mark
Russia Times
[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 1/14/26 4:36pm
The US president has promised a “spectacular” partnership on oil and national security US President Donald Trump and Venezuela’s interim President Delcy Rodriguez held a lengthy phone conversation on Wednesday, marking the first known direct contact between the two leaders since the US military captured former President Nicolas Maduro. The call, described by both sides as positive and productive, follows weeks of tension after the January 3 raid that killed at least 80 people, including members of the Venezuelan military, Maduro’s Cuban security staff, and civilians. “We had a call, a long call. We discussed a lot of things, and I think we’re getting along very well with Venezuela,” Trump told reporters, praising Rodriguez as a “terrific person.” Read more US seeking to seize dozens more oil tankers – Reuters In a separate Truth Social post, Trump stated that “tremendous progress” was being made and specifically mentioned “Oil, Minerals, Trade and, of course, National Security” as topics discussed. “This partnership between the United States of America and Venezuela will be a spectacular one FOR ALL. Venezuela will soon be great and prosperous again, perhaps more so than ever before!” he added. Rodriguez characterized the talk as “long, productive and courteous” and said they discussed a bilateral agenda aimed at benefiting both countries. The dialogue represents a shift in tone, after Rodriguez initially declared defiantly that no “foreign agent” would control Venezuela or turn it into a “colony.” Read more Putin and Lula discuss Venezuela in phone call – Kremlin The Trump administration has made clear that securing control over Venezuelan oil production and exports is the central pillar of its strategy. The US military and Coast Guard have intercepted at least five vessels in recent weeks, and Washington is reportedly pursuing court warrants to seize dozens more tankers suspected of transporting Venezuelan oil without its authorization. After Maduro’s capture, Trump said Washington would “run” Venezuela during a transition and needs “total access… to the oil and to other things in their country.” US Energy Secretary Chris Wright stated that Washington intends to control Venezuela’s oil sales “indefinitely,” first marketing stored crude and then managing future production, with revenues flowing into US-controlled accounts. US officials argue this control is necessary to stabilize Venezuela’s economy and ensure it acts in both American and Venezuelan interests.

[Link to media]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 1/14/26 4:06pm
Western Europe has long abandoned its independence for American vassalage, and is now reaping the result There are three major foreign-policy items on the EU’s radar, and they’re all connected: Ukraine, Venezuela, and Greenland. All three involve Washington doing whatever it wants, largely to the EU’s detriment. And no, this didn’t start with Trump. He just yanked off the white gloves and revealed Washington’s bare knuckles in all their glory. All three cases also involve the EU at least pretending that it’s on Washington’s side – even when resistance would have been squarely in Europe’s own interests. The US has long viewed the EU as an economic competitor and has repeatedly leaned on “national security” to pressure it into undercutting itself. The EU was only too happy to comply once its initial resistance to US sanctions against its economy-fueling supply of cheap Russian gas via Nord Stream finally collapsed. That resistance evaporated entirely when Russia, after years of US-led NATO treating the Ukrainian side of its border like a militarized flophouse – complete with neo-Nazis bunking in the guest rooms – finally had enough. The EU followed the same script with Trump’s recent attack on Venezuela: ritual nods to national sovereignty, enthusiastic praise for the outcome, and a determined refusal to name or shame the perpetrator. It took them several hours to synchronize their talking points. Kids in a cult all dressed up in identical rhetorical outfits for Daddy Trump. Lots of talk about “illegitimacy.” Not the coup itself. Not the “drug trafficking” accusations, even though fentanyl doesn’t appear once in the indictment and the Justice Department has already quietly abandoned the idea that there’s even such a thing as the “Cartel de Los Soles” that the US once accused Maduro of leading. And certainly not the illegitimacy of kidnapping a sitting head of state from his own country to try him for crimes in another – without an extradition treaty. Instead, they keep calling Maduro himself “illegitimate,” even as he’s charged by a country whose constitution enshrines the right to keep and bear arms, for possessing weapons – in Venezuela. Read more Why Washington will take Greenland Of all people, it’s hard to understand British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s excuse for playing along with this Trumpian charade. He’s supposedly a world-class international and human-rights lawyer. Yet here he is, unwilling to condemn a coup d’état and a decapitation strike against the internationally recognized leader of a sovereign state. When pressed, he falls back on the same mantra: he doesn’t have all