In today’s financial landscape, artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming how decisions are made, from predicting market trends to detecting fraud. However, while AI’s ability to process data at lightning speed is undeniable, it lacks a fundamentally human element—emotional intelligence (EI).
EI, which includes self-awareness, empathy, and ethical judgment, is just as crucial in finance as data-driven insights. When combined, AI and EI lead to smarter, more responsible financial decisions that balance logic with humanity.
AI’s Role in Financial Decision-Making
AI has revolutionised finance by enabling faster, more efficient decision-making. Some key applications include:
Fraud Detection: AI can recognise transaction patterns and flag anomalies, reducing fraudulent activities and false declines. Companies like Mastercard use AI-driven fraud detection systems to protect consumers while maintaining seamless transactions.
Risk Assessment: AI helps lenders evaluate creditworthiness by analysing vast datasets, leading to fairer and more accurate loan approvals. Traditional credit scoring models often miss nuances that AI can detect, improving financial inclusion.
Algorithmic Trading: AI processes market data at high speeds, executing trades based on predictive models. While this enhances investment strategies, it lacks the human intuition needed to navigate economic uncertainties and emotional market reactions.
While AI provides efficiency, its blind spot is human context—the ethical and emotional considerations that go beyond numbers. This is where EI comes in.
The Importance of Emotional Intelligence in Leadership
While AI may drive financial outcomes, emotionally intelligent leadership ensures that these decisions consider the people affected. EI is essential for:
Building Trust and Relationships: While AI can analyse customer data and suggest financial products, it is emotional intelligence that builds long-term client relationships. Trust isn’t formed through algorithms; it’s built through genuine human connections.
Making Tough Ethical Decisions: Financial decisions—whether they involve layoffs, budget cuts, or investments—must balance profitability with social impact. AI might suggest cost-cutting measures, but a leader with high EI weighs the long-term effects on employees, customers, and company culture.
Managing Crisis and Uncertainty: Markets fluctuate, and financial crises happen. AI can provide predictive analytics, but it is an emotionally intelligent leader who reassures teams, keeps morale high, and guides an organization through uncertainty.
How AI and EI Work Together
The best financial leaders leverage AI’s capabilities while applying EI to ensure decisions are not just effective but also ethical. Here’s how they complement each other:
Ethical Decision-Making: AI can recommend cost-saving layoffs, but an emotionally intelligent leader will consider the human impact and explore alternatives.
Client-Centric Strategy: AI personalizes financial services based on data, but human judgment ensures these recommendations align with real-life needs and emotions.
Leadership Through Change: AI identifies trends, but EI-driven leaders help teams adapt and embrace innovation with confidence.
Real-World Examples of AI and EI in Action
Companies that successfully integrate AI and EI see better outcomes. Take JPMorgan Chase, which uses AI to enhance trading strategies and fraud detection. However, when it comes to major acquisitions or restructuring, human leaders make the final call, considering employee and stakeholder impact.
Similarly, Tiger Brokers recently adopted AI for financial data analysis and trading decisions. While AI improves efficiency, human decision-makers still oversee final investment moves, ensuring strategic alignment with long-term business goals.
The Future: Balancing AI’s Precision with EI’s Wisdom
As AI continues to shape finance, leaders who embrace both AI and EI will drive the most sustainable success. AI can process data, but only humans can interpret its real-world implications. The best financial decisions are not just data-driven—they are people-driven.
Numbers can tell us where the market is going, but only human wisdom ensures we take the right path. The future of finance isn’t AI versus EI; it’s AI with EI.
Leading financial voices have expressed alarm over the fast rise of the $2.1 trillion private loan industry. This commentary analyzes the potential for systemic financial risks to be triggered by the opacity, leverage, and illiquidity of private credit, and it questions whether Wall Street is sleepwalking toward another collapse.
In May 2024, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon warned that the private credit boom could become a major risk to financial stability, stating, “I expect there to be problems. If things go wrong, there could be hell to pay.” (Bloomberg) His concerns reflect an ongoing discussion on Wall Street: is private credit a beneficial growth of capital markets, or is it a potential subprime mortgage crisis in the making? Private credit, with over $2.1 trillion in assets under management and increasing, has emerged as one of the fastest-growing sectors in finance. (IMF) However, its opacity, high leverage, and illiquidity have raised concerns among regulators and institutional investors. The issue now is not if this market will experience stress, but whether it could lead to a wider liquidity crisis similar to that of 2008.
The private credit market has expanded significantly, evolving from a lesser-known asset class to a $2.1 trillion industry as of early 2024, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Previously viewed as an alternative investment strategy mainly used by hedge funds and private equity firms, private credit has emerged as a significant player in global finance, drawing interest from pension funds, insurance companies, and sovereign wealth funds. The rapid expansion of this largely unregulated sector, despite offering higher yields than traditional fixed-income assets, has raised concerns about the potential for triggering the next financial crisis. Analysts caution that private credit exhibits notable similarities to the subprime mortgage market prior to 2008, especially regarding risk opacity, high leverage, and market interconnectivity.
Private credit is non-bank lending where debt is generated outside public markets. Unlike corporate bonds or syndicated loans, these securities are privately arranged, which makes them very appealing for borrowers wanting freedom. Post-2008 banking rules that tightened capital requirements on conventional lenders under Basel III (Bank for International Settlements) help to explain the accelerated expansion of this industry. (BIS) Private credit organizations filled the void left by banks mandated to limit their exposure to riskier lending, providing finance to middle-market businesses who could otherwise find it difficult to obtain money. Since 2010, the IMF projects private credit has increased at a compound annual rate of nearly 13%, well above conventional lending markets. (IMF) Though attractive, the private credit explosion carries major dangers. The market’s lack of transparency is a major worry. Unlike publicly listed debt, private credit runs in an opaquer area with little disclosure obligations. Often, investors and authorities lack knowledge of the financial condition of underlying debtors. Many loans are quite leveraged, which aggravates this issue. According to the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), more than 60% of private credit deals have leverage levels over six times EBITDA, a level that would have been deemed too dangerous for conventional bank loans before the financial crisis. (BIS) Private lending markets have also seen a rise in covenant-lite loans. Now almost 90% of new leveraged loans, these loans impose little financial limitations on borrowers (S&P Global). Although they provide borrowers some freedom, they lower lender protections and hence cause more financial volatility. This pattern reflects the decline in lending criteria observed during the subprime mortgage crisis, when banks granted loans to applicants with little examination, therefore helping to cause the final collapse.
Another significant risk is liquidity mismatches. Unlike public debt markets, which allow for easy buying and selling of securities, private credit investments are highly illiquid. Funds typically have lock-up periods of 5 to 10 years, meaning investors cannot withdraw their capital during times of market stress. If economic conditions worsen, higher default rates among borrowers could create a liquidity crunch, forcing private credit firms to sell assets at distressed prices. Morgan Stanley (Morgan Stanley) recently warned that if interest rates remain high for an extended period, the combination of rising borrowing costs and falling asset valuations could lead to a wave of defaults in the sector.
These hazards are further exacerbated by the interconnectedness of private credit with the broader financial system. Over the past decade, pension funds and insurance companies have become some of the largest investors in private credit, with pension fund allocations to the asset class doubling from 5% to 10%. (Preqin)If a significant private credit fund experiences distress, it could cause shockwaves to ripple through these institutions, affecting retirees and policyholders who are oblivious of their exposure to such risky investments. Regulators have initiated an investigation. The IMF identified private credit as a potential systemic risk in its April 2024 Global Financial Stability Report. The IMF cautioned that the rapid expansion of private credit in an unregulated environment could result in financial vulnerabilities akin to those observed in shadow banking before 2008. Some policymakers are advocating for heightened oversight, contending that private credit should be subject to capital requirements and stress testing comparable to those imposed on banks. Nevertheless, industry leaders oppose efforts to regulate the sector, contending that private credit enhances market efficiency and provides essential liquidity to businesses. The critical question is whether private credit will follow the trajectory of subprime mortgages, i.e., expand unchecked until it becomes a systemic hazard. Even though some analysts contend that the market is more resilient than publicly traded debt due to its reliance on private negotiations and long-term capital commitments, others caution that the market’s lack of transparency, high leverage, and illiquid structures are a potential financial time bomb. The risk is that the liquidity crisis in private credit could propagate throughout the financial system in the event of an economic downturn, potentially precipitating a more extensive crisis. The rapid expansion of private credit is strikingly identical to previous financial excesses that resulted in significant systemic crises. The global markets were nearly brought to a halt in 1998 when Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) collapsed due to excessive leverage. This event necessitated a $3.6 billion intervention conducted by the Federal Reserve (Columbia Law School). Similarly, the banking system was nearly destroyed in 2008 because of the cascading defaults that resulted from the expansion of subprime mortgage backing securities. Private credit is currently operating under similarly fragile conditions: it is profoundly interconnected with institutional investors, lightly regulated, and highly leveraged. History indicates that the consequences of an increase in defaults and a decrease in liquidity could be extensive. Jamie Dimon’s warning should not be dismissed without consideration. Although private credit has not yet reached crisis levels, it possesses all the characteristics of a financial upheaval that is imminent. Regulators and market participants must act immediately to prevent this asset class from becoming the focal point of the next financial crisis, as corporate debt loads are increasing, interest rates remain at restrictive levels, and liquidity risk is on the rise.
Kanan Mammadovis a graduate student in Finance at George Washington University, with a focus on investment banking, corporate finance, and global economic risk. His commentary on international finance and economic policy has been featured in platforms such as the International Institute for Sustainable Development, Modern Diplomacy, and U.S. News & World Report.
