• A former commander of Russia's ground forces gave a rare candid take on the war in Ukraine.
• Col. Gen. Vladimir Chirkin said Moscow was "once again unprepared" for war in early 2022.
• He said Russian intelligence had misled the Kremlin about political sentiment in Ukraine.

A former chief commander of Russian forces blasted the Kremlin's intelligence services last week for their early performance in Ukraine, saying they prompted an unprepared Moscow to launch its full-scale invasion.

The remarks by Vladimir Chirkin, a colonel general who led Russia's ground forces from 2012 to 2013, are unusually critical for a top Russian military official, even among those no longer serving.

"Everyone, if you recall, started saying in February 2022 that the war would be over in three days. We'll beat them all now," said Chirkin in an interview on November 27 with Russian radio outlet RBC.

"But unfortunately, it didn't work out that way. I would give our entire Russian intelligence community a failing grade," he added. The general's criticism was highlighted among Ukrainian circles this week by Denis Kazanskyi, a Ukrainian political journalist.

In the RBC interview, Chirkin said that Moscow had "traditionally" miscalculated the balance of power, underestimating its enemy and overestimating the performance of its own forces.

"To be fair, I don't intend to criticize anyone, but in my opinion, Russia was once again unprepared for war, as it had been in previous years and centuries," he said.

Chirkin said that Russian leadership had been misled into thinking that 70% of Ukraine's population supported a pro-Russian government.

"It turned out to be exactly the opposite. 30% for us and 70% against," he said. "During the first few weeks, we were taught a seriously cruel lesson."

Chirkin also said Russian forces likely suffered in the early stages of the invasion from the "Tbilisi syndrome," which describes the situation in which troops are afraid to make tactical decisions without orders from their superiors.

Chirkin's assessment aligns largely with Western and Ukrainian analyses of the war's early months, which found that Russia severely misjudged its ability to seize the Kyiv region. After weeks of confusion among its troops, poor logistics, and a failure to achieve air superiority, the Kremlin withdrew from the capital area in late March.

The general's candor appeared to surprise even his interviewer, RBC's Yuri Tamantsev.

"To be honest, I didn't expect such frankness at the very beginning of our conversation," Tamantsev said.

Russia has outlawed sharing "false information" about the war in Ukraine, which can carry a sentence of up to 15 years in prison. Human rights groups, however, say the law has been used to punish Russians who protest or criticize the invasion.

Still, Chirkin, whose military rank is the rough equivalent of a three-star general in NATO, stopped short of publicly finding fault with Moscow's stated premise for invading Ukraine.

The rest of his interview with Tamantsev focused on how Russian warfare has evolved over the last few years and how its troops might achieve Moscow's vision of victory.

Chirkin was stripped of his rank and command in 2013, when he was accused of bribery. He was convicted in August 2015 of accepting a bribe of 450,000 rubles and sentenced to a labor camp for five years, but the sentence was commuted in December.

The colonel general, who said the bribe was a result of fraud by his subordinates, had his rank reinstated.

• YouTube launched "Recap" on Tuesday, its first year-end roundup for users.
• While Spotify Wrapped dominated social media this week, YouTube's version barely registered.
• Some users say Recap fell short, with inaccuracies and missing data.

While the internet is buzzing over this year's Spotify Wrapped — especially with its new "listening age" feature — another platform has slipped out its year-end recap with much less fanfare.

YouTube unveiled "Recap" on Tuesday, its first attempt at a Wrapped-style experience. The platform said "Recap" is available to US users with a global rollout coming later this week.

The feature compiles up to 12 cards that showcase users' top channels, interests, and how their tastes have shifted over time. It also assigns them a viewing personality based on their watch history.

Meanwhile, Spotify Wrapped kept its signature stats — minutes listened, top artists, and artist messages — and introduced a slate of new features this year. Users get a "listening age," a fan leaderboard, placement into one of six listening "clubs," and a listening archive that highlights their most memorable streaming days.

Consumer apps, from novice linguist favorite Duolingo to athlete-focused Strava, have rolled out these annual reviews in recent years to build buzz and keep users coming back. Spotify started the feature in 2015, so it has a big leg up on YouTube.

Users online praised Spotify Wrapped

Online users made their pick clear. Social media posts praised Spotify for leveling up the experience with new features, while many called YouTube's Recap a flop.