the facts, and Britain wasn’t involved. Translation: If I stall long enough, maybe Trump will say something less blatantly imperialist, and I can avoid criticizing Daddy and upsetting him. A British MP tried to argue self-defense. For Trump. Because apparently it’s self-defense when you obsess over someone who poses no real threat to you, march into their house, drag them outside, and kidnap them. Perhaps because Europe has been so chronically obtuse, Trump now feels emboldened to target it directly – starting with Greenland. Time to grow a spine yet? Not quite, apparently. The explanation is simple. Every concession that the EU has made to Washington at the expense of its own sovereignty has left it totally dependent on staying in Trump’s good graces – like a tradwife who gave up her career and now depends entirely on her partner, beholden to his moods and whims. What happens when you wake up and realize that you’re married to a jerk, but you long ago sold out your own independence? The EU wants Washington to act as its bouncer in Ukraine. Russia has made clear that it doesn’t want NATO there, even under a ceasefire. So with Macron and Starmer’s ‘Coalition of the Willing,’ Europe is lining itself up for a near-certain Russian butt-kicking if peace efforts go sideways (which is not a zero-probability scenario) – unless Washington is there to hold their hand and murmur “it’s okay.” Read more Trump is not bluffing about Greenland and here’s why That makes this a particularly bad moment for the EU to start telling Washington what to do, because it desperately wants US backup at the exact same time the Trump administration is acting openly thirsty for Greenland – a Danish territory, with Denmark being an EU member. Instead of marching up the block and giving Trump a piece of its collective mind, the EU did what it always does with Daddy Trump. It issued a joint statement, bravely dodging the elephant in the room: American belligerence, now turbocharged by the fresh smash-and-grab on Venezuela. And it was all done for oil, a fact Trump spent 90 minutes on TV rubbing in, just in case anyone was confused or watching on mute. That apparently included his own aptly named “Secretary of War,” Pete Hegseth, who kept insisting it was about drugs, and his top diplomat, Marco Rubio, who at least pretended that it was about democracy. European “leaders” keep emphasizing that Denmark and Greenland should decide Greenland’s future – as if anyone was confused about that part, rather than the US invasion part they keep trying to avoid referencing. Talking points in hand, they did what they do best: repeat themselves. As if a “my body, my choice” argument is going to work on a guy who brags about grabbing countries by the assets. Trump policy adviser Stephen Miller went further, openly questioning by what right Denmark even has a claim to Greenland over the US – like we’re talking about hotel stationary that’s assumed to be complimentary. It conveniently ignores the fact that in 1916, the US acquired the Danish West Indies – now the US Virgin Islands – as part of the deal that recognized Denmark’s rights to Greenland. But sure, that was over a century ago. Times change. Trump wants Greenland for national security. Just like he wanted Venezuela for national security – against drugs – until he got what he wanted and dropped the pretext entirely. Read more ‘Iran, Venezuela, and Greenland have what Trump wants’ – retired US Air Force Command chief master sergeant The EU’s latest statement drones on about Arctic security being important for all of NATO, including the EU. Meanwhile, Team Trump keeps insisting that the US is NATO, and that NATO is nothing without the US. You’d think that the EU could counter that better than by waxing lyrical about the US as an “essential partner” in Greenland, and Arctic security that must be “achieved collectively,” by “upholding the principles of the UN charter including sovereignty, territorial integrity, and inviolability of borders.” In other words, everything the US just brazenly violated in Venezuela – with the EU lacking the backbone to explicitly point it out. At the same time, the Europeans reassure themselves that Washington would never seize territory from a NATO country, because that would be unthinkable. Except that Trump keeps thinking it out loud, repeatedly, insisting that acquiring Greenland is non-negotiable. Rubio claims Trump wants to buy it, so it’s not like they’ll jump straight to invasion, he suggests. Only after negotiations fail, presumably. And what is the US counting on? The EU blinking. Stephen Miller openly said there won’t be any military confrontation with NATO over Greenland. Why? “Nobody’s going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland,” he said. They’re starting to sound like the drunk guy at a bar who won’t take no for an answer. And Trump keeps acting this way because none of these European so-called leaders have the nerve to tell him off – even when it’s clearly in their own interest. Congratulations, Eurobozos. The self-sabotaging strategy you’ve spent years perfecting – cheerfully riding shotgun on Washington’s regime-change superhighway at your own people’s expense – has now spectacularly boomeranged straight into the windshield of the driver’s seat of your own clown car.