We have a few possible paths to deal with the risks of a nuclear war. One is deterrence, having atomic powers that are so powerful that no state would dare to be the first to strike. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is strong. Stronger still is disarmament, a position of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), designed to stop the spread of atomic weapons by achieving complete world nuclear disarmament. With proliferation among growing nuclear states increasing, so are risks concerning possible miscalculations and accidents. We may never have airtight prevention, but two possibilities could set the “Doomsday Clock” back hours before midnight: the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) and the 2045 vision.
For a nuclear disaster, spread by wind and water and fear, could well engulf the great and the small, the rich and the poor, the committed and the uncommitted alike. Mankind must put an end to war—or war will put an end to mankind.[1]
– John F. Kennedy’s address before the
General Assembly of the United Nations, 1961
Executive Office of the President, NSRB, Civil Defense Office, 1950. Government Printing Office, Washington. Public Domain
It is difficult to imagine United States foreign policy altering immediately after atom bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One country became a superpower, and the hope at that time – for worldwide sanity – was that nuclear weapon adventurism would not spread wildly. That hope did not last long. There would be two, then three, and eventually nine. But, 18 years after that tragic bombing, there were already three: the United States, the Soviet Union, and the UK. It was a “stop and think” moment: what could happen if the numbers move far upward?
In 1963, the Soviet Union was number two on the nuclear list of three, not yet a threat but not a dire problem. The United States had 28,133 nuclear warheads, while the Soviet Union had 4,259 and the UK 256. It was a time to think. It was a time when schoolchildren knew almost nothing about the seriousness of a nuclear impact that could happen in their neighborhoods. They had not seen photos of children burned and poisoned by atomic radiation. They followed the rules designed for children to believe all would be well if they hid under their schoolroom desks when alarms went off. It was a pivotal year, because intelligence knew it was just a matter of time when there would be dozens of new nuclear powers.
For the United States, 1963 was a decisive year. There were many reasons, especially the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the 35th president of the United States, on November 26th. His administration was worried (as was Eisenhower’s) not only about a pending proliferation of nuclear arsenals but about the growing number of states that could become nuclear powers.
P.S. 58 – The Carroll School in Brooklyn. A “take cover” drill practice. Photo by Walter Albertin. Public Domain
It took five years for the Manhattan Project to develop the first atomic bomb. Though its research was classified, key nuclear bomb intelligence continuously leaked to the Soviet Union.[2] Klaus Fuchs, a German-born physicist who became a British citizen in 1942, passed atomic weapon design information to the Soviets while at Los Alamos, working for the Manhattan Project. Seven other spies leaked A-bomb intelligence to the Soviets. Though nuclear physics was freely accessible as textbook information, weapons-grade intelligence was leaking to adversaries and possibly to rogue states that could start their nuclear programs. Fuchs, who confessed to passing on information for seven years, was just one of eight spies feeding information to the Soviets.
For 13 days in October 1962, the United States was in a dangerous confrontation with the Soviet Union. It was a month of reckonings, slip-ups, secret communications, miscommunications, and – for sure – uncertainties that brought fear to the world that the two sides would soon be in a nuclear war over the deployment of Soviet missiles in Cuba.
I was a 20-year-old at the University of Paris, reading and seeing news that persistently interrupted my studies under mingling thoughts that I was 3,700 miles from home. I was living with a couple who generously offered rent-free rooms in their spacious, elegant apartment to musicians, artists, and me for nothing other than socializing in different languages. My host and hostess were carefully fair-minded over who to blame for the Cuban Missile Crisis, while I stayed shocked over an argument that the United States was to blame. “You,” one artist said, pointing a finger at me as if I had been on John F. Kennedy’s National Security Council, “you put missiles in Turkey and Italy. Turkey is just 1,000 miles from Moscow. How many miles is Cuba from Washington, DC? Same! So, what do you expect?”
What should I have expected at that time when all my information was coming from English newspapers? Were US missiles deployed in Turkey? What possessed the CIA to invade Cuba? “Think about it!” another resident entered the fray before I asked. “How far is Havana from Miami?” At that point, my host left the room and returned with an atlas to calculate the distance between the Turkish and Russian borders. Again, the distance was the same as between Havana and Miami. As I said, I was naïve. I later learned that expatriate Cubans supported and trained by the CIA formed a paramilitary force to overthrow the Cuban government through sabotage. That, in the summer of 1962, when the Soviets started shipments to Cuba to construct facilities to deploy nuclear weapons, opened the first atomic alarm.
The United States had put in place a nuclear umbrella, a doctrine of extended deterrence but also a promise to protect countries that would not engage in building their nuclear arsenal.
It was the Cuban Missile Crisis that brought us to the ultimate stop-and-think moment. For eight months following the challenging end of the crisis, Kennedy was pleased by the outcome but terrified by his thoughts for the future of “a world in which 15 or 20 or 25 nations may have” nuclear weapons. At a radio and television address to the American people on July 26, 1963, he asked his audience to stop and think for a moment about what could happen to the world if nuclear weapons continued to proliferate. The United States had put in place a nuclear umbrella, a doctrine of extended deterrence but also a promise to protect countries that would not engage in building their nuclear arsenal. Thirty Asian and European allies agreed, but there was still a need to stop and think.
I ask you to stop and think for a moment what it would mean to have nuclear weapons in so many hands, in the hands of countries large and small, stable and unstable, responsible and irresponsible, scattered throughout the world. There would be no rest for anyone then, no stability, no real security, and no chance of effective disarmament. There would only be the increased chance of accidental war, and an increased necessity for the great powers to involve themselves in what otherwise would be local conflicts.
– John F. Kennedy, 35th President of the United States: 1961-63[3]
Along comes deterrence theory and the stability-instability paradox [4]
Without knowing how to deter foreign aggression in realistic terms, most of us have no alternative but to accept that claim. So, the half-truth spreads throughout the world to become solid faith in nuclear weapons and the deterrence theory: Nuclear weapons are there for peace.[5]
– Tadatoshi Akiba, a former Mayor of Hiroshima
Deterrence is a hope that no state would launch a nuclear attack on another nuclear state for the simple reason that there would be such an enormous retaliation that neither state would survive. That theory makes a flawed sense when opposing states are nuclear. Each side is likely to have policies that avoid using nuclear weapons, but what happens in unintended escalations or battlefield miscalculations bringing heavy losses? In those cases, we know next to nothing about what will go through the heads of leaders unwilling to pay the price of losses. We have several examples where deterrence has governed armed conflicts between nuclear and non-nuclear states. Russia, having the largest
nuclear arsenal in the world, invaded Ukraine, under illusions that its nuclear prowess would deter Ukraine from attacking Russian military bases and cities. Deterrence did not stop Ukraine from seizing control of almost half of the Kursk Oblast region of Russia, where the fighting has continued for more than seven months. Russia paid a heavy defense price of 17,819 casualties, according to Oleksandr Syrskyi, commander-in-chief of the armed forces of Ukraine.[6]
So yes, we have the example of the Cold War, where deterrents seemed to hold between the two super-nuclear powers. But what happens when a non-nuclear state is at war with a nuclear one? Paul Avey tells us in his book Tempting Fate, and too in his recent article in Foreign Affairs, in referring to examples of conflicts between nuclear and non-nuclear states: “They tempted fate, pursuing strategies that they believed would fall short of their opponent’s red line for nuclear use.” [7] Ahh, tempting fate! That is a risk with impossible odds, a game that Avery calls “nuclear monopoly,” though, unlike monopoly, no side wins. In tempting fate, a state feels “emboldened to attack, correctly surmising that inflicting significant casualties on a nuclear power and even taking some of its territory would not trigger nuclear retaliation.” [8]
The overall and persistent objective of deterrence theory is to avoid conflict while believing that there will be no nuclear wars in the future. In that vein, it is a means to convince one hostile side to refrain from military action on another. Nuclear deterrence was a United States tenet during the early stages of the Cold War by understanding that a full-scale nuclear attack would be devastating for both sides. [9]
The theory has always been a convenient excuse for nuclear military power under the guise of massive deployment of nuclear weapons that tell potential attackers, “Do not mess with us, or else.” But that works only when each side sees the end as mutual destruction. So, critics claim that global security connects with the broader concern for threats such as terrorism and governmental instability.
An overwhelming number of nuclear warheads are in the possession of two countries, a combined total of 9,666. Now, we have India, Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea vying for high nuclear recognition. Their steep-climbing military buildup might still be for show, but their nuclear arsenals are not for deterrence but for gamesmanship demands. When arsenals increase for one state, they increase for others to bring deterrence into an expensive arms race that increases accident likelihood. As Jessica Mathews, a Distinguished Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, points out, “The numbers may seem to boost one side, but having more weapons in an unwinnable war is meaningless. The strength of deterrence correlates with the amount of catastrophic damage that could come after the survival of an attack.”[10]
Greenland and Canada: what do they have to do with nuclear deterrence policies? Donald Trump enters the game
I think there’s a good possibility that we could do it without military force. I don’t take anything off the table.
– Donald Trump (NBC interview,
March 30, 2025)
Pardon my short divergence and bear with me as my thoughts move now to surprising connections between climate change, nuclear deterrence theory, and the potential proliferation of atomic weapons.
