We invested in the world’s first AI-insurance company, and the outcomes have been exceptional. We also invested in the world’s first AI-lending company, and its immediate follow-on fundraise has validated our thesis. These companies are not merely technology firms; they possess full insurance, reinsurance, and lending licenses, enabling them to operate like traditional players, yet powered by AI. They do not simply supply technologies to incumbents; they operate as the insurers, as the lenders, using AI to transform their industries from within.

In that same construct, I am thrilled to announce that Tekedia Capital has invested in Pharmie AI, which is on course to become a category-king AI-powered pharmacy, not just a vendor of pharmacy tools or digital workflows.

Why does this matter? Independent pharmacies across communities are drowning in repetitive administrative tasks. Calls about refills, insurance checks, transfers, and appointments come nonstop. Pharmacists and technicians spend their day context switching, far from the essence of their profession: patient care. Turnover is high, training is expensive, and margins are evaporating. Pharmie changes that.

Pharmie runs 24/7, autonomously handling these administrative burdens. It answers calls, processes refills, verifies insurance, schedules appointments, manages transfers, and even upsells delivery and vaccination services while integrating seamlessly with existing pharmacy management systems. Already, Pharmie is reducing phone volume by 70% across multiple independent pharmacies.

And the roadmap is clear: Pharmie with its partners could become a licensed pharmacy, especially in underserved and remote areas where pharmacies are scarce. It is integration of the full chain to unlock value for all stakeholders. That is why we are happy to support Pharmie AI.

French satellite operator Eutelsat endured another bruising day on the markets on Wednesday after a Reuters report revealed that Japanese investor SoftBank had offloaded a large block of subscription rights tied to the company.

The sale triggered a steep drop in the share price, reinforcing the uncertainty surrounding Europe’s efforts to build a credible challenge to Elon Musk’s Starlink.

Eutelsat’s stock fell by more than 7 percent earlier in the session before closing 5.7 percent lower. According to the Reuters account, SoftBank sold 36 million subscription rights—equivalent to about 26 million shares and roughly half of its stake in the French operator. The move marks the latest in a series of strategic disposals by the Japanese group, which has been under pressure to free up capital for its next wave of artificial intelligence investments.

SoftBank founder Masayoshi Son told an audience on Monday that the company would not be selling assets unless it needed to bankroll its AI ambitions, making the disposal particularly telling.

Eutelsat sits at the center of Europe’s push for technological autonomy. The company completed a merger with satellite internet provider OneWeb in 2023, positioning the newly combined group as Europe’s sharpest answer to Starlink. But the competitive gulf remains vast. Eutelsat and OneWeb collectively field more than 600 satellites in orbit; Starlink has deployed over 6,750, according to the companies’ websites. That sheer numerical difference underscores the scale advantage that SpaceX continues to enjoy in low-Earth orbit broadband.

The French operator has had a turbulent year in the markets. Shares had surged more than 600 percent in early March as European governments scrambled to shore up their technology independence following the United States’ decision to scale back military support for Ukraine. But the momentum evaporated quickly, and Eutelsat’s stock has since collapsed by more than 70 percent. The volatility highlights the fragile confidence surrounding Europe’s satellite internet strategy, even as governments continue to treat the company as a central pillar of continental tech infrastructure.

In June, the French state led a €1.35 billion investment in Eutelsat, emerging as its largest shareholder with roughly 30 percent. That recapitalization underscored the strategic weight now placed on Eutelsat’s constellation and ground network as Europe attempts to steer its own course in space-based communications. The state-backed support also signaled a shift in the company’s trajectory.

Luke Kehoe, an analyst at Ookla, told CNBC that Eutelsat is no longer being positioned as a pure growth story but rather as a foundational component of Europe’s digital sovereignty architecture. Kehoe described SoftBank’s withdrawal as consistent with the group’s “aggressive monetization” strategy across other holdings, including its earlier exit from Nvidia as it redirected funds toward OpenAI and related ventures.