[Link to media]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 1/14/26 3:46pm
Copenhagen insists that Washington must respect its NATO ally’s “red lines” High-level talks in Washington have concluded without bridging the divide between the United States and Denmark over the future of Greenland, with Danish officials stating a “fundamental disagreement” persists after President Donald Trump reaffirmed his intent to acquire the Arctic territory. Following a meeting with US Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen described the conversation as “frank” and “constructive,” but admitted the core dispute remains unresolved. “We didn’t manage to change the US position,” Rasmussen told reporters. “It’s clear that the president has this wish of conquering Greenland, and we made it very, very clear that this is not in the interest of the Kingdom.” Read more Trump offers new reason to acquire Greenland The two sides agreed to establish a high-level working group tasked with exploring potential solutions “in a matter of weeks.” Rasmussen said the group would focus on addressing US security concerns in the Arctic while respecting Danish “red lines” on territorial sovereignty and the right to self-determination for the Greenlandic people. “We therefore still have a fundamental disagreement, but we also agree to disagree,” Rasmussen said. Greenland’s Foreign Minister, Vivian Motzfeldt, who attended the talks, endorsed Rasmussen’s comments and stressed the need to “normalise” the relationship, while firmly rejecting any change in sovereignty. The diplomatic meeting was overshadowed by a fresh social media post from President Trump hours earlier, in which he insisted that “NATO should be leading the way for us to get” Greenland for US national security, claiming otherwise Russia or China would seize it. He also said the island is crucial for creating his proposed Golden Dome missile defense system. Read more Denmark to deploy more troops to Greenland – media Rasmussen pushed back on the stated security pretext, noting the US’s own reduction of its military personnel in Greenland from 10,000 to 200 over past decades. He also corrected the record, stating, “we have not had a Chinese warship in Greenland for a decade or so.” Copenhagen has expressed willingness to cooperate with the US within the framework of NATO, and has already sent in an advance command to the island to prepare logistics and infrastructure ahead of the expected arrival of a larger Danish contingent, propped up by forces sent in by several other European nations, according to Danish broadcaster DR. Meanwhile, NATO chief Mark Rutte refused to comment on the bloc’s “internal” dispute.

[Link to media]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 1/14/26 3:05pm
The bloc has singled out the Russian president’s speech at RT’s 20th anniversary gala as key “supporting evidence” to justify the move The European Union is preparing to prolong sanctions imposed on RT over the Ukraine conflict, according to a ‘secret' letter received by the network. The bloc imposed restrictions on RT shortly after the escalation of the conflict between Moscow and Kiev in February 2022, accusing the network of “threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence of Ukraine.” Multiple top Russian officials condemned the restrictions as an act of censorship and an attempt to silence voices that undermine Western narratives. The letter from the EU Council, which the body explicitly asked RT not to disclose to “the general public,” states that it “envisages maintaining the restrictive measures.” The document comes with a 36-page trove of “supporting evidence,” supposed to justify the restrictions. A sizable part of that ‘evidence’ is Russian President Vladimir Putin’s speech at the gala event held late last year to mark the network’s two decades on air. Read more RT at 20: How the network celebrated its anniversary in 2025 “He regards RT as a ‘secret strategic and high-precision … weapon’ to defend Russia’s interests and create a more ‘just world order,’” the Council’s summary of the speech reads. The president, however, actually said that RT’s “secret strategic high-precision weapon of intercontinental reach” was telling the truth.  Other pieces of ‘evidence’ include a BBC article lamenting RT’s growing audience despite the bans imposed by the US and the EU. Another is a piece by the Reporters Without Borders (RSF) sounding the alarm over an ad campaign organized by RT Doc in Italy to promote a documentary on the Donbass conflict orphans. RT’s Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan mocked the letter and the ‘evidence’ it came with, snubbing the request not to publicize it. “We couldn’t care less what the organization that’s imposing ridiculous sanctions on us is telling us to do,” she wrote on her Telegram channel. Read more Russians have more media freedom on Telegram than EU citizens – Durov “The main argument for extending the sanctions is the president’s speech at RT’s 20th anniversary. And we’ve been threatening and undermining and will continue to do so,” she added. RT has been repeatedly targeted with restrictions by assorted Western actors, with the years-long campaign against the network intensifying in the wake of the Ukraine conflict. According to Russia’s Foreign Ministry, the network and its staff have been hit with more than 110 sanctions, along with asset freezes and other restrictions in recent years.