I may be wrong about why Donald Trump’s notion of taking over Greenland (a mineral-rich autonomous territory in the Kingdom of Denmark), Canada, and the Panama Canal might not be too ludicrous. It might seem too wild an idea in an era of territory respect. One thought is that such commandeering will not happen, at least not by sales or invasions. An opposing thought is that if Greenland is taken by force, a chaotic imbalance of trade, a mess of world order, and nuclear expansions would follow. For 80 years – from the end of WWII to the Russian invasion of Ukraine – the most powerful countries have been cautious in taking over independent territories. With climate-changing conditions, however, there will come a time when rising temperatures will strike existential threats for some countries and turn others into havens of habitation, resources, and fertile soil. As the world warms, so will the rush to territorially grab those colder territories, not for tourists but for the most dominant powers that will eventually feel their oncoming problems. If I can pick on the United States for a worry, California wildfires, Nevada and Arizona’s unbearable temperatures, and Florida floods will become existential threats to those states in the coming 50 to 100 years. How will the United States cope? Without serious worldwide government commitments to diminish the carbon problem, land between 30° North latitude to 30° South latitude will be feebly habitable, if at all fit for human habitation. From that point of view, Canada and Greenland secures more than enough land mass for migration from southern states. With glaciers disappearing at alarming speed, territories under ice for millennia are becoming comfortably habitable. Moreover, after the thawing of the polar ice caps, whoever owns Greenland would possess new shipping routes through the Northern Sea Route connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans through the Arctic Ocean from the Bering Strait to the coast of Norway.
What about Canada? Is Donald Trump serious about annexing the world’s second-largest country? Or is it his usual Trumpian distracting bluster? Well, did it, or did it not, attack the United States by passing fentanyl across the border? It did not! In 2024, the US Customs and Border Protection Agency seized 43 pounds of fentanyl crossing the border from Canada, compared to 21,000 pounds crossing the border from Mexico. Shouldn’t Trump be thinking about annexing Mexico? No, Mexico will be uninhabitable by the end of this century. Canada is getting warmer and will be reasonably comfortable later in this century. It has the world’s longest coastline and a maritime topography that stretches between three vast oceans, a fortune the United States does not have.
That brings us back to the question of nuclear deterrents. For 80 years, deterrence theory has been the game plan for protection against nuclear and conventional military attacks. Under that theory, however, atomic powers feel free to attack non-nuclear territories. The list of territorial attacks under the guise of regime changes by the United States and Russia is extensive; however, we are now in an era where a superpower can attempt to take over an independent country for territorial possession rather than internally messing with government styles. Russia is taking land from Ukraine, and yet NATO’s timidity in supporting Ukraine is limited to money and conventional weapons. NATO is a superpower consisting of 32 member countries. When two superpower adversaries face each other under deterrence theory and threats, there is always a path for aggression with conventional weapons. What happens, though, when a nuclear superpower attacks a non-nuclear country? Deterrence theory gives no support for the non-nuclear side.
In September 2024, Russia changed its nuclear doctrine to lower the threshold for using atomic weapons. Putin announced that any aggression against Russia by any non-nuclear state supported by a nuclear one will be considered a joint attack, and Russia “will prepare to use them ‘upon receipt of reliable information of a massive launch of air and space attack weapons and their crossing of the state border,’ including strategic and tactical aircraft, cruise missiles, drones, and hypersonic aircraft.”[11] That is a significant change from the older doctrine calling for nuclear action in an event “when the very existence of the state is threatened.” So, nuclear policies can change at a head of state’s whim.
With potential whims on nuclear policies, we have deterrent confusion. Consider an accidental incursion over a border quickly judged as an intended crossing. Indeed, Russia did not use its newly revised document on August 6, 2024, when Ukrainian forces secretly crossed the border into Kursk Oblast, capturing 70 settlements spreading over 1,000 square kilometers. It was a blitzkrieg, yet Russia did not invoke powers from its latest document. It could have, but it did not. So, what does deterrence have to say about that?
The principle of the inviolability of borders applies to every country, regardless of whether it lies to the east of us or the west, and every state must keep to it, regardless of whether it is a small country or a powerful state.
Deterrence is assumed to be just a shield of protection from potential aggressors, but it can also exploit a threat. It would be relatively easy for the United States to forcefully take possession of Greenland, an allied nation not much bigger than the state of Alaska, by flexing its nuclear muscles. Though Denmark is a member of NATO, it is not a nuclear power in and of itself. Any attack on Greenland would surely not be existential for Denmark. It would not likely involve an attack on Denmark’s mainland, for such an escalation would eventually involve NATO, the treaty obliging any member to bring in overwhelming forces for protection. Even the threat of invading Greenland turns allies into adversaries, thereby undercutting American securities. When the Vice President of the United States shamelessly calls Denmark a “bad ally,” he not only shows his historical ignorance on how Demark suffered the second highest military death toll of any of the 32 coalition forces per its population (7.82 per million) in helping the United States with its Afghanistan War but also damages his own country by converting an old ally to an adversary. He and his boss are fools, wrecking a country that once stood for something magnanimous. Who will care for America when it eventually might need Europe again as an ally? By that reasoning, a United States imperialistic takeover would be a grave and shameful mistake, ignoring the economic consequences that could come from European states invoking economic sanctions against the United States, just as the West has against Russia. France and Germany have warned about forceful aggression. In a recent press conference, Olaf Scholz said, “The principle of the inviolability of borders applies to every country, regardless of whether it lies to the east of us or the west, and every state must keep to it, regardless of whether it is a small country or a powerful state.”[12]
Curiously, a buyout is not such a bad idea if managed, affordable, and mutually agreed upon by the people who live in Greenland and the ministers in Denmark who are also in cordial agreement. Purchasing Greenland is a 19th-century idea floated after WWII because of that nation’s potential for mineral richness. However, minerals are not the only benefits of possession. With polar ice diminishing, shipping opportunities open. A United States buyout would inhibit Russia and China from having free access to Arctic routes once the polar ice caps melt. So, we are talking about three nuclear superpowers aiming for the same stakes.
Greenland could become a United States territory like Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Puerto Rico, but they came from wars, not purchases. However, the US Virgin Islands was purchased from Denmark for $25 million ($620 billion in 2025 dollars) in 1917 during WWI as a protection for the Panama Canal. The US also purchased the Philippines from Spain in 1898 for $20 million ($765 billion in 2025 dollars). Given the strategic location of Greenland, along with the unexplored minerals buried under melting ice sheets and an estimated potential of a quarter of the world’s oil and gas, there is a benefit. That said, it seems that Denmark cannot sell Greenland, since it does not own that territory. Scott Anderson, a fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution and a national security expert, said, “Denmark doesn’t claim to own it. I am quite confident that the government of Denmark, as we’ve seen them say things, doesn’t think it has the legal authority to sell Greenland to anyone.” In any case, Denmark is responsible for Greenland’s defense.[13]
Russia and China are also interested in the Arctic for shipping avenues. Vladimir Putin addressed his concern by carefully saying, “It can look surprising only at first glance, and it would be wrong to believe this is some extravagant talk by the current US administration. The United States will continue to systematically advance its geostrategic, military-political and economic interests in the Arctic.”[14] As seriousness tightens, the Russian leader’s language will inflate in strength, and he will not just step aside from his plans for control of Arctic shipping routes. Putin continued, “We will closely follow the developments and mount an appropriate response by increasing our military capability and modernizing military infrastructure. We won’t allow any infringement on our country’s sovereignty, reliably safeguard our national interests while supporting peace and stability in the polar region.”
So, where does that leave us? It seems that the only possibility for an acquisition is through either enormously high tariffs for Denmark (which will do nothing for the hopes of acquisition, since Denmark cannot sell Greenland) or a threat of invasion. If an invasion is the answer, deterrence is forfeited.
The one smart thing that Donald Trump might do. I can think of no other.
Trump has said that he is in favor of restarting arms control negotiations. “There is no reason for us to be building brand new nuclear weapons,” he said in February 2025. “We already have so many. You could destroy the world 50 times over, 100 times over. And here we are building new nuclear weapons, and they’re building nuclear weapons. We’re all spending a lot of money that we could be spending on other things that are hopefully, much more productive.”[15] It doesn’t sound Trumpian, so he might spin those words three months later when forgotten, but let’s hope he is sincere – though such a hope is beyond his manner. His idea of “productiveness” is the advance of patrimony, merely a part of his life’s reciprocity performance act. For now, he is proposing investments in “a vastly expanded missile defense system,” an antimissile system that could fend off attacks from hypersonic and advanced cruise missiles, hoping for a reemergence of arms control. However, he favors a missile defense system nicknamed “Iron Dome,” much like what Israel has had since 2011 under the same name. Trump is hoping that the munitions industry could design a scheme to intercept missiles coming from North Korea or Iran. Such a system, however, would not work well against an overwhelming barrage of missiles launched by Russia or China, simply because those countries have a bounty of arsenals that could confuse interceptors.
However, the United States is accelerating an escalation of nuclear arsenals under the umbrella notion of nuclear superiority. The United States already has an arsenal ready to retaliate against a nuclear strike. So, why engage in a massive plan that would inevitably follow a scheme to build a hugely expensive Iron Dome, especially if it is not likely to be feasible? Those schemes tend to increase the odds of a confrontation; besides, they challenge deterrence by the high likelihood of setting off another arms race of increased numbers of warheads that could overwhelm Iron Dome defenses and award big projects to investors who would profit immensely from an Iron Dome industry with dealers of nuclear-weapon intercepting missiles.
Only two of the current nine nuclear countries have signed onto the no-first-use policy. They have their reasons.
Does the United States need more or revised nuclear weapons? It has 5,177 nuclear warheads, 1,770 deployed, 1,930 in reserve, and 1,477 retired. It has 1120 warheads at sea – 970 are submarine-launchable Trident missiles that each can carry up to eight nuclear warheads. There are 14 submarines (eight in the Pacific and six in the Atlantic) that carry 20 missiles each. Forty-six B-52 bombers can carry 20 warheads. Eight hundred missiles are at Air Force bases in Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming. A B-2 bomber can carry up to 16 warheads. One hundred warheads are in Europe at six NATO bases: the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, northwest Italy, northeast Italy, and Turkey.
