agrela is clear-eyed about the hurdles. Chief among them is time—an increasingly scarce commodity in a post-merger HR landscape now responsible for an additional 4,200 employees. “You don’t want to just throw in a tool and hope that it’s working,” she says. “It takes training, patience, and knowledge, and that’s a tough ask when everyone is already stretched thin.”
This perspective highlights a critical distinction between higher education and private sector AI adoption: the speed of execution. At UCI, just choosing the right tool is a slow, deliberative process, involving not only usability evaluations but cultural and strategic alignment assessments. For Agrela, deploying Gen AI is akin to onboarding a new employee—it must be oriented, trained, and integrated into the team. That metaphor, offered by a colleague, speaks volumes about the human-centric ethos of academic institutions.
Cost is another constraint. While some existing HR systems include AI functionalities as bolt-ons, budgetary limits often restrict experimentation with newer, standalone tools. As Agrela notes, “A lot of the things we just don’t have a budget for.”
Cultural Resistance and Ethical Guardrails
Resistance to Gen AI isn’t just logistical—it’s also cultural. In higher education, where faculty and staff value personal connection and intellectual rigor, the notion of outsourcing interactions to a machine often sparks discomfort. “People are used to picking up a phone and calling a person,” Agrela observes. “Talking to a computer isn’t something our long-term employees are necessarily comfortable with.”
This cautious approach extends to applicant screening, where AI tools capable of parsing resumes have been intentionally sidelined. “We’re not using AI in applicant screening right now because we haven’t had the time to ensure it won’t cause some form of discrimination,” she says. That decision speaks to a deeper concern about fairness, bias, and trust—issues that loom especially large in academic settings where equity is a guiding principle.
To navigate these ethical waters, UCI leans on a multi-tiered governance structure. A compliance and privacy committee vets every new technology to ensure it meets legal and institutional standards. A separate data governance committee ensures that AI tools integrate responsibly with existing systems. While some universities might form a single AI oversight body, UCI’s segmented approach reflects its caution and commitment to layered accountability.
Shifting From Transactional to Strategic
With universities like UCI facing ongoing financial pressures, AI offers a path to maintain service levels without expanding headcount.
Despite the early stage of adoption and the many hurdles ahead, Agrela is optimistic about Gen AI’s long-term impact. Her vision is not just about doing more with less, but about elevating the role of HR professionals. “I envision my teams becoming smaller over time,” she says. “AI can take over the transactional work—writing memos, processing leave paperwork, managing routine correspondence—so we can focus on workforce planning, employee development, and organizational strategy.”
In this way, Gen AI is not a threat but a tool for resilience. With universities like UCI facing ongoing financial pressures, AI offers a path to maintain service levels without expanding headcount. But this transformation will only be successful if handled thoughtfully. “You need deep, helpful thought partners to do this work,” Agrela insists. And if AI can help free up those human minds to think more deeply and act more strategically, then it will have truly earned its place on campus.
A Measured, Mission-Driven Evolution
UCI HR’s approach to Gen AI adoption is not one of explosive innovation, but of careful evolution. It’s a case study in how large, complex, and values-driven organizations can begin to integrate new technologies without losing sight of their mission. In higher education, change is often incremental and always contextual. Gen AI, for all its power, must adapt to that reality.
As Agrela puts it, “Higher ed is a unique animal.” In this ecosystem, the success of Gen AI won’t be measured by how fast it spreads, but by how well it supports the people and principles that define the institution. And in that respect, UCI is setting a thoughtful, responsible pace for others to follow.
As President Trump ordered the US to attack three major Iranian nuclear sites, a misguided concept of Israel’s national security morphed into an even more twisted view of US national security.
Ironically, Iran is a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which Israel shuns. As shown by The Fall of Israel (2025), the US/Israeli path to the carnage across the Middle East was paved almost 60 years ago.
Yom Kippur War
Israel first crossed the nuclear threshold on the eve of the Six-Day War in May 1967, when Prime Minister Levi Eshkol secretly ordered the nuclear reactor scientists in Dimona to assemble two crude nuclear devices. The crude atomic bombs “were readied for deployment on trucks that could race to the Egyptian border for detonation in the event Arab forces overwhelmed Israeli defenses.”