[Link to media]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 1/14/26 2:06pm
President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to launch military strikes against the country amid ongoing mass protests there A US military attack on Iran is “imminent,” and could come within mere hours, Reuters has claimed, citing anonymous sources. In recent days, President Donald Trump has issued several threats against the Islamic Republic, which has been gripped by riots since late December. The unrest broke out amid soaring inflation and the sharp devaluation of the Iranian rial. Tehran has blamed the street violence, which has allegedly resulted in hundreds of deaths, on the US and Israel. On Wednesday, Reuters quoted an unnamed Western military official as saying that “all the signals are that a US attack is imminent.” The anonymous source, however, reportedly added that “that is also how this administration behaves to keep everyone on their toes,” with unpredictability being “part of the strategy.”  According to the outlet, which cited two unnamed European officials, “US military intervention could come in the next 24 hours.” Reuters similarly quoted an unnamed Israeli official as suggesting that Trump appears to have decided in favor of attacking Iran, though the scope of the potential military action remains unclear. Read more Gulf states urging US against Iran strikes – WSJ Reuters also reported that the US was evacuating some of its military personnel from bases in the Middle East in case of retaliatory strikes from Iran. On Tuesday, Trump called on Iranian protesters to seize control of state institutions, after he proclaimed earlier that “help is on its way.”  Earlier this week, the US president stated that his administration was “looking at some very strong options” against the Islamic Republic. On Monday, the US State Department urged all American citizens in Iran to leave the country immediately. That same day, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated that while Iran does not seek a military confrontation with the US, it is “prepared for war.” The diplomat, however, noted that Tehran is also “prepared for negotiations” with Washington, as long as those are “fair, honorable, and from an equal position.”

[Link to media]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 1/14/26 1:09pm
Member states have increased defense budgets, citing an alleged Russia threat, which Moscow dismisses as ‘nonsense’ The EU has been working to boost its defense capabilities in order to become a “military powerhouse,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has said, Euractiv has reported, citing sources. The remarks were reportedly made on Wednesday during a closed-door meeting in the European Parliament, where von der Leyen told lawmakers that the bloc needs to draw up its own security strategy and that the Commission would present such a document in 2026. “We know that we need to be strong … We are not a military powerhouse, but we are building up to be a military powerhouse,” von der Leyen was quoted as saying. Across the EU, defense budgets are surging as Brussels has pushed for rearmament under the banner of security. The European Commission’s ‘ReArm Europe’ plan, which von der Leyen mentioned as a step to increase the bloc’s military capabilities, aims to pour hundreds of billions into joint weapons procurement and infrastructure, while member states have boosted arms purchases by nearly 40% in just one year. Read more Europe militarizes its space agency Since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, Western European officials have claimed that Russia could threaten EU states. Moscow has dismissed such allegations as “nonsense” intended to instill fear and justify higher military outlays, and has condemned what it calls the West’s “reckless militarization.” Russian officials have argued that NATO’s eastward expansion poses an existential threat and remains one of the root causes of the Ukraine conflict, accusing the EU and its allies of preparing for a large-scale confrontation. Russian President Vladimir Putin has said EU leaders are inflating the alleged danger to push their own political agendas and funnel cash into the arms industry, and that Moscow has no intention of confronting the bloc militarily.