Source: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Nuclear Notebook[16]Graph 2: United States nuclear warhead numbers 1945 – present.Source: The Federation of Nuclear Scientists
Trump favors reducing the number of stockpiled nuclear weapons. However, the START Treaty will expire in 2026 and, so far, there are no negotiations to extend it. Under the notion that mighty world powers could restart old ideas of territorial expansion, we must ask how. The United States has not agreed to a no-first-use nuclear policy. China and India are the only countries that have adopted such a policy. In a new geopolitical environment, those countries that have not adopted a no-first-use policy will be free to bully non-nuclear states with nuclear threats to either bargain for territory or take it by force.
B-61 thermonuclear weapon[17] Public DomainBudgeted amounts for nuclear forces in billions of dollars by type of activity 2023–32. Source: Joseph Mazur compiled from United States Congressional Budget Office data. [18]Nuclear-armed countries estimated nuclear budgets in billions of dollars. Source: ICAN
Spread in nine countries, over 12,000 nuclear weapons are either in stock or aimed in enough strategic directions. More than 4,000 are launch-ready, the smallest or which are capable of destruction far worse than the devastation from the A-bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The use of a single nuclear weapon today – the smallest one – could incinerate half the city of Kyiv and half its population of almost 3 million. One atomic bomb dropped in the relatively desolate area near Kyiv would spark a nuclear war between Russia and the West because no atomic attack would end with just one.
Nuclear warhead costs
It may seem that $650 billion over a decade is reasonable for military spending, but we must look beyond the United States nuclear arms budget. According to ICAN, in just one year (2023), the nuclear-armed states collectively spent over $91 billion.[19]
Cutaway illustration of a US W-76 nuclear warhead in its Mk-4 reentry vehicle. Product of the US Government (apparently Los Alamos National Labs) and not subject to copyright.
Arms dealers, manufacturers, politicians, and public investors profit from the nuclear weapons industry. You rarely hear about those benefactors, but they lobby for government contracts. Raising the number of nuclear warheads has almost no deterrent effect but rather a one-upmanship glory or benefit to benefactors. There are rational reasons for raising military equipment numbers; deployment of those tools is needed, so equipment must be actively present where it needs to be under immediate defensive measures. However, it seems that the rise of nuclear warheads depends on keeping our financial, technological, and institutional machinery turning and pumping research and development at high costs. The United States will refurbish a few thousand submarine-based W76 warheads, each at a rough cost of $3 million. Does that make sense? One – just one – Trident I/D-5 missile (24 per submarine) with five W76 100 kiloton warheads costs roughly $80.7 million. [20]
At least we should restart arms control negotiations with Russia and China. It is the only policy idea that Donald Trump might have right. “There’s no reason for us to be building brand new nuclear weapons. We already have so many,” Trump said. “You could destroy the world 50 times over, 100 times over. And here we are building new nuclear weapons, and they’re building nuclear weapons.” The Congressional Budget Office estimates detailed plans for the modernization of nuclear forces from 2017 to 2046 would cost at minimum $1.7 trillion, accounting for inflation. Spending a proposed $1.7 trillion to modernize nuclear weapons for the next 30 years seems counterproductive if the hope is that we will never have to use those weapons.
If the United States policy is to modernize to a new generation of nuclear weapons while decommissioning the same amount every 30 years, then the hope of success rests on deterrence.
If the United States policy is to modernize to a new generation of nuclear weapons while decommissioning the same amount every 30 years, then the hope of success rests on deterrence. But does deterrence work? My close friend Tadatoshi Akiba, former Mayor of Hiroshima, who has devoted much of his life to working on abolishing nuclear weapons, told me, “Without knowing how to deter foreign aggression in realistic terms, most of us have no alternative but to accept that claim. So, the half-truth spreads throughout the world to become solid faith in nuclear weapons and the deterrence theory: Nuclear weapons are there for peace.” [21]
Deterrence theory advocates a military buildup that calls for an exponential increase of military budgets for maintaining and upgrading existing nuclear weapons in attempts to prevent terrorist attacks and territorial aggression. It also follows a misguided conviction that a country with enough warheads would survive catastrophic damage from an attack and thereby be able to retaliate.[22]
The idea is that states planning to strike should consider how catastrophic retaliatory damage could be. The misunderstanding is that a state with more nuclear weapons has an advantage in an unwinnable war.
Adding to a nuclear arsenal would not increase the power of deterrence. That view is misjudging the theory. Adding weapons adds to an expensive arms race. Even relatively small numbers of arms already in arsenals point to enough deterrence. The numbers may seem to boost one side, but having more weapons in an unwinnable war is meaningless. The strength of deterrence correlates with the amount of catastrophic damage that could come after the survival of an attack.[23]
Source: 2023 global nuclear weapons spending (ICAN)
Can public opinion stop nuclear buildup?
Knowing that a single nuclear warhead costs $3 million and that the world spends $91 billion for its total collection of arms that just might never be used could change public opinion on the rationale behind taking money from public benefits. As more money enters the coffers of nuclear buildups, the higher the risk of an accidental attack or an intentional attack by a rogue state. My friends repeatedly ask, Why is that? The answer is not simple, though if one uncovers how government money is spent and dispersed to companies that make the hundreds of parts that enter a warhead, one finds that secrecy escape hatches multiply in direct proportion with the size of distributed funds.
Good people believe that good companies are not crooks and not so corrupt as to steal classified material to sell to the highest bidder. To that, I say, Hmm.
An alternative to deterrence theory
Mayor Akiba continues to inspire and guide me in my efforts to grasp the nuclear policy dilemma and to find ways of dampening future uses of terrifying weapons of mass destruction. My concern is that we will awake to news of a nuclear missile attack and that it will be too late for human habitation to continue. In an earlier article in TWFR, Nuclear Weapons: Are They Deterrents, Goads, or Risks?[24], I wrote, “Sooner or later, though, a nuclear bomb will be used, either by accident or by the power of an insane leader. It will happen. I cannot tell you where or when, but history creeps up on pseudo-dependable tight security.” That was before I spoke with Mayor Akiba, a world leader in the interminable campaign to eliminate nuclear weapons, who said there is a plan to develop a way to minimize nuclear attack threats. Vision 2045, aside from warnings of how out-of-control a bomb can get, will offer the 21st century a model for turning back the Doomsday Clock by minutes, if not hours, not seconds. Vision 2045 is a farsighted concept that will neutralize testing and the development of nuclear weapons and eventually ban them. Its goal is to globally abolish nuclear weapons by 2045, step by step as outlined below.[25]
Muster public opinion through NGOs and mass media
Make the abolition of nuclear weapons a major issue in the US presidential election.
Build a worldwide citizens’ movement that includes nuclear-weapon states. Gather the power of non-nuclear-weapon states and non-hibakusha to strengthen collaboration with NGOs, opinion leaders, mass media, etc.
Refocus on the abolition of nuclear weapons as the major issue in the US presidential election.2033. “No first use” (NFU) to be adopted at the United Nations General Assembly as a binding declaration treaty.
Worldwide mass movement concentrated in nuclear-weapon states.
NFU accomplished.
In preparation.
Ultimately, implementing these goals will take public opinion enlisting peace groups, civic groups, local governments, and other influential players involved with the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons to accomplish the 2045 Vision in steps through the years toward the complete abolition of nuclear weapons.
A nuclear sword of Damocles
I conclude with a September 25, 1961 excerpt from President John F. Kennedy’s address before the United Nations General Assembly, just one year before the Cuban Missile Crisis.[26] It is a paramount “stop and think” moment.
Today, every inhabitant of this planet must contemplate the day when this planet may no longer be habitable. Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident or miscalculation or by madness. The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us.
Men no longer debate whether armaments are a symptom or a cause of tension. The mere existence of modern weapons—ten million times more powerful than any that the world has ever seen, and only minutes away from any target on earth—is a source of horror, and discord and distrust. Men no longer maintain that disarmament must await the settlement of all disputes—for disarmament must be a part of any permanent settlement. And men may no longer pretend that the quest for disarmament is a sign of weakness—for in a spiraling arms race, a nation’s security may well be shrinking even as its arms increase.
And yet, here we are, 64 years later, with double the number of nuclear powers since Kennedy’s speech and with feeble advances toward total nuclear disarmament. If that, and global climate change laissez-faire, continue beyond 2045, “this planet may no longer be habitable.” We must seize the moments of the next 20 years to put us on track for future life on this planet.
Joseph Mazuris an Emeritus Professor of Mathematics at Emerson College’s Marlboro Institute for Liberal Arts & Interdisciplinary Studies. He is a recipient of fellowships from the Guggenheim, Bogliasco, and Rockefeller Foundations, and the author of eight acclaimed popular nonfiction books. His latest book is The Clock Mirage: Our Myth of Measured Time (Yale).
Michael S. Goodman, “Who Is Trying to Keep What Secret from Whom and Why? MI5-FBI Relations and the Klaus Fuchs Case”. Journal of Cold War Studies 2005; 7 (3): 124–46. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/1520397054377160
Paul Avey, “When Nuclear Weapons Fail to Deter: The Ultimate Weapon Is Not Always the Best Defense,” Foreign Affairs (March 6, 2025.