At the eve of Yom Kippur in 1973, despite advance intelligence about the impending attack, Prime Minister Golda Meir decided not to launch a pre-emptive strike fearing the U.S. response could prove adverse as it had in 1956. Mobilization proved grossly inadequate; for a few days, Israel faced an existential threat.
Even the normally sober Defense Minister Moshe Dayan was rattled enough to later tell Meir that “this is the end of the Third Temple.” It was a reference to the collapse of the state of Israel. But “Temple” was also the code word for nuclear weapons.
On the night of October 8, Meir and her kitchen cabinet had thirteen 20-kiloton atomic bombs assembled. Their destructive potential was higher than that of the atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima, with an explosive yield of the equivalent of about 15 kilotons of dynamite.
At the edge of a nuclear war
The Israelis planned to use the bombs against Egyptian and Syrian targets if Arab forces would advance too far. Leaks suggest that the primary purpose was strategic deterrent; but it also signaled a tentative “Samson Option”; that is, a massive potential Israeli retaliation as a “last resort” option.
The Israelis planned to use the bombs against Egyptian and Syrian targets if Arab forces would advance too far.
At the time, the implications of the devastating aftermath of even tactical nuclear strikes were not well-known. As the Soviets began to resupply Arab forces, particularly Syria, Meir requested Nixon for help with military supply.
After the full nuclear alert, Israelis began to load the warheads into waiting planes. Cognizant of the potential implications, Nixon ordered a full-scale strategic airlift operation to deliver weapons and supplies to Israel. By the time the aid arrived, Israel was gaining the upper hand in the war.
After those days on a nuclear edge, nothing would ever remain the same in the Middle East. American military aid to Israel contributed to the 1973 OPEC embargo against the United States, which was lifted in March 1974, and subsequently to the overthrow of the Shah in Iran 1979, followed by another oil crisis.
The twin crises and the postwar economic expansion ended with devastating stagflation, which led to record-high interest rates. As the Keynesian era faded away, monetarism coupled with Reagan’s rearmament drives ensued.
Nuclear stockpiles
The conventional estimate is that Israel’s nuclear stockpile comprises some 90 nuclear warheads, which makes the tiny country the world’s 9th largest nuclear power. However, unofficial estimates vary. The conventional estimate is at the lower end of a possible range that some analysts suggest could be as high as 200, up to 400 nuclear weapons.68 The latter would make it the world’s 4th largest nuclear power, right after Russia, the U.S., and China, and before France, the UK, India and Pakistan.
World Nuclear Forces
Source: SIPRI, author, January 2024
Most Israelis perceive Iran as the primary nuclear risk. Israel has a broad range of nuclear weapons, while Iran may have enriched enough nuclear material to build them but is thought not to have done so, as of yet. Such weapons, were they to exist, would be deeply underground, possibly inaccessible even by a nuclear strike. In such scenarios, large civilian hubs would not be collateral damage, but intended mass targets.
According to some projections, nuclear weapon detonations in Iran’s densely populated cities would likely result in millions of dead, with tens of millions of injured and without adequate medical care, a devastating loss of municipal infrastructure, long-term disruption of economic, educational, and other essential social activity, and a full breakdown in law and order. These nightmares include thermal burn and radiation patients who would have to suffer their extreme pains without any treatment.
Stated doctrine of “nuclear ambiguity”
Officially, Israel has a long-standing policy of nuclear ambiguity. While it has used psychological warfare leaks to signal its disproportionate nuclear deterrence, it neither officially confirms nor denies that it possesses nuclear weapons. In public, the standard statement has been that “Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East.”
Yet effectively, the Israeli policy is more preemptive by nature.
The country first flirted with the nuclear option at the eve of the 1967 War, concerned that it might lose. Since the early 1960s, Israel has relied on what investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has described as the Samson Option. The term refers to the biblical figure of Samson who pushed apart the pillars of a Philistine temple bringing down the roof. In the process, he killed not just his enemy, the Philistines, but himself as well. It suggests an ultimate deterrence strategy of massive retaliation.
In October 1973, amid the Egyptian-Syrian invasion, Golda Meir and Moshe Dayan mobilized nuclear warheads for possible use, which led to president Nixon’s massive rearmament drive and the rapid deepening of the bilateral military ties – and eventually the symbiotic relationship that President Trump touted in his Sunday White House commentary, right after the US attacks against Iran’s nuclear enclaves.