[Link to media]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 1/14/26 12:33pm
The Russian president and his Brazilian counterpart reiterated that Venezuela’s sovereignty must be protected Russian President Vladimir Putin has held a phone call with his Brazilian counterpart, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, in which they discussed the situation in Venezuela, where President Nicolas Maduro was abducted by US forces earlier this month, the Kremlin has said. According to a statement on Wednesday, Putin and Lula emphasized that “Russia and Brazil shared fundamental stances as to ensuring the sovereignty and national interests” of Venezuela following the US aggression against the oil-rich nation. The two presidents “agreed to continue coordinating their efforts, including within the UN, as well as through BRICS, with the aim of de-escalating tensions in Latin America.” Russia and Brazil are both among the founding members of the economic group. Putin and Lula also discussed deepening bilateral relations ahead of the Russian-Brazilian High-Level Commission on Cooperation, scheduled to convene in February, the Kremlin said. On January 3, American commandos carried out a series of airstrikes on the Venezuelan capital, Caracas, and several other regions of the country, while abducting Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores. They were taken to a US warship and later flown to New York, where last week they appeared in court on drug-trafficking conspiracy charges. Both pleaded not guilty. Commenting on the US raid, Lula wrote on X that Washington’s actions had crossed an “unacceptable line.” He warned that the US military operation had set an “extremely dangerous precedent for the entire international community.” Read more BRICS drills ‘essential’ amid maritime tensions – South Africa The abduction of Maduro is a throwback to the “worst moments of interference in the politics of Latin America and the Caribbean and threatens the preservation of the region as a zone of peace,” he added. Russia also reaffirmed its solidarity with Venezuela “in the face of blatant neo-colonial threats and external armed aggression,” and called for Maduro’s immediate release from US custody. Addressing an emergency session of the UN Security Council in early January, Russian Ambassador to the UN Vassily Nebenzia described Washington’s actions in Venezuela as “international banditry” driven by a desire to gain “unlimited control over natural resources.” Speaking on Wednesday, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov denounced the US attack on Venezuela as a “flagrant violation of international law.”

[Link to media]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 1/14/26 12:09pm
Servicemen from other EU nations are expected to join the Danish forces Copenhagen has begun deploying additional military assets to Greenland amid the escalating row with the US over the island, Danish broadcaster DR reported on Wednesday, citing sources. Denmark has already sent in an advance command to the island, as US President Donald Trump has shown increasing intent on acquiring the territory by any means. In recent weeks, Trump has repeatedly stated Washington must take possession of Greenland for the sake of “national security,” hinting at potentially taking the island by force. The advance command is set to prepare logistics and infrastructure ahead of the expected arrival of a larger Danish contingent, propped up by forces sent in by several other European nations, according to DR. While the Danish authorities have remained silent on the matter, the reported move has been welcomed by the left-wing Enhedslisten party. “This is something we have been requesting over the past week. It is a wise move. And I understand that troops from other European countries are also on their way to Greenland. And it is the right signal to send to any great power that might get the bad idea of attacking Greenland,” a spokesperson for the party told DR. Read more Trump offers new reason to acquire Greenland Trump voiced aspirations for acquiring Greenland shortly after taking office for his second term and renewed the push in recent weeks. The president has claimed the US control over the island is needed for the sake of “national security.” He has also cited the allegedly imminent Russian or Chinese takeover of Greenland. The latter claim has been disputed by both Moscow and Beijing, as well as challenged by officials in Greenland itself. On Wednesday, Trump further elaborated on his rationale behind the push to get Greenland. He claimed the island is crucial for creating his proposed Golden Dome integrated missile defense system. He also suggested that “NATO should be leading the way for us to get it,” arguing the acquisition would make the bloc “far more formidable and effective.” Copenhagen has only signaled readiness to deepen cooperation with the US within the NATO framework rather than cede the island, pointing out its populace voted back in 2008 to maintain their self-governing status within Denmark.