Lindsay, Jon R., and Erik Gartzke, “Introduction: Cross-Domain Deterrence, from Practice to Theory”, Cross-Domain Deterrence: Strategy in an Era of Complexity (New York, 2019; online edn, Oxford Academic, 18 July 2019), https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190908645.003.0001, accessed 14 March 2025.
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Nuclear Notebook is interactive on this website that provides graphs of arsenal numbers for all nine nuclear weapons states: United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. See: https://thebulletin.org/nuclear-notebook/
In the back it is assembled, in the middle it is divided into its major subcomponents, in the front it is almost completely disassembled. The warhead is contained in the bullet-shaped silver canister (see Image:W80_nuclear_warhead.jpg for a different, but similarly shaped, warhead casing).
Until recently, the West has pledged in the name of a two-state model in the partitioned Israel/Palestine. But it has been replaced by a unitary state that is decreasingly secular and democratic. In retrospect, the two-state solution died in Jerusalem on September 17, 1948.
After World War II, the UN Partition Plan and Israel’s unilateral declaration of independence, a Swedish diplomat and aristocrat, Count Folke Bernadotte, was appointed the UN Security Council mediator in the Arab-Israeli conflict. It was the first official mediation in the UN’s history.
In contrast to rumors about the Swede’s “antisemitic bias,” Bernadotte had during the war years negotiated the release of about 450 Danish Jews and more than 30,000 non-Jewish prisoners from Theresienstadt, the Nazi concentration camp.
On the Arab side, reverse rumors faded with the Count’s actions. After achieving an initial truce in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Bernadotte used it to lay the groundwork for the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. Ever since then, UNRWA has been a lifeline to generations of Palestinians in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the adjacent Arab countries.
Nonetheless, despite his commitment and caution, the Swede walked into a minefield.
Navigating in a nightmare
Bernadotte knew his job was dangerous and wrote his will before arriving in Palestine. He understood the challenges of a mediator having to navigate among conflicting expectations. “In putting forward any proposal for the solution of the Palestine problem,” he wrote in his diary, “one must bear in mind the aspirations of the Jews, the political difficulties and differences of opinion of the Arab leaders, the strategic interests of Great Britain, the financial commitment of the United States and the Soviet Union, the outcome of the war, and finally the authority and prestige of the United Nations.”
The first Bernadotte plan was submitted in secret to both sides of the conflict in late June, whereas the second Bernadotte plan was published in mid-September 1948. Moscow had recognized the state of Israel both de facto and de jure a year before. During these critical months, the new Israelis saw the Soviets as their prime partner, whereas the U.S. predicted the Jewish state would slide Palestine into a vicious cycle of conflicts.
The secret maneuverings of Israel courting US support, while importing surplus weapons from Eastern Europe were exposed later in October 1948, just days before the U.S. presidential elections, embarrassing President Harry Truman. Yet, for reasons of domestic politics, he made a strongly pro-Zionist declaration, which set the stage for the defeat of the Bernadotte plan in the UN. Meanwhile, more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were expelled or fled from their homes in the 1948-1949 war.
Source: Al Jazeera (AJ Labs)
Sunset by the Hill of Evil Counsel
On September 17, after submitting his second report, Bernadotte was on his way to Jerusalem. Following a visit to Ramallah, the convoy headed back to Jerusalem. Sitting in the back seat, he was between his Chief of Staff, General Åge Lundström, and French Colonel André Sérot. Sérot had swapped places in the motorcade to join Bernadotte and thank him personally for having saved his wife’s life in a German concentration camp.
The men were used to disruptions. Just weeks earlier, they had encountered an anti-Bernadotte demonstration by the Stern Group, an ultra-nationalist and -violent Jewish gang that blocked the way to the Belgian consulate.
Folke Bernadotte (second from the right) walking with Israeli liaison officer, Moshe Hillman (right), at the entrance to the Belgian Consulate in Talbiah, Jerusalem. They are followed by US General William E. Riley (left) and French Colonel André Sérot (second from left) Image Source: Wikimedia
The big Chrysler, the last of the three-car convoy, began its final ascent up the narrow road through the Jewish-occupied district of Katamon towards Rehavia and Jerusalem’s military governor. Two years before, Katamon had been a prosperous, mainly Palestinian Christian neighborhood. During the 1947–1948 hostilities, the local population fled the intense fighting in the area. When they tried to return to their homes, the latter had been taken over by the new Israeli state. Katamon would be repopulated by Jewish refugees.
As the cars passed a road barrier, they arrived at the foot of the Hill of Evil Counsel. When the UN convoy began to slow down, they saw an Israeli army jeep beside an abandoned roadblock. Three Israeli soldiers in khaki shorts asked them to stop. Carrying Sten guns, the men strode along the stationary cars. Sitting in the leading UN vehicle, Moshe Hillman, the motorcade’s Israeli liaison officer, called out in Hebrew to let them through. “Let us pass. It’s the UN mediator,” he said. But he was ignored.
One of the Israelis ran to the Chrysler, pushed the barrel of his sub-machine gun through the opened rear window, and pumped six bullets into Bernadotte’s chest, throat and left arm and another 18 into the French colonel next to him. Rushing out of the first car, Hillman ran back to the Chrysler. When he saw the profusely bleeding bodies, he jumped in beside the driver. As they speeded or the hospital, Colonel Sérot was dead and Bernadotte bent forward. His rows of decorations were torn by the bullets, but he was still alive. As soon as they arrived at Hadassah, Bernadotte was carried inside. But when the doctor began to examine Bernadotte, the Swede stopped breathing.
It was 5 pm and the Old City bathed in a beautiful sunset.
The Stern assassins
To Stern, Bernadotte was “the enemy of all those who – regarded a pro-Soviet policy as the only guarantee of Israel’s survival.” After all, Stalin had recognized the Israeli state de jure; Truman hadn’t.
A day after the assassination, General Åge Lundström, Bernadotte’s chief of staff, assessed that it was “a deliberate and carefully planned assassination.” Lundström was right. But the path to the assassination had been paved a month before, when Stern members protested against Bernadotte during his meeting with Israel’s first foreign minister, Moshe Sharett. The Sternists were waving placards declaring: “Stockholm is Yours; Jerusalem is Ours!”
Goldfoot Stanley, a Jewish immigrant from South Africa, had settled in Jerusalem and worked as a foreign correspondent for several Western dailies, including France Soir and the New York Times. His connections and sources were invaluable to the underground. Contributing to several Stern operations, Stanley had participated in the infamous Deir Yassin massacre in which more than 100 Arab villagers, including women and children, were massacred.
In mid-September, Stern leaders got his hint on Bernadotte’s itinerary in Jerusalem. The assassination was planned in his apartment. Bernadotte’s assassination was approved by Stern’s leadership: Yitzhak Yezernitsky (later known as Yitzhak Shamir, Begin’s successor as Israel’s PM and Benjamin Netanyahu’s onetime mentor), Nathan Friedmann (Natan Yellin-Mor) and Yisrael Eldad. The plan was crafted by Yehoshua Zettler, Stern’s operations chief in Jerusalem, and the actual shooter was Yehoshua Cohen.
The attribution of the assassination to Stern was disputed for 60 years. Nor did the assassins pay for their crime. The Netanyahu cabinets regard them as heroes. When Eldad, Stern’s far-right ideologue and oracle of Israel’s far-right, passed away in 1996, the burial was attended by both Netanyahu and the his PM predecessor Yitzhak Shamir, the ex-Stern leader.
Although Yehoshua Cohen’s involvement was an open secret within Stern and other groups, he was never charged, and his role was not made public for over 40 years until it was uncovered by David Ben-Gurion’s biographer. The two became close friends. Cohen was one of the founders of the Sde Boker kibbutz in the Negev Desert, where David Ben-Gurion later retired and where he became BG’s bodyguard and close confidant (Figure).
Israel’s former PM David Ben-Gurion and his veteran confidante and bodyguard Yehoshua Cohen, the assassin of Count Folke Bernadotte, strolling arm in arm at Ein Avdat, south of Kibbutz Sde Boker. Source: Im Tirtzu Facebook, August 8, 2019
A few years later, Trygve Lie, the UN’s first Secretary General who had appointed Bernadotte to his post, met Ben-Gurion in the kibbutz. To Lie’s great surprise, the meeting was attended by Cohen, Bernadotte’s assassin. The Norwegian hated every minute of it and swore he would never return to Sde Boker. Cohen couldn’t have cared less. He died peacefully in 1986.
Today, the identities of the Bernadotte assassins are known. What is less clear is who gave the assignment. Though fully informed of threats against Bernadotte’s life, Israeli authorities had sent no escort. Following their operations, the Stern group habitually disclosed its role publicly. So, why didn’t it claim credit for one of its most successful high-profile operations?
Subsequently, many Stern members were disarmed and arrested, but nobody was charged with the killings, and the case, which was barely investigated, was closed. Stern suspects were detained after the assassination, but they were not treated like other prisoners. As Time magazine reported, these prisoners at Jaffa made their own rules, ripped bars from the windows and tore down the steel doors connecting their cells: “The Sternists threw open the door of the jail, disarmed the guards, directed traffic in the square where a great crowd had gathered. Some prisoners strolled off to the beach for a swim. Others relaxed with prison guards over coffee in a nearby café.”
Shortly after the assassination, the U.S. and UK intelligence learned that the Czechoslovak Consulate in Jerusalem had issued visas for the day of the murder to fly the actual assassins to Prague on a Czech aircraft with false passports and false names.
The odd story got another twist in 2005, when the British declassified files featured a 1949 letter from the then Belgium Consul General, Jean Niewenhuys. It referred to a “reliable source” who acknowledged that the assassins were from Stern, but working for Israel. The files suggested the real architect of the assassination was Reuven Shiloah, subsequently Mossad’s first director, who had been involved in the ceasefire talks.