The Begin Doctrine
In 1981, Israel destroyed Iraq’s nuclear reactor Osirak as the Begin government initiated its war on Lebanon. Despite public criticism by the Reagan administration, the U.S. and Israel signed a strategic memorandum of understanding and began to deepen bilateral ties in defense. The Osirak attack gave rise to the Begin nuclear doctrine, which allows no “hostile” regional state to possess nuclear military capability.
Begin described the strike as an act of “anticipatory self-defense at its best.” He framed it as a long-term national commitment.
We chose this moment: now, not later, because later may be too late, perhaps forever…. Then, this country and this people would have been lost, after the Holocaust. Another Holocaust would have happened in the history of the Jewish people. Never again, never again! … We shall not allow any enemy to develop weapons of mass destruction turned against us.
In a sense, the Begin doctrine reflected the right-wing Likud party’s offensive view of national security. But it also represented continuity and can be dated to the early 1960s Operation Damocles, Mossad’s covert campaign to assassinate Nazi Germany’s rocket scientists working for Egypt to develop bombs using radioactive waste. The legendary head of Mossad, Isser Harel, recruited former Nazis to provide intelligence on Arab countries.
When I met Harel in the mid-1970s, he denied all such stories. But subsequently, he confirmed them. One of these hired hands was the legendary Waffen-SS commando Otto Skorzeny, who had served as adviser to Egypt’s President Nasser. There is a straight line from Operation Damocles to Israel’s 1981 attack on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor and the subsequent targeted killings of Iranian nuclear scientists, particularly since 2010 – and up to the present.
The far-right Messianic dream to “nuke Gaza”
A month after the Hamas offensive of October 7, Netanyahu’s heritage minister Amichai Eliyahu suggested that one of Israel’s options in the war against Hamas was to drop a nuclear bomb on the Gaza Strip. As the story spread internationally, it was quickly disavowed by PM Netanyahu, but he did not fire his minister.
The far-right Eliyahu objected to allowing any humanitarian aid into Gaza, saying, “we wouldn’t hand the Nazis humanitarian aid because there is no such thing as uninvolved civilians in Gaza.”
In a way, Eliyahu got what he wished for. By late April 2024, Israel had dropped more than 70,000 tons of bombs over Gaza, surpassing the bombing of Dresden, Hamburg, and London combined during World War II. That amounts to more than 30 kilograms of explosives per individual on mainly women and children.
Reflecting extraordinary brutality and blind disregard to human life, it was a shocking war crime with no parallel in recent history.
Furthermore, the weight of the U.S. nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan was estimated at about 15,000 tons of explosives. Even before the Rafah offensive in May 2024, Gaza had been bombed almost five times more than that. Reflecting extraordinary brutality and blind disregard to human life, it was a shocking war crime with no parallel in recent history.
What made it all the more stunning was the Biden-Harris complicity coupled with the hollow assurances that “we are working 24 hours a day for peace” with the whole world watching the other way.
“Peace through strength”
According to US intelligence assessments, Iran was up to three years away from being able to produce and deliver a nuclear weapon. While Israel built its case for war, the US didn’t buy it. The problem is that President Trump did.
It is the notorious “peace through strength” premise that Trump relied on when US struck three major Iranian nuclear sites, joining overtly the Israeli air campaign against nuclear program that it had until then supported mainly covertly.
American diplomacy no longer exists. It has been replaced by diplomatic deception and historically unprecedent lethal force. All gloves are now off. The premise that the Iran attacks reflect a “mission accomplished” couldn’t be more off. The carnage hasn’t ended. It has begun.
The author of The Fall of Israel (2025),Dr. Dan Steinbockis an internationally-renowned visionary of the multipolar world and the founder of Difference Group. He has served at the India, China and America Institute (USA), Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (China) and the EU Center (Singapore). For more, see https://www.differencegroup.net
As financial services face mounting pressure to stay agile and cost-efficient, demand for interim legal talent is surging. But outdated, lengthy recruitment processes may be undermining access to the high-calibre interim lawyers they urgently need
In recent years, the financial services sector has seen a notable rise in the demand for interim lawyers. This trend is driven not only by the need to fill skill gaps within departments, cover parental leave, and support ongoing projects, but also by the increasing difficulty in securing secondees. Some banks try and tie their panel law firms into arrangements where they get a quota of free secondees, but only the large banks seem to profit from this arrangement with top-tier US and UK law firms. Even then, these free resources are in short supply and are often only available for 3 to 6 months.