[Link to media]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 1/14/26 12:08pm
America’s ambitions demonstrate that Western Europe is no longer protected by the very system it helped to build American political culture is drifting openly toward the annexation of Greenland. This may sound surreal to European ears, but it is not an exotic idea in Washington. It follows a logic that is deeply rooted in how the US historically became a great power and how it still proves its strength today. The United States rose through territorial expansion at the expense of weaker neighbors. It seized land from those who could not defend it. There is no serious reason to assume that this instinct has disappeared. The only reliable guarantee of borders is the ability to fight for them. And history shows something very simple: the US does not attack those who can resist. Modern world politics suggests that Western Europe is no longer among those who can resist. That is why, from Washington’s point of view, the real question is not whether Greenland will eventually be absorbed into direct American control, but when. Western European states, and Denmark specifically, are among the least dangerous targets imaginable. They are harmless not only militarily, but psychologically: they are unlikely to respond in any serious way. In American strategic culture, refusing to exploit such an insignificant position would contradict the fundamentals of foreign policy thinking. The conclusion becomes unavoidable: the annexation of Greenland, peacefully or by force, is inevitable. Read more Russia is turning its military into a high-tech arsenal – here’s what’s next Over the past few days we have seen an escalating series of statements and initiatives from American representatives. They range from internet “teasers” and political provocation to official remarks and even draft bills in Congress. The overall message is clear: Greenland should fall under direct US control. And just as importantly, the discussion itself is meant to create an impression in Europe, and in the wider world, that the outcome is pre-determined. Western European politicians have responded with predictable panic. Germany, for instance, has proposed a joint NATO mission called Arctic Sentry. The initiative is absurd, but revealing. It is Berlin’s attempt to respond to claims from the American president and others that Greenland is threatened by Russia and China, and that the island is supposedly defenseless. Direct consultations between senior German and American diplomats are reportedly scheduled in the coming days. But it is difficult to imagine Washington taking Germany’s proposal seriously, because the issue is not about deterring mythical threats from Moscow or Beijing. It is about Washington’s own intentions. The German idea draws inspiration from NATO’s Baltic Sea operation Baltic Guardian, which has been running for several years. But the Baltic Sea has little to do with American military or economic interests. Even the least intelligent member of the Finnish parliament should be able to understand this. That is precisely why NATO and Western Europe are free to play their games there. Greenland is different. Read more Trump is not bluffing about Greenland and here’s why Any attempt to frame Greenland as a NATO matter only exposes the alliance as a theater production, performing threats in order to justify foreign policy rituals. These Europeans are accustomed to imitating danger and imitating response. They appear to believe they can do it again. It is unlikely to work. Meanwhile, most of the world views this spectacle with indifference. Russia, China, India and many others see the Greenland drama primarily as another lesson in how relations inside the so-called “collective West” are structured. It is simply a more visible version of what has always been there. There is nothing new in the fact that Americans are prepared to violate norms, including international law. The difference is that this time they are openly testing these norms against their own allies. From Russia’s perspective, the situation does not pose a direct threat to our interests. The US can deploy weapons in Greenland even today. Its presence does not fundamentally change the military situation in the Arctic, nor does it threaten shipping along the Northern Sea Route. The US still lacks a serious fleet of military icebreakers, and it remains unclear when – or whether – it will acquire one. China, too, is essentially indifferent to Greenland becoming American property. Greenland does not threaten China’s trade in the Arctic because the only real issue of interest to Beijing is the Northern Sea Route. And the US military presence on the island does not materially affect Chinese security interests. Read more Is Trump trying to break the Federal Reserve? On the contrary, in the context of Taiwan, Beijing watches with curiosity as the Americans undermine their own empire’s ideological foundations, including the principles of international law. Once the balance of power settles, it is always possible to return to old norms. Or indeed to codify new ones. But for Western Europe, Washington’s aggressive noise around Greenland feels like the death sentence for what remained of the half-continent’s relevance. For decades, its politicians considered themselves a “special” element of global affairs. Not fully sovereign perhaps, but