After the assassination, the Swedish government thought that Bernadotte had been assassinated by Israeli government agents.
Israel’s PM Ben-Gurion noted in his personal diary that Yehoshua Cohen, then his close confidant, was involved in the assassination. But he chose not to arrest the killers and put them on trial.
The inconvenient truth
At the time, Col. Moshe Dayan, Ben-Gurion’s key military protégé, served as Israel’s commander in Jerusalem. In close cooperation with BG, Dayan would soon plot for border wars to escalate a “second round” of open conflict with Arab countries, in order to expand Israel’s boundaries. These paved the way to the failed Sinai Campaign in 1956 and the successful Six-Day War in 1967, which led up to 300,000 Palestinians to lose their homes in the West Bank and Gaza.
After the Yom Kippur War in 1973, Egypt signed a peace agreement with Israel in 1979. But as the peace process did not take off and Israel refused to give up the occupied Palestinian territories in the West Bank and Gaza, President Sadat was assassinated in 1981 and the stage was set for the rise of the Messianic far-right in Israel and successive wars, including the long-lasting Lebanese War, Palestinian Uprisings, Israel’s brutal counter-insurgency operations in Gaza and the West Bank, a peace process undermined by PM Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination and several wars against Gaza and its residents.
Yet, the dream of the two-state solution continued to be sustained by Israel’s Western allies until that became untenable, thanks to the Biden and Trump administrations’ tacit complicity. As Gaza has been obliterated and ethnic expulsions occur in daylight in the West Bank, a unitary Jewish state is a matter of time.
What was the sin that doomed Bernadotte’s life prematurely? Having witnessed the horrible outcome of the Jewish Holocaust in Europe and hoping to avert a catastrophe in Palestine, he proposed that the UN should establish a Palestine conciliation commission, while Arab refugees would have a full right to return to their homes in Jewish-controlled territory.
It would be an offence against the principles of elemental justice if these innocent victims of the conflict were denied the right to return to their homes while Jewish immigrants flow into Palestine, and, indeed, at least offer the threat of permanent replacement of the Arab refugees who have been rooted in the land for centuries.
Here’s the inconvenient truth in a nutshell: The two-state model died with the last breath of the UN’s first mediator Count Folke Bernadotte in 1948.
This commentary draws from Dr Steinbock’s The Fall of Israel (Clarity Press, 2025). The original version was published by Antiwar.com on April 2, 2025.
Dr Dan Steinbockis the founder of Difference Group and has served at the India, China and America Institute (US), Shanghai Institute for International Studies (China) and the EU Center (Singapore). For more, seehttps://www.differencegroup.net/
FundingPips celebrates the firm’s milestones with the MT5 trading platform announcement this week. The rapid progression of the prop trading industry is defined by those who work around the clock to improve the realm and make an impact that gives more to traders and the trading community, and FundingPips is not just keeping up – it is setting the pace.
In just Q1 of 2025, the firm has hit significant milestones, staying true to its core mission: putting traders first. “Built by traders, for traders” is not just a slogan – it is the foundation of everything FundingPips stands for and their merit to continuously improve and evolve.
With FundingPips’ ever growing global footprint, it is creating and expanding opportunities for traders worldwide. Launching the MT5 trading platform marks a significant leap forward, giving traders more flexibility, better tools, and a seamless trading experience. In a data and statistics driven world, numbers speak louder than words – FundingPips now boasts over 1 million users worldwide, with more than $110 million in rewards paid out to date.
FundingPips’ impact lies in its community with feet and foundations that are steady on solid grounds; it is always more than just another prop firm; it is a movement reshaping the industry, breaking down barriers, and making online trading more accessible to skilled traders.
With new innovations and major expansions on the horizon, the firm and the traders it empowers are looking at a future brighter than ever. This gives more opportunities to its community and every trader pursuing making money online around the globe. The first quarter of 2025 indicates the beginning of a new era for the proprietary trading industry.
Breaking the Barriers of Traditional Prop Trading
The FundingPips has made a promise to traders to always empower them and provide favourable trading conditions”. 2022 was the birth of a promise that offers traders globally an opportunity to succeed and make an impact. In an industry where access to a funded account remains one of the biggest hurdles for aspiring traders, FundingPips is shaking up the proprietary trading space with a model designed to empower every trader and Forex trading enthusiast wherever they are.
Offering master accounts with competitive evaluation criteria, the firm has quickly gained traction among traders looking to scale their strategies without the burden of personal risk.
“Every milestone reflects our commitment to our community. Their support has been instrumental in motivating our continuous efforts since the birth of FundingPips in 2022.” Khaled Ayesh, CEO and founder of FundingPips, says.
A Modern Take on Proprietary Trading Models
Proprietary trading firms have traditionally catered to seasoned professionals, often with restrictive conditions and steep capital requirements. FundingPips has changed that narrative by making funded trading accounts more accessible than ever, including a more comprehensive traders’ scale. Passing the evaluation process grants traders access to a more rewarding trading opportunity – allowing them to trade without risking their own funds.
What sets FundingPips apart is its trader friendly model. The firm operates with a rule-based evaluation system, focusing on consistency rather than aggressive risk-taking. Unlike other evaluation modules within the industry that are too expensive, restrictive trading conditions, or unrealistic targets, FundingPips offers a structured yet flexible pathway for traders to qualify for funding.
How the FundingPips’ Models Work
At its core, FundingPips follows a two-step evaluation process, where traders must demonstrate their ability to manage risk and achieve sustainable returns. Once they pass the challenge, they receive a master account and can keep rewards of up to 100% of the profits.
Traders and industry enthusiasts can choose an evaluation account that fits their experience level, style, and budget. Whether they are just starting out or looking for a challenge, different models designed for each type are within reach.
FundingPips users can practice in a simulated environment. With five flexible account sizes from $5K to $100K in Instant, 1-Step, 2-Step, and 2-Step Pro, FundingPips makes it easier to find a path that aligns with each user’s trading goals – all at accessible price points and with the best trading conditions in the market.
Key advantages of the FundingPips model include:
Reward Splits – Traders can retain up to 100% of their earnings, making it a lucrative opportunity for those who prove their skills.
No Liability for Losses – Unlike trading with personal capital, traders do not bear the downside risk of losses beyond their evaluation fees.
Diverse Trading Conditions – With access to multiple asset classes and flexible strategies, traders are not limited to a single approach.
Technology & Trader Support: Action is the only acceptable reaction.
FundingPips has been listening closely to what traders want. The firm’s birth was a response to the trading community’s calls for help after multiple frustrations with unfair former firms that have exited the market drastically. It prioritizes technological solutions to enhance the trading experience. The powerhouse of trading platforms, MetaQuotes’ MetaTrader 5 offers traders of all levels and styles swift execution and seamless experience with reliable market access.
Traders benefit from real-time performance tracking and analytics tools in FundingPips dashboard ; this allows traders to refine their strategies based on detailed factual metrics and analytics tools,allowing traders to focus on continuously improving their performance based on data driven decisions
Beyond accessible trading, the company invests in trader development through educational resources, webinars on all its social media channels, and a growing online community. This approach fosters a more supportive trading environment, and places FundingPips as a safe haven for traders.
The Future of Proprietary Trading
As demand for evaluations continues to rise, FundingPips is positioning itself at the forefront of the industry’s evolution. With a strong emphasis on transparency, technology, and trader-centric policies, the firm is attracting a new generation of eager and encouraged traders.
For those looking to take their trading to the next level without risking personal funds with a trustworthy name, FundingPips presents a futuristic take with a compelling alternative – one that could redefine the future of trading with every step it takes.
The photo in the article is provided by the company(s) mentioned in the article and used with permission.
Johannesburg, South Africa – Investico.com, is a brand operated by Faraz Financial Services (PTY) Limited, a company that provides CFD trading services. The company has introduced a system designed to simplify transaction processes, making financial transactions quicker and more accessible. By focusing on speed and efficiency, it ensures that individuals can execute trades and manage financial operations without delays. The platform is designed to enhance the overall trading experience.
Faraz Financial Services (PTY) Limited has developed a system that prioritizes reliability and speed, implementing features that allow transactions to be completed in a short time. Many traders face difficulties when executing financial operations, and delays can often lead to missed opportunities. Investico has taken steps to address these concerns by ensuring that processes are handled smoothly and efficiently, enhancing the CFD trading experience.
A key aspect of the platform is its ability to offer solutions without unnecessary procedures. Many financial transactions involve multiple steps that may slow down execution. Investico has refined its system to eliminate complexities while maintaining security and accuracy. The focus remains on allowing users to transact with ease while meeting all necessary regulatory and operational requirements.
Another important point mentioned in the Investico.com review is the company’s efforts to make its services user-friendly. Financial operations can sometimes be complex, and a system that is clear and straightforward can make a difference. It has developed its platform to ensure that individuals can execute trades without unnecessary complications. According to the review sources, simplifying processes has been a major focus of the company.
The financial industry has evolved significantly, and efficiency has become increasingly important in CFD trading. Companies that offer seamless and fast execution often attract traders looking for improved services. Investico.com has positioned itself as a platform that understands these needs, offering a system that aligns with current market demands.
CFD trading involves various market conditions, and having a platform that ensures smooth execution can be beneficial. The ability to place trades efficiently and securely helps traders focus on market strategies without worrying about delays. This content is based on observations and serves as an independent perspective on the company’s support structure and user engagement.