Even so, Eutelsat’s strategic plan hinges on carving out markets where Starlink’s dominance is less entrenched. While Starlink continues to hold overwhelming scale and remains the most visible player in retail satellite broadband, Eutelsat has emphasized government contracts, aviation connectivity, mobile backhaul, and emergency-response links as its core growth lanes.

Kehoe noted that these B2B segments carry higher value relative to consumer broadband, potentially giving the French group a defensible position even without matching Starlink on satellite numbers.

The challenge now is whether that strategy can produce sustainable returns. The merged Eutelsat-OneWeb business remains deep in a cycle of heavy capital expenditure, and governments have repeatedly stepped in to keep operators like Eutelsat funded at levels necessary to participate in the global race for satellite dominance.

Kehoe framed the unresolved issue with a blunt question: Will Europe continue to write cheques at the scale needed to close—even partially—the capability gap with Starlink, and will Eutelsat’s more focused, enterprise-driven model be enough to justify the investment once the current recapitalization wave recedes?

Currently, the market reaction to SoftBank’s move suggests investors are not convinced. The heavy rights sale, paired with the broader backdrop of near-limitless capital flowing into AI, reinforces a hierarchy where space infrastructure competes directly with artificial intelligence for investor attention. SoftBank’s recent comments about prioritizing AI underscore that reality even more sharply.

Eutelsat’s role in Europe’s long-term technology sovereignty remains unquestioned in political circles. But in the financial markets, pressure continues to build. The selloff shows how quickly confidence can erode when major shareholders reposition their portfolios. And with Starlink’s lead showing no sign of narrowing, Eutelsat faces an uphill battle to convince investors that its strategic reorientation and government-backed support can eventually translate into commercial resilience.

The European Union made a decision on Wednesday to phase out all Russian gas imports by late 2027, marking one of the bloc’s most decisive breaks from Moscow since the start of the Ukraine war.

But the move, celebrated in Brussels as a historic end to decades of energy dependency, landed on the same day that high-stakes peace talks between the United States and Russia failed to deliver a breakthrough — and just hours after Vladimir Putin warned Europe that Russia was “ready” for war if pushed.

Both developments are now intertwining in Europe’s strategic calculations, exposing an uncomfortable reality: even as the EU tries to shut off Russian gas, Moscow is signaling that it is prepared for a prolonged confrontation — both militarily and diplomatically.

The energy agreement, reached in the early hours of Wednesday between representatives of EU governments and the European Parliament, locks in a phased halt to Russian liquefied natural gas imports by the end of 2026 and pipeline gas by the end of September 2027.

The bloc will also move toward a full phase-out of Russian oil. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen hailed the deal as a definitive break.

“Today, we are stopping these imports permanently. By depleting Putin’s war chest, we stand in solidarity with Ukraine and set our sights on new energy partnerships and opportunities for the sector,” she said in a statement.

Yet even before the ink had dried, two EU members were already preparing to challenge the new legislation. Hungary, which remains heavily reliant on Moscow for energy, vowed to take the case to the EU’s Court of Justice. Its foreign minister, Peter Szijjarto, denounced the measure as a “Brussels order” disguised as a trade policy to dodge unanimity rules on sanctions.

“Accepting and implementing this Brussels order is impossible for Hungary,” he said. Slovakia is also weighing its legal options, warning that the phase-out risks damaging its economy.

From Moscow, the Kremlin dismissed the EU decision as self-destructive. Officials said the move would leave Europe less competitive and ultimately burden consumers with higher prices. As of October, Russia still accounted for 12% of EU gas imports, down from 45% before the 2022 invasion, with Hungary, France, and Belgium among the states still receiving supplies.

The phase-out mechanics are complex and staggered. For short-term contracts concluded before June 17 this year, the ban kicks in on April 25, 2026 for LNG and June 17, 2026, for pipeline gas. Longer-term contracts face cut-off dates at the start of 2027 and the start of October 2026, with a possible one-month cushion for countries struggling to meet storage requirements.