In a discussion thread on Reddit, many users wrote that this year's Spotify Wrapped was better than last year's, with some highlighting the listening archive as a notable addition.

"I liked the little report (despite being generated by AI) at the end because it pinpointed a special day in the year for me," a user on Reddit wrote.

"They clearly listened to what people complained about last year with the lack of actual data and random AI," the user added.

I also found the listening report delightful. It surfaced a day when I had what Spotify called a "one-song relay" — I looped a track 70 times. It was the day I discovered KATSEYE, the global pop girl group featured in Gap's ad, making the recap feel oddly personal and accurate.

In another Reddit discussion thread, users were up in arms over their "listening age." Many said the number Spotify assigned them was wildly off — either far younger than their real age or much older.

As Business Insider's Katie Notopoulous wrote, the feature has gotten some of our colleagues' ages hilariously wrong. I was given a listening age of 20 — a decade younger — likely thanks to a year of streaming K-pop hits and other trending tracks. My editor, in her 30s, was told she had the listening habits of a 71-year-old because she loves 70s folk rock.

A friend of mine called Spotify "rude" for assigning him a listening age of 41. He's only a few years off, which suggests how touchy this metric has been for some users.

Debates about the listening age have dominated social feeds and group chats. YouTube Recap, meanwhile, has attracted almost no excitement, and its reviews have been overwhelmingly negative.

YouTube Recap is 'AI garbage'

On Reddit, users said YouTube's new Recap missed the mark. Many complained that it got their stats wrong and skipped the features they actually care about.

"YouTube is the main platform I watch, so I was excited to see they added a recap this year," wrote one user, who started a thread titled "2025 YouTube recap is AI slop."

But their excitement quickly faded. The feature listed their top viewing interest as "sewing tutorials," even though the user said they had "never watched a sewing tutorial."

"It's clearly just AI garbage," the user added.

Many agreed that most of the stats were "flat-out wrong," with several highlighting that the feature seemed to skew viewing interests toward AI-related topics they never engaged with.

Another Redditor wrote that YouTube didn't include two of the most fundamental metrics: total videos watched and total watch time. They called the Recap feature "lame," and another user replied, "That's all I really cared about."

I opened my YouTube Recap on my personal account and was met with tacky, techno-club music straight out of the early 2000s.

By the third slide, YouTube listed my top interests as "iPhone features," "pop culture news," and "personal finance tips." I spent a couple of weeks earlier this year watching iPhone reviews while debating whether to buy the iPhone 16, but that phase was brief. I'm fairly certain most of my YouTube time went elsewhere.

A few slides later, YouTube said my top channels were a news documentary account and "Netflix K-Content." That made the earlier "iPhone features" ranking feel even more random.

Without the basics, such as watch time, the rankings didn't feel complete or meaningful.

The recap then classified my traits as "tech-savvy," "culture-curious," and "financially aware," and summed up my personality as a "curious mind."

It wasn't as fun as Spotify Wrapped, which sorted me into a club called the "Full Charge Crew" and crowned me the "Leader" because my listening "strongly aligned with club values." Wrapped gave me a distinctive club identity and a slick logo I could compare with friends, making YouTube's generic "curious mind" feel flat.

YouTube Recap's take on my evolving viewing habits wasn't much better. The feature said that in early 2025, I was focused on "Pop Culture," even though that period was clearly my iPhone-review rabbit hole. And I'm sure I watched pop culture videos consistently throughout the year, not just in one window.

To be fair, this is YouTube's first attempt at a Recap, and it feels like a version 1.0. Until YouTube nails that part, Wrapped will keep winning.

• Melinda French Gates said billionaires are not giving away enough of their money.
• She said those who have benefited from businesses in the US should give back "far more than they are."
• Gates started the Giving Pledge with Bill Gates and Warren Buffett in 2010.

Melinda French Gates has a message for the ultrawealthy: Give more money away.

In a Tuesday interview with Wired, Gates spoke about the Giving Pledge, a movement she started in 2010 with her ex-husband, Microsoft's cofounder Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett, the chair of Berkshire Hathaway.

French Gates said that some of the people who signed the Giving Pledge, which encourages billionaires to donate a significant portion of their wealth, have been giving money at a "massive scale."