With cost-containment the theme for 2025, financial services companies are also hiring interim lawyers in lieu of securing permanent budget (‘try-before-you-buy’). However, lengthy recruitment processes that might be deemed more suitable for permanent hires often prohibit a company’s ability to hire the best interim lawyers available in the market.
The talent tug-of-war
While the legal job market, both interim and permanent, may not be as active as it was post-Covid, the war to hire the most talented interim lawyers remains rife for certain skill sets. Derivatives (notably equity derivatives) and structured products lawyers are hot commodities, particularly those who have specialised experience that matches bespoke client requirements. A slow hiring process increases the risk that interim lawyers will accept a position at a competitor.
Hesitation may also lead interim lawyers to turn their attention to alternative employers. Agile resources often want to partner with decisive organisations that value their expertise. Investment banks are often a good example of this – once they meet a few interim lawyers, they hone in on a preferred option ordinarily after one interview. An offer may materialise or a request for a second round ‘meet and greet’, but often nothing more than this. The investment banks know what they want and move quickly to close out an efficient recruitment process.
Buy-side firms, principally private equity firms, tend to take a lot longer, and this is often attributed to the deal-oriented work the lawyers would be conducting and the fact that they need to meet several internal stakeholders (but even these processes can and should be streamlined).
Ultimately, the way a company coordinates an interview process can shape an interim lawyer’s overall impression, positively or negatively, of how the business operates more generally.
Move quickly, hire wisely
Depending on the reason for hiring an interim lawyer, making a swift hire could be crucial to the business. But a slow interview process could result in businesses having to spend more money outsourcing work to law firms, there could be increased legal and compliance risks, or, particularly if a legal team is stretched, be faced with attrition within the legal team due to negative work/life balance.
Processes should be streamlined. It is common for permanent processes to take several months to complete, but interim processes should take a week or two (with onboarding taking a few more weeks). Similarly, some companies like to conduct legal tests to ascertain technical ability for permanent headcount – this is time-consuming for an interim role and will often deter interim lawyers from the interview process. If companies are concerned about quality/cultural fit, they can improve hiring efficiency by leveraging networks of interim lawyers provided by specialist alternative legal service providers (ALSPs) and legal search firms. These interim lawyers are pre-vetted, and ALSPs/legal search firms can provide an honest commentary on suitability for roles.
The bottom line
It is important to keep in mind that the pool of candidates for interim lawyers is considerably smaller than that for permanent roles. If an interim lawyer meets your criteria, move quickly with an offer or risk the individual securing a new role with a competitor – there might not be another similar candidate available. There are very clear trends across the interim legal financial services market, with many investment banks looking for the same type of consultant (notably if there is a particular project or trend in the market). Take May/June of this year, for example – banks are going through transformation projects which include team restructures and redundancies. This has resulted in an uptick in the demand for interim employment lawyers. The best will get snapped up quickly (twinned with competitive day rates).
Streamline the process by limiting interviews to one or two rounds – ensure all decision makers are present in the interviews, or stack them back-to-back for efficiency. Get quality assurance by partnering with specialist interim providers who have access to pre-vetted interim lawyers that can be drafted in at short notice.
Christian Worthyis a Managing Director in the Interim Legal group at Major Lindsey & Africa, working across the EMEA region. Having cultivated deep, long-lasting relationships with the world’s largest banks, asset managers and trading houses, Christian is best placed to help financial services with their acquisition of interim legal talent by connecting opportunities with the right lawyers.
With its misguided tariff wars, the Trump administration is not only disrupting historical trade ties with the world’s largest economies, but waging war against economic development in the Global South.
After agreeing to suspend the “reciprocal” duties for 90 days — till early July — Trump threatened to set country-specific tariff rates. By making good his promise and imposing unilateral tariffs on imports from the US’ trading partners, Trump will severely disrupt export-led growth, which has fueled global growth for years, and shatter the development dreams and aspirations of emerging and developing economies.
China’s global trade engine is a case in point.