From now on, most Russian gas imports will require prior authorization, except in cases where the exporting country is a major gas producer that restricts Russian imports. Brussels will also move to phase out remaining Russian oil supplies by the end of 2027, with legislation expected early next year.

Member states must submit “national diversification” plans by March 1, outlining how they intend to replace Russian supplies. They will also be required to disclose any existing Russian contracts or national bans. The Commission will then issue recommendations.

While Europe was drawing red lines on energy, Washington was trying to draw its own on the geopolitical front — and so far without success. U.S. President Donald Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, spent five hours in Moscow on Tuesday trying to sell a draft peace plan to Putin.

According to Russian presidential aide Yuri Ushakov, the discussion was “useful, constructive, and highly informative,” but nowhere near complete.

“We agreed on some things … while others caused criticism,” he said, adding that Putin held a “critical, even negative” attitude toward a number of the proposals.

The document under discussion is shifting rapidly. A secret 28-point plan drafted by the U.S. and Russia was presented to Ukraine weeks ago, prompting Kyiv and European allies to scramble and revise it down to 19 points. Ukrainian officials arrived in Florida last weekend for another round of negotiations. Ushakov said Russia and the U.S. discussed a 27-point plan on Tuesday, and that additional documents were exchanged, though he did not reveal specifics. Both sides agreed not to disclose the details.

On Wednesday, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov tried to tamp down speculation, saying it was wrong to claim Putin had rejected the U.S. proposals.

“A direct exchange of views took place yesterday for the first time,” he said. “Some things were accepted, some things were marked as unacceptable — this is a normal working process of finding a compromise.”

But Putin’s public comments earlier in the day struck a much harder tone. He lashed European leaders for presenting counter-proposals he described as “absolutely unacceptable” and accused the region of having “no peace agenda.” Then came the warning. “We’re not going to war with Europe; I’ve said that a hundred times. But if Europe suddenly wants to fight us and starts, we’re ready right now,” he said.

European officials were already uneasy that they and Kyiv were excluded from the earliest U.S.–Russia talks, which many feared tilted toward Moscow’s interests. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said this week could be “pivotal for diplomacy” but argued that “Russia does not want peace,” urging stronger support for Ukraine.

Trump’s diplomatic approach is being closely watched across Europe. His relationship with Putin has often appeared warmer than his ties with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and analysts worry he may eventually back a deal that demands major concessions from Kyiv.

Zelenskyy, for his part, tried to sound hopeful. Addressing Irish lawmakers on Tuesday, he said Ukraine was “closer to peace than ever before” and insisted there was a “real, real chance” of an agreement after recent talks with Washington.

But geopolitical analysts are blunt about the prospects. Russia believes it holds the advantage on the battlefield and has little incentive to rush toward compromise. Wellington Management investment director Paul Skinner told CNBC that the conflict is likely to “grind on, and on, and on,” adding: “While Putin is still making ground, he’s unlikely to sue for peace.”

Michael Froman, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, echoed the view, arguing it is in Putin’s interest “to keep the process going” and prolong diplomatic engagement.

Europe now finds itself facing an unusual convergence of risks. It is attempting to unwind its energy dependence on Russia at the exact moment when Moscow is signaling a willingness to stretch the war, stall peace talks, and ramp up pressure on the West.

The EU’s 2027 phase-out timeline sends a clear political message — but it also accelerates a race against time to secure new supplies, defend its economies from price spikes, and keep Ukraine at the negotiating table on terms it can accept.

China is preparing to anchor its 2026 economic agenda to an ambitious growth target of around 5%, a number that government advisers and analysts broadly expect top leaders to endorse later this month.

But while the target signals political resolve—the desire to kick off a new five-year plan with momentum—the road toward achieving it is studded with risks that expose how fragile the world’s second-largest economy remains heading into the next year.