About Investico.com
Investico.com is a CFD trading platform operated by Faraz Financial Services (PTY) Limited, which provides its services under this brand name. The company focuses on improving its practices for CFD trading for individuals and businesses by offering a system that prioritizes speed, accessibility, and security. Faraz Financial Services (PTY) Limited is regulated by the Financial Sector Conduct Authority of South Africa as a Financial Service Provider (FSP) with license number 45518.
Investico has gained attention for its efforts in improving the CFD trading experience. By focusing on user-friendly features and efficient trade execution, the platform has positioned itself as a provider of CFD trading solutions that enhance market accessibility. Through continuous innovation, Investico remains committed to offering services that align with the needs of traders looking for a seamless and effective trading experience.
Company Details
Company Name: Faraz Financial Services (PTY) Limited
Making sure that your business operation is running smoothly comes in a few different ways. Being the founder, owner, and CEO comes with a lot of responsibility, and in the modern day and age, it is not enough to make sure you remain competitive and take care of your staff. There are many new ways in which a business can thrive and it involves the latest spoils of modern technology. If the 21st century and the digital age of information have taught us one thing, it is that keeping up with the times is crucial in remaining not only relevant but operational. Those who fail to keep up with what the industry standards are, despite them changing at a rapid pace, will be overtaken by the competition and forgotten.
For that not to happen to you, there needs to be some change, and out of everything, quality management systems (QMS) and their standards are prevalent. One of the most important of those is certainly the ISO 9001. This internationally recognized standard for quality management systems is issued by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and it provides the main framework that organizations can use to make sure their services and products consistently meet customer requirements and improve overall quality. This standard focuses on process management, continual improvement, and customer satisfaction. For these reasons, every serious organization needs to have it incorporated into their ongoing operations.
What is ISO 9001 and Why is it Important?
From the name alone, this standard does not say a lot so we need to dig a bit deeper. The full name is ISO 9001:2015, with the number following the semicolon indicating the latest revision as a more risk-based approach to quality management is emphasized. The standard applies to any organization, regardless of its size or even the industry they are a part of. Those who use it aim to improve operational efficiency and customer trust. Essential for more than one reason, it is crucial for those who want to build a strong reputation and gain a competitive edge. Here is why it is important and what its key benefits are.
Improved Quality and Efficiency
By focusing on processes like these, organizations can identify inefficiencies and reduce waste while enhancing their products and services. Consistent focus on quality leads to greater customer satisfaction and repeat business, which is the ultimate goal of any company as it is how revenue is secured for longer.
Customer Satisfaction
Speaking of customers, meeting their expectations is at the very heart and core of ISO 9001. Companies that are certified with this standard demonstrate their commitment to providing high-quality products and services. This dedication fosters trust and customer loyalty that the clients love to see and reward with their loyalty.
Global Recognition
ISO 9001 certification is recognized all over the world, which is the idea with standardizations like this one. They exist to unite industries and make people realize what it means when a company has it. Therefore, it makes it easier for businesses to work with international partners but also to offer their products and services outside the borders of their country. Doors are open to new markets as companies often require proof of quality of management practices before committing and engaging in partnerships and collaborations.
Risk Management
There is also the issue of encouraging a proactive approach to identify risks and opportunities that could affect the quality of products and services, but also the health and safety of the staff and equipment. This ISO standardization makes it possible and it results in a more resilient business that can adapt to changes and challenges. No matter how safe on the surface level, every business is susceptible to certain dangers and risks so a QMS backed up by ISO 9001 is the best course of action.
Regulatory Compliance
Last but not least, many industries have baseline standards that every company that is a part of it has to meet. Meeting these legal and regulatory requirements is done in a straightforward way when ISO 9001 is introduced. Adhering to its principles makes companies compliant with exactly what the industry demands and allows them to stay ahead of further issues.
Making Sure You Follow It
Last but not least, a simple guide on how to follow ISO 9001 is in order. First, understand the standard and what it implies, and then establish leadership commitment. Define your quality management system (QMS) and involve the employees so everyone is on the same page. Conduct risk-based thinking, monitor and measure performance, and then conduct internal audits. Continual improvement needs to take place as you obtain certification and then do everything you can to maintain being certified.
An assumable mortgage allows a homebuyer to take over the seller’s existing loan, including its interest rate and repayment terms. This option can be especially appealing in a market where interest rates are rising because it lets buyers secure lower borrowing costs.
Assumable mortgages are most commonly found in government-backed loan programs like FHA, VA, and USDA loans. Homebuyers searching for assumable mortgage listings can find opportunities that offer financial advantages over traditional loans. However, lender approval is typically required, and not all mortgages qualify.
Understanding how assumable mortgages work can help buyers determine if this financing option is right for them. Let’s dive in!
How Do Assumable Mortgages Work?
An assumable mortgage allows a buyer to take over a seller’s home loan while keeping the same interest rate, loan balance, and repayment terms. Instead of applying for a new mortgage at current rates, the buyer assumes the existing one, which can lead to significant savings if the original loan has a lower rate.
To assume a mortgage, the buyer must qualify with the lender, just as they would for a traditional home loan. This process typically includes a credit check, income verification, and debt-to-income ratio assessment. Once approved, the lender transfers the mortgage to the buyer, and the seller is released from future liability.
One key consideration is the down payment. If the home’s sale price exceeds the remaining loan balance, the buyer must cover the difference in cash or secure secondary financing. While assumable mortgages offer financial benefits, they are not as widely available as conventional loans.
What Are the Types of Assumable Mortgages?
Not all mortgages can be assumed, but certain loan types allow buyers to take over the seller’s existing terms. The most common assumable mortgages are government-backed loans, including FHA, VA, and USDA loans.
FHA Loans
Insured by the Federal Housing Administration, FHA loans are widely assumable, but buyers must meet the lender’s credit and income requirements.
VA Loans
Backed by the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA loans can be assumed by both veterans and non-veterans, though lender approval is required. If a non-veteran assumes the loan, the seller may lose their VA entitlement.
USDA Loans
Designed for rural homebuyers, USDA loans are also assumable, provided the buyer meets eligibility requirements set by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Conventional loans are typically not assumable unless specifically structured to allow it. Most conventional mortgages include a due-on-sale clause, which requires full repayment when the property changes ownership.
What Are the Pros and Cons of Assumable Mortgages?
Buyers with assumable mortgages can benefit from lower interest rates, lower closing costs, and easier qualifications.
However, disadvantages include the potential for a large down payment if the home’s market value exceeds the remaining loan balance, difficulty finding a home with assumable mortgages, and a seller’s VA entitlement risk. If a VA loan is assumed by a non-veteran, the seller may lose their eligibility to use VA benefits for future home purchases.
While assumable mortgages offer advantages, they require careful evaluation to determine if they are the right financial choice.
How Can You Qualify for an Assumable Mortgage?
To assume a mortgage, buyers must meet the lender’s qualification criteria, similar to applying for a traditional home loan. The lender will evaluate the buyer’s credit score, income, and debt-to-income ratio to ensure they can handle the existing loan payments.
For FHA and USDA loans, buyers typically need a credit score of at least 580, though requirements may vary by lender. VA loans may have stricter qualifications, especially if the original borrower is a veteran and wants to preserve their VA loan entitlement.
In addition to meeting credit and income standards, buyers must provide proof of funds for the down payment if the home’s purchase price exceeds the remaining loan balance. Lenders may also require an assumption fee, though this is generally lower than the closing costs associated with a new mortgage.
Once approved, the loan is transferred, and the seller is released from liability, completing the assumption process.
Assumable Mortgages: A Smart Move for Homebuyers
An assumable mortgage can be a valuable financing option, especially when interest rates are high. By taking over an existing loan, buyers can benefit from lower borrowing costs, reduced closing fees, and an easier qualification process for government-backed loans. However, it is important to consider factors like down payment requirements and lender approval.
While assumable mortgages are not as widely available as conventional loans, they can provide significant savings for those who qualify. Understanding the process and requirements can help buyers determine if assuming a mortgage is the right choice for their home purchase. Good luck!
As the Trump administration pushes sweeping changes to the federal government’s structure, one agency stands as a canary in the coal mine: the U.S. Department of Labor. My interview with leaders of AFGE Local 2391—which represents federal employees in the Department’s Pacific Region—reveal the dire consequences of proposed workforce reductions, early retirement offers, and ideological shifts in governance. For President Aliyah Levin, Executive Vice President Rob Sax, and Vice President Omar Algeciras, this moment is not just about protecting jobs—it’s about protecting the mission of the Department and, by extension, the American people.
The Trump Administration’s Attack on Public Servants
At the core of the union leaders’ concerns is the administration’s clear hostility toward federal civil servants. As Levin put it bluntly, “What is wrong with this administration that they’ve made public servants the enemy?” Across agencies, career employees are being pushed out—whether through incentives like deferred resignations or potential early retirement packages that could lower eligibility thresholds from 20 years of service to 15. And planned reductions in force include as much as 90% for some units in the Department, such as the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, which ensures that employers doing business with the Federal government comply with non-discrimination regulations. Such policies seem at odds with the administration’s supposed intention to combat antisemitism.
According to Sax, “If that happens, easily 10 to 15 percent of the workforce could leave—and not just any workers, but the most experienced ones.” The institutional knowledge lost from such an exodus would cripple the Department’s ability to carry out its legally mandated responsibilities. These are not plug-and-play jobs. A Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data collector, for instance, takes three to five years to reach journeyman status. Mine inspectors and OSHA compliance officers undergo similar years-long training curves.
The administration’s view that such roles can be easily filled by private contractors or new hires reflects, in Sax’s words, “a 19th-century mindset.” It ignores the specialized and high-stakes nature of federal oversight—work that directly impacts worker safety, fair wages, and economic stability.