"But have they given enough? No," she said.

She said those who have amassed "enormous amounts of wealth" have benefited from the US's education system, regulatory environment, and venture capital system. French Gates is worth $17.2 billion, per the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

"If you live in this country and started a business, you benefited from this country," French Gates said. "And I believe to whom much is given, much is expected, and they should be giving back more, far more than they are."

She did not name specific billionaires in the interview.

The Giving Pledge's website says that 250 individuals from 30 countries have taken the pledge. Its signatories include Tesla CEO Elon Musk, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Oracle's technology chief Larry Ellison, and venture capitalist Reid Hoffman.

The website spotlights billionaires' contributions to various charities, such as philanthropist MacKenzie Scott's $70 million donation to the UNCF in September.

French Gates cofounded and cochaired The Gates Foundation with Bill Gates before leaving in June 2024. She now runs Pivotal Ventures, a group of philanthropic organizations focusing on women's issues.

French Gates' comments in the Wired interview echo those of singer Billie Eilish during her acceptance speech at the WSJ Magazine Innovator Awards in October. The guest list at the awards included billionaires like Zuckerberg and filmmaker George Lucas.

"Love you all, but there's a few people in here that have a lot more money than me," Eilish said. "If you are a billionaire, why are you a billionaire? No hate, but yeah, give your money away, shorties."

• AT&T's CEO urges young people to view their careers in four- to five-year chapters.
• John Stankey highlighted rapid technology changes and the need for ongoing self-education.
• Tech leaders agree that self-driven learning and AI skills are key in today's job market.

Young people should redesign their careers every few years, says AT&T's CEO.

On an episode of the "In Good Company" podcast released on Wednesday, John Stankey said that the idea that you get a relevant college education is "quickly fading," so young people should own their learning.

"You think about how fast technology is moving, how fast business models are moving," he said. "You have to think about your career in chapters that are four or five years."

Stankey has worked at the telecom giant for over 41 years and has been leading the company since 2020.

Every few years, he said people should build a new foundation and set of skills.

"The only way you're going to be able to do that over the course of a life that may be 80 or 90 years is if you are really, really good about being the dean of your own education and having a process," he said.

Stankey added that people have an unlimited amount of information at their fingertips, and AI has only raised the stakes by making information more accessible.

"People who master that are going to probably be the ones who come out on top over time," he said.

The AT&T CEO echoed advice given by other tech leaders such as Reid Hoffman and Naval Ravikant.

LinkedIn cofounder Hoffman popularized the concept of becoming the CEO of your own career, saying that people must take responsibility for their own learning to thrive in a rapidly changing job market.

On a June podcast, he said that young people should use their familiarity with AI as an advantage when seeking work.

"You are generation AI. You are AI native. So bringing the fact that you have AI in your tool set is one of the things that makes you enormously attractive," Hoffman said.

Ravikant, a tech investor who cofounded AngelList, advocates for the idea that formal education is a source of career opportunities, but true learning must be self-driven.

Even before the explosion of AI, he called formal education "completely obsolete" because of the internet and compared it to a day care.

"There used to be no such thing as self-guided learning. Now, if you actually have the desire to learn, everything is on the internet. You can go on Khan Academy. You can get MIT and Yale lectures online," he wrote in a 2020 blog post.

• Bethenny Frankel says her chaotic childhood couldn't compare to the trauma of her nearly decadelong divorce.
• "I lost hair. I thought I would never survive it," the "Real Housewives of New York City" alum said.
• Despite that, she said she "never" badmouthed her ex to their daughter.

Bethenny Frankel says she shielded her daughter from nearly a decade of divorce drama.

During an appearance on Wednesday's episode of "Call Her Daddy," Frankel said her almost 10-year-long divorce from her second husband, Jason Hoppy, was messier than her chaotic childhood.

"I have seen my mother slit her wrists. I have lived a life, my whole life of chasing her into bathrooms, trying to catch her throwing up. I've been around guns, the mafia, the racetrack. I've been through everything. I've seen her beaten with an inch of her life with a phone," Frankel told host Alex Cooper. "Nothing compares to what my divorce was for 10 years."