privileged. They were happy to violate the sovereignty of other states across the world, insisting that this was humanitarianism, democracy, civilization. Yet they never seriously imagined the same logic could be applied to them. The entire content of what Western Europeans loudly call “transatlantic solidarity” or a “community of values” lies precisely in this exceptional status. Their part of Europe’s role was to serve as a morally decorated extension of American power, a satellite that believes it is a partner. Now it is the US itself that is delivering a potentially fatal blow to that illusion. Even if the annexation of Greenland is postponed, watered down, or delayed by unforeseen complications, the fact that it is being discussed seriously is already catastrophic for Western European political legitimacy. It undermines what remains of their credibility in the eyes of their own citizens and the rest of the world. Read more Why Venezuela and Greenland are not so different Every state must justify its existence. Russia’s legitimacy rests on the ability to repel external threats and pursue an independent foreign policy. China justifies itself through organization, stability and prosperity for its citizens. India’s legitimacy is grounded in holding together peace in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious civilization. In every case, legitimacy is tied to the state’s ability to influence the most important aspects of people’s lives. Not to mention being able to rely on internal resources to do so. But modern Western European states justify themselves differently. They justify their actions to their citizens through the idea of exceptional status, the right to look down on other countries and civilizations. If Americans can simply deprive the EU of territory, then they become equal to countries like Venezuela or Iraq: states which Washington attacks with impunity. This is why Greenland matters more than Greenland. Western European politicians still do not understand the main point. The US wants Greenland, of course, because it is valuable Arctic territory. Geography that matters in a changing world. Direct control over territory is often preferable to indirect use through allies. But the deepest motive is more psychological and political: Washington wants to act as it sees fit. In the US, disregarding all external norms – recognizing only internal American rules – is increasingly part of how the state gains legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens. The ability to seize something from a weaker neighbor becomes proof that such a state is not only strong, but necessary. Donald Trump was elected precisely because he promised to restore American statehood. Greenland will not be the only issue where this restoration expresses itself. In other words: Greenland is not a dispute about the Arctic. It is a demonstration of how American power is validated, and a demonstration that Western Europe is no longer protected by the very system it helped to build.

[Link to media]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 1/14/26 11:07am
The Hungarian PM has rejected the EU-proposed loan for Ukraine, which he says will burden European taxpayers Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has lashed out at what he called a “Brusselian war plan,” accusing the EU trying to force member states to finance Ukraine at the expense of their own citizens. The European Commission on Wednesday formally presented a €90 billion ($105 billion) loan package for Kiev for 2026 and 2027, to be raised against the EU’s common budget after member states failed to agree on using frozen Russian assets for the purpose. The controversial proposal – which Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic have rejected – would allocate around two thirds of the money for weapons for Kiev, with the remainder covering its budget gap. Brussels has urged member states to approve the scheme swiftly so that the first tranche can be disbursed by April. Posting on X, Orban wrote that “money does not grow on trees” and that “Ukrainians are demanding $800 billion from Europeans for the next ten years.” Ukrainian officials previously said they have agreed with EU representatives on the long-term package for the country’s recovery and reconstruction.  Unfortunately, money does not grow on trees, especially not $800 billion. This is the amount the Ukrainians are demanding from Europeans for the next ten years. For Hungary, this would mean a financial burden of more than $9 billion.And where, according to Brussels, should all… pic.twitter.com/y1p2M4zsr6— Orbán Viktor (@PM_ViktorOrban) January 14, 2026 Orban argued that, based on Hungary’s share of EU gross national income, such a scheme would cost Hungarian taxpayers more than $9 billion. He added that under the “Brusselian master plan” Budapest would be forced to scrap or scale back on a wide range of social programs, including 13th and 14th month pensions, housing support schemes, family home purchase subsidies, reduced household energy prices, flat income tax, and many others. “One thing is certain: we say NO to the Brusselian war plan!” Orban wrote. Russia has condemned Western financing of Kiev, saying it hinders peace efforts. Commenting on the loan plan, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the EU is “digging into pockets of their own taxpayers” to drag out the conflict.