A Blow to Public Safety and Accountability
The consequences of gutting the Department of Labor would be felt most immediately in worker safety. With too few inspectors and too little training for replacements, dangerous conditions would go unaddressed. Sax warned, “A new mine inspector will miss something, and a miner could get injured. An OSHA inspector may not be able to respond to emergencies.”
Already, mine-related deaths are ticking up—an early sign of what a weakened oversight regime looks like. OSHA’s inspection staff is so depleted that it would take over 12,000 years to inspect every U.S. workplace at current staffing levels. Cutting further is not a budgetary decision—it’s a gamble with American lives.
At the same time, the administration is attacking the agencies that protect workers’ rights. Omar Algeciras pointed to the Wage and Hour Division, which enforces everything from child labor laws to protections for H-2 visa holders. These are complex, multi-layered legal issues that require years of experience to navigate. “You can’t enforce these laws properly without trained professionals,” he said. “And without that enforcement, workers—many of whom are among the most vulnerable—will suffer.”
Levin, speaking from her experience with the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), highlighted another alarming move: the elimination of Executive Order 11246 enforcement, which prohibits federal contractors from discriminating in employment. “Now OFCCP is left with just two laws to enforce. This is about dismantling anti-discrimination enforcement,” she said.
Undermining the Data that Drives the Economy
While public safety garners the headlines, the damage extends deeper. Sax, a self-described “statistics wonk” who worked for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, underscored the economic danger of politicizing or degrading data integrity. After all, the Trump Administration already threatened to politicize the data by changing the way GDP is calculated.
“Trillions of dollars in decisions—from interest rates to pensions—depend on BLS data,” Sax explained. “If that data becomes politicized or less reliable, economic planning will unravel.” And replacing federal analysts with private contractors won’t solve the problem. It will raise costs—contractors charge more—and erode expertise.
That problem is compounded by years of budget stagnation. Agencies were forced to absorb pay increases without additional funding, resulting in an estimated 18% reduction in real resources over the past decade. This underinvestment limits training for new hires and capacity to maintain existing services. Any further cuts, Sax warned, would cross a tipping point.
“You’ll be paying more for less—less oversight, less reliability, and ultimately less justice,” he said.
Serving the Constitution, Not an Ideology
All three union leaders echoed a commitment not just to their agencies, but to a higher ideal: the Constitution. “I took an oath to the Constitution, not the president,” Sax declared. “The founders did not want a king, and yet here we are being subjected to loyalty tests.”
Algeciras spoke with deep emotion about his work. “Our customer is the American people. We’re here to help those who file complaints. We don’t charge. We do it because it’s the right thing to do.” Whether it’s enforcing minimum wage laws, protecting veterans’ employment rights, or investigating agricultural violations, federal labor employees see their role as one of service.
Levin added that in many countries, public servants are respected. “In Italy, when someone hears you work in civil service, they’re impressed. Why are we so denigrated here?” she asked.
This isn’t just a battle over early retirement or job classifications. It’s a philosophical assault on the very premise of a professional, nonpartisan civil service. And the consequences aren’t theoretical—they’re immediate and human. Workers injured. Data distorted. Discrimination unchecked.
A Looming Catastrophe
The Trump administration’s approach to the Department of Labor, as described by the union leaders, is not reform—it’s demolition. “This is the deconstruction of the American government,” Levin said flatly. “This is catastrophic.”
The union isn’t standing still. AFGE 2391 is taking legal action on telework rollbacks, encouraging employees to resist hasty exits, and lobbying members of Congress to intervene. But they know they’re up against an administration driven more by ideology than by evidence.
“This isn’t about fiscal prudence,” Sax concluded. “It’s about ideology. And the cost of that ideology will be borne by American workers.”
In a time of political division, the Department of Labor’s mission should be a unifying one: fair wages, safe workplaces, equal opportunity. To erode its capacity is to break faith with the American people. What’s happening now is not just a staffing issue. It’s a national crisis—and it’s unfolding in real time.
When generative AI burst into the workplace in late 2022, many organizations scrambled to make sense of the technology and how it could fit into their workflows. At Mural, a leading visual collaboration platform, the response was swift but measured. According to my interview with Jim Kalbach, Chief Evangelist at Mural, the company embraced the opportunity—but never at the expense of security, compliance, or user trust.
Embracing Gen AI, With a Dose of Caution
As a tech-forward, fully remote company with about 400 to 500 employees, Mural recognized the potential early on. “We have very high security standards, mostly because of our enterprise customers,” Kalbach explains. “But even so, we moved quickly to bring AI into our workflows.” From drafting emails in Gmail to summarizing conversations in Slack and fine-tuning workshop descriptions with an in-house AI chatbot, generative AI began seeping into everyday tasks across departments.
Still, Kalbach acknowledges there’s a divide. “There are power users, and there are skeptics. Some folks are just creeped out,” he admits. That discomfort, what he describes as a kind of uncanny valley, stems from AI’s speed and uncanny output—but also deeper concerns around data privacy and job security. “People feel like AI is getting too close, like someone standing too near you when they talk.”
These concerns are not unfounded. Headlines about job cuts linked to AI, such as Workday’s recent layoff of 1,800 developers, fuel the fire. “That uncertainty breeds hesitation,” says Kalbach. “People start thinking, ‘If AI can do this much now, what does that mean for me later?’”
Rolling Out Gen AI Thoughtfully
Despite these concerns, Mural didn’t let hesitation stall progress. The company rolled out a clear, early policy encouraging experimentation with generative AI—while maintaining strong boundaries around privacy and security. Led by the CIO and security teams, the policy balanced openness with compliance, enabling employees to explore use cases while staying within the lines of SOC 2 Type 2 certification requirements.
Interestingly, while security policies were clear, training on how to use Gen AI—what prompts work best, what tasks it excels at—was left more to individual initiative. “We didn’t get formal training on prompt engineering or use cases,” Kalbach notes. “A lot of learning happens through osmosis, conversations in Slack, or during brainstorming sessions.”
That lack of structured enablement, however, may limit the technology’s broader impact. “There’s a big imagination gap,” Kalbach explains. “People don’t always know how their work could be enhanced by AI, especially in a visual, non-linear space like Mural. They need help making that leap.”
From Magic to Muscle: Gen AI Inside Mural
Where the rubber really meets the road is in Mural’s own product, where Gen AI has been integrated into the core experience. As Kalbach puts it, “Mural is strongest in the fuzzy front-end of work—planning the plan, organizing chaos, bringing multiple perspectives together.” And this is exactly where Gen AI shines.
One of the most compelling use cases is mind mapping. Users can input a central idea and ask Mural’s AI to generate branches of sub-ideas—instantly populating the visual canvas. Need deeper ideation? Ask for ten more branches. Want to categorize sticky notes from a brainstorming session? Mural’s clustering and summarizing features use AI to do just that.
One feature Kalbach finds especially powerful is the AI chat panel, which is aware of the canvas content. “I had a bunch of sticky notes with dollar values. I asked it to sum them up and add the result to a new sticky note on the board. It worked like magic. I didn’t even need a spreadsheet.”
This kind of interaction, blending spatial reasoning and machine intelligence, is where Kalbach believes Gen AI moves from being a command-line tool to a graphical user interface—a GUI for the AI age. “For me, it makes AI tangible. I’m not just typing prompts into a black box. I’m interacting with ideas, seeing them come to life in a visual space.”
Still, while customers are often inspired by these capabilities, there’s a learning curve. Many enterprise clients—banks, consultancies, global corporations—are still working on their AI governance policies. As a result, Mural has seen faster adoption among smaller teams, startups, and individual users, while large enterprises move cautiously. “It was ironic. At first, we thought Gen AI would be a premium feature for our enterprise customers. But it turned out they were the slowest to adopt, simply because their policies weren’t ready.”
Bridging the Imagination Gap
To close this adoption gap, Mural is investing in customer enablement, peer mentorship, and success programs tailored to specific use cases. But even with the right tools, the leap to productive AI usage remains psychological. “You have to experience it,” Kalbach emphasizes. “Theory isn’t enough.”
His advice for organizations? Start small. “Try planning your day in Mural with AI. Or map out a vacation. Something low-risk, personal. Get used to the interface, the back-and-forth. Then pick one work habit—maybe summarizing a brainstorming session—and make that your AI habit. Once you see the value, it’s easier to expand.”
Kalbach also encourages companies to appoint AI champions—those naturally inclined to explore and teach. “I learn the most when I’m helping others,” he says. “Every time I explain a use case to a customer, I discover something new myself.”
Looking Ahead: AI as the Invisible Collaborator
As generative AI matures, Kalbach sees even more integration across internal functions. From software development acceleration to legal document redlining and real-time team transparency, the potential is vast. He envisions AI helping remote teams by connecting employees across time zones, surfacing relevant information, and even suggesting who to ask for help based on project histories.
But for now, the focus remains on cultivating trust and familiarity. “We’re still early. Gen AI is powerful, yes, but it’s also unfamiliar,” Kalbach says. “And people need time to reconcile that—between the magic and the unease.”
What’s clear is that Mural isn’t waiting for the uncanny valley to disappear. Instead, the company is building the bridges—policy, tooling, and training—that help people cross it. Step by step, use case by use case, the future of Gen AI is becoming less mysterious and more meaningful. And in that process, imagination becomes action.
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.
Jeremy Campbell, CEO of Black Isle Group and creator of Nudge.ai – turning learning into lasting habits.
Kanan Mammadov
Joseph Mazur
Dr. Gleb Tsipursky