The "Real Housewives of New York City" alum married Hoppy, a businessman, in 2010, and they welcomed their daughter, Bryn, shortly after. The former couple announced their separation in 2012, and their divorce was finalized in 2021.

"It was 10 years of my life. I lost hair. I thought I would never survive it. I didn't want to. I had to because of my daughter. I literally thought I'll never be happy again," Frankel said.

Despite everything she was going through, Frankel said she "never" badmouthed her ex to their daughter.

"I never talked bad in front of her. I mean, she energetically, I believe, felt it because it cracked open during the pandemic when she was 11," Frankel said.

She added that it was a "lesson" every divorcing parent with young kids should keep in mind.

"It's a long road. Your kids will become cognizant, and they will understand. You don't have to say it to them. You don't have to prove it to them," Frankel said. "You should never ever say a bad thing about the other parent ever, because it is the worst thing you could do to a child."

Instead, Frankel said she makes sure her daughter knows she's loved and has even shared pieces of her own childhood with her.

"You know, therapy is a big thing in my house, and I've been on it, and she's a beautiful, happy human being. She really is," Frankel said.

Frankel isn't the only one who's spoken about keeping things positive for the kids after a split.

Speaking to Stellar Magazine in April 2023, Jennifer Garner said she avoids reading any press coverage of her and her ex-husband, Ben Affleck.

"I really work hard not to see either of us in the press," Garner told the outlet. "It doesn't make me feel good, even if it's something nice about one of us."

In October 2023, Gwyneth Paltrow told Bustle that she and her ex-husband Chris Martin didn't want their kids to "experience the divorce as a trauma."

"We knew that it would be hard, of course, but we didn't want them to ever feel in the middle, or that one of us was slagging off the other one," Paltrow said.

• There may be more private equity funds than McDonald's in the US, but there are signs of consolidation.
• Nearly half of PE cash raised in 2025 so far has gone to the 10 largest funds, per a report.
• It was also the lowest year on record for new funds closed, at just 41, per Pitchbook.

In private equity, consolidation is now the name of the game.

After a burst of new fund launches — enough for one KKR executive to joke last month that the US now has more private equity funds than McDonald's — more funding than ever is flowing into the biggest names.

So far this year, nearly 46% of all private equity capital raised in 2025 has been secured by the 10 largest funds, up from 34.5% in 2024, according to PitchBook's private equity outlook report. PitchBook predicts that more than 40% will go to the largest funds in 2026 as well.

This fundraising consolidation happens while fundraising is down substantially, with only $259 billion raised so far this year compared to $372.6 billion last year. But even as the absolute amount raised by the top funds has dropped 8% year-over-year to $118.3 billion, their overall share of the pie went up.

Here are three charts from PitchBook's report that show how the biggest funds in private equity are likely to get even bigger.

The top 10 funds are taking more of the fundraising haul than they have in the last 10 years

This chart breaks down the percentage of US private equity (and not credit) fundraising that went to the 10 largest funds. This year, the top 10 largest funds include two Blackstone funds and two Thoma Bravo funds, a Bain Capital fund, as well as funds from lesser-known names like Great Hill Partners.

After five years, with the 10 largest funds making up an average of 35.8% of funds raised — and a 10-year average of 39% — the number jumped to 45.7% so far this year.

With times tight for fundraising, asset allocators are choosing to go to the biggest players with their remaining capital. Even the biggest players are having a harder time fundraising compared to years past, but they're clearly doing better than their competitors.

The consolidation story is even more striking when you examine the fundraising picture for the top three largest funds. The three largest raised $60.4 billion so far this year, accounting for 23.3% of the total amount raised, compared to $55.9 billion last year, which represented just 15% of the total amount raised.

Forget flight to quality, there's a flight to experience

Capital may be flowing to the biggest players in large numbers, but it's also flowing to the most experienced firms. So far this year, 61% of capital raised has come from firms that have more than 10 funds in total. That's above the five-year average of 58%.

So far this year, only 41 first-time funds have closed their fundraising this year, a record low number. The total amount of capital in these closed funds, $8.4 billion, is also near record lows, though 2015 saw only $7.7 billion closed across 90 funds.

It's even harder than it was last year, when the industry closed 83 first-time funds, the previous record low. With asset allocators flocking to established, large investors, it's no surprise that the new launches are anemic.