[Link to media]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 1/14/26 10:52am
The West Midlands chief constable has apologized after citing a fictitious match invented to justify keeping Maccabi Tel Aviv fans away The chief constable of the UK’s third-largest police force has admitted that evidence used to justify banning fans of an Israeli football club from attending a Europa League match in Birmingham last year was generated by artificial intelligence and referred to a game that never took place. West Midlands Police Chief Constable Craig Guildford offered a “profound apology” to a parliamentary committee on Monday, admitting an “erroneous result” in his intelligence report came from using Microsoft Copilot AI. The report referenced a match between Maccabi Tel Aviv and West Ham United in November 2023 as part of its safety assessment. However, the match never actually took place as West Ham played Olympiacos on that date, while Maccabi played in Poland. Guildford, who initially denied AI was involved, stated in a letter that he had “honestly” believed the match had been “identified by way of a Google search” and insisted he had “no intention to mislead the Committee.” Read more The Starmer regime is turning Britain into a police state The AI-generated evidence was used to support West Midlands Police’s recommendation to Birmingham’s Safety Advisory Group to ban Maccabi fans from a Europa League match against Aston Villa in November 2025. The decision was also based heavily on the force’s assessment of violent clashes involving Maccabi supporters during an away match against Ajax in Amsterdam in November 2024. However, the Dutch police have since directly challenged the British force’s characterization of those events, disputing key claims, including that Maccabi fans had thrown people into an Amsterdam river. They stated the only such incident involved a Maccabi fan being forced into the water while assailants shouted anti-Semitic slurs. They also contradicted the scale of the police operation, saying it required 1,200 officers, not the 5,000 claimed by West Midlands Police. UK Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said West Midlands force had a “failure of leadership” that “harmed the reputation and eroded public confidence in West Midlands police and policing more broadly.” She added that she has lost confidence in Guildford but lacks the legal power to remove him.

[Link to media]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 1/14/26 10:48am
The feud between the Fed chair and the US president seems shocking, but the foundation for central bank independence has long since eroded Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s video address posted this past weekend in which he vowed to stand firm against threats of indictments from the Trump administration was shocking. Powell stated directly that the subpoenas recently served to the Fed should be viewed in the context of the pressure from the administration to more aggressively cut interest rates. It was shocking not only because Powell, a man of reserve and restraint, has long ignored Trump’s insults and threats to fire him, preferring to focus entirely on the technocratic mission at hand. Most of all, it was shocking because of the attack on central-bank independence, a notion that has become part of the unspoken sacral core of Western democracies. The heads of several major central banks signed a statement of solidarity with Powell, highlighting the importance of independence in setting interest rates. The letter is a spirited defense of one of the pieties of our age. But as with much else in Western democracies these days, the true erosion of the principle in question already happened – and not because of a clash of personalities. The drama playing out between Trump and Powell is not a battle for the soul of the institution, but a performance staged atop foundations that have already shifted. What has largely gone unremarked upon in the media narratives about the spat is the fact that a nation carrying extreme debt levels and with a highly financialized economy has already thoroughly boxed in its central bank, regardless of what protections exist on paper. Read more US Fed chief accuses Trump of ‘intimidation’ Think of it as follows. Let’s take the US government’s true interest expense: the headline debt servicing cost plus the current, unavoidable portion of entitlement spending (Social Security, Medicare, and similar programs) and compare it with tax receipts. This is how financial analyst Luke Gromen and others calculate what the government is truly on the hook for. This figure already comes in at over 100% of what goes into the coffers. This means the government automatically has to fork out more than it collects in taxes – and none of this is discretionary. So what happens when the Fed raises interest rates? Well, the government’s interest bill goes up, which, since there is absolutely no headroom, means one of two things has to happen: either the Treasury issues more debt to cover the added expense or the government cuts spending somewhere. But forcing the fiscal side to react to the monetary side is an inherently political act. This collapses the conceptual wall between monetary policy, budgetary choices, and political power.  Add to that a highly financialized economy built on decades of cheap credit, and the picture becomes clearer: structurally higher interest rates are intolerable to markets. In practice, this means that the Fed cannot raise rates freely without triggering serious knock-on effects. Independence exists in theory, but in reality it is constrained by debt burdens, fiscal obligations, and the fragility of financial markets. For most of modern economic history, central banks were explicit arms of the state, while monetary and fiscal policy were intertwined. The