$3.6 trillion of exports to 230 countries
In 2024, US exports amounted to some $2.1 trillion. That’s significantly more than those by Germany ($1.7 tr) or the Netherlands ($0.7 tr), Europe’s two largest trading economies. Yet, today the value of US exports is less than 60% of those by China that amount to $3.6 trillion. Today, China contributes some 15% of all exports worldwide. That’s twice as much as the US (Figure 1).
Figure 1: China’s export partners worldwide
Source: Latest data (for 2024), ITC, June 2025
China’s exports have some 230 destinations. Most go to major economies in North America (US, Mexico, Canada), Western Europe (Germany, Netherlands, UK), East Asia (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan), Southeast Asia (Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand), India, Russia and Australia.
In 2018, before the first Trump administration’s tariff wars, the United States still accounted for over 19% of China’s total exports. In 2024, that figure was barely 16%; that is, less than Chinese exports to Europe and Southeast Asia, each. Ever since the US tariff wars, China has diversified its exports away from the US.
In the past decade, this trend has been greatly reinforced by Chinese trade with Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) countries. Nearly 54% of China’s imports came from BRI partner countries last year, with China’s huge marketplace providing development opportunities for nations around the world.
China’s trade is vital to the emerging and developing economies of the Global South, where the West’s exports often are prohibitively expensive. The West exports mainly to economies that share similar high living standards. Such trade is predicated on high purchasing power, which is the privilege of high-income economies.
Trump’s war against economic development
The first round of Trump tariffs built on traditional trade wars focusing mainly on Canada, Mexico and China. The second round began with “reciprocal tariffs”, which actually are unilateral, flawed as stated and mistakenly calculated. Those tariffs were followed by a slate of retaliatory tariffs.
The net effect has been a stunning downgrading of the economic prospects in the United States, its trading partners and the global economy. What is less understood is the likely long-term effect of Trump’s unilateral tariffs, which is to undermine the rise of the Global South.
The US administration’s original list of these tariff targets comprised almost 60 countries and regions. Except for the EU as a bloc and a few high-income countries, three of four of these targets represent emerging and developing economies; that is, the Global South. The Trump administration is at war against their economic development (Figure 2).
Since the late 20th century, most economies that have been able to industrialize and catch-up with the advanced economies of the West have done so on the back of export-led growth. It is what fueled the rise of Asian tigers in the postwar era (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan), their subsequent successors (Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia).
They were followed by China – and today India and some Southeast Asian economies.
From Western domination to multipolarity
After World War II, the United States dominated half of the world economy. It was the “world’s factory,” the largest manufacturer and exporter. As the largest creditor, it also held huge leverage over the international economy. This dominance, in turn, was reflected by the mighty US dollar that had a virtual monopoly in international transactions.
All that is history today.
Of course, the United States remains the largest single economy in the world, but its relative share has shrunk to about a fourth or fifth of the world GDP. It hasn’t been the world’s largest export manufacturer since the postwar era. Starting in the 1970s, it has suffered from trade deficits and today it is the world’s largest debtor. Concurrently, the share of US dollar in international transactions has shrunk to less than 60%.
In the process, Washington has played itself into a dark corner: it cannot fully decouple from China without major economic turmoil. But thanks to its tariffs, it cannot any longer benefit from China’s affordable prices, which has long contributed to low inflation in the US.
Today any major threat to undermine Chinese trade poses a $6.2 trillion threat – that is, export plus imports combined – to its trading partners, particularly the Global South and the world at large.
The original version was published by China Daily on June 20, 2025.
Dr. Dan Steinbockis an internationally recognized strategist of the multipolar world and the founder of Difference Group. He has served at the India, China and America Institute (USA), Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (China) and the EU Center (Singapore). For more, see https://www.differencegroup.net
By Terence Tse
CFOs are evolving into AI-driven transformation orchestrators, balancing finance, technology, and strategy while upskilling teams, managing risks, and driving measurable business value.
A key insight from this year’s AI for CFOs event, organized...
The World Financial Review uses cookies to improve site functionality, provide you with a better browsing experience, and to enable our partners to advertise to you. Detailed information on the use of cookies on this Site, and how you can decline them, is provided in our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions. By clicking on the accept button and using this Site, you consent to our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions. ACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
Dr. Gleb Tsipursky
The author of The Fall of Israel (2025),
Christian Worthy