Beijing is trying to snap a deflationary spell, revive a housing market still weighed down by years of overbuilding, rekindle household spending that has struggled to recover since the pandemic, and stabilize investment at a time when local governments remain burdened with debt.

The problem is that none of these challenges can be solved quickly, and the structural reforms required to permanently rebalance the economy toward consumption are slow by nature. That leaves policymakers leaning heavily on fiscal and monetary support in 2026, even as they promise a longer-term shift toward a more sustainable model.

The advisers who spoke to Reuters—none of whom participate directly in final decision-making—argued that the 5% target is both politically symbolic and economically necessary. One adviser said the first year of the 15th five-year plan must send a message of confidence, but acknowledged that achieving 5% will be “certainly challenging” and will rely on room to manoeuvre in both fiscal and monetary policy.

Their assessments matter because they capture the consensus mood among private economists. Most favor holding the target at about 5%, and a smaller group prefers a slightly lower 4.5% to 5% range. The final figure is expected to be endorsed at the Central Economic Work Conference this month and unveiled publicly in March at the annual parliament meeting.

China already set a record budget deficit ratio of around 4% of GDP this year, and advisers expect Beijing to keep the deficit at that level—or even slightly higher—next year. Citi analysts predict that the central bank, which last cut rates in May, could start easing again in January 2026, with additional property support expected after the year-end leadership meeting.

Government bond issuance is likely to be front-loaded again, with spending slowly shifting toward welfare and consumer support. The consumer goods trade-in programme, valued at 300 billion yuan this year, is expected to continue, with funding gradually redirected from physical goods toward services.

That arsenal of policy tools reflects an economy that still needs propping up despite hitting this year’s 5% target. Growth in 2025 has relied heavily on policy support and resilient exports, helped by a tariff truce with the United States. But the underlying imbalances have become more pronounced: factory output is outpacing demand, price wars are intensifying, and deflationary pressure remains.

Morgan Stanley analysts expect deflation to persist well into next year, with the GDP deflator projected to fall by 0.7% in 2026 before rising only 0.2% in 2027. If that forecast holds, China would spend four straight years battling price decline, a pattern that risks depressing company profits, wages, and investment—while further weighing on consumer confidence.

The bigger risk is that China’s long-promised structural shift keeps running behind schedule. Economists have urged Beijing for years to pivot toward a consumption-driven model and reduce reliance on debt-fueled investment and exports. Household consumption today accounts for around 40% of GDP, far below the roughly 70% level of the United States. Chinese leaders have pledged to “significantly” increase the consumption share over the next five years. Some advisers say the rate should climb to at least 45%.

Reaching that level would require reforms that are politically sensitive and technically difficult. Strengthening welfare programmes, easing the household registration system that restricts migrant workers from accessing urban services, and shifting more resources from businesses and government toward households all involve major redistribution decisions. Without those reforms, consumption growth will continue to lag, and China will remain tied to its old drivers.

There is also a long-term milestone at stake. An official study tied to the new five-year plan says China needs average annual growth of about 4.17% over the next decade to double per-capita GDP to $20,000—a marker of “moderately developed country” status. Policymakers hope that hitting higher targets in the next few years will preserve flexibility later if demographics, debt, or geopolitical tensions weigh on growth.

Yet this approach carries its own risk. Maintaining high growth targets can lock Beijing into heavy stimulus spending and continual rate-cutting, amplifying local government debt strains, fueling inefficient investment, and weakening investor confidence if the gap between targets and fundamentals grows too wide.

For now, policymakers are choosing to open the taps rather than throttle back. They are confronting a property market still struggling to stabilize, excess capacity across several manufacturing sectors, weak consumer sentiment, and local governments short of revenue. Their immediate strategy is to boost demand and cushion the economy while the structural transition unfolds gradually in the background.

Whether that gamble pays off will define China’s economic trajectory in 2026. The country is entering the year with visible determination, but also with the most complex mix of risks it has faced in more than a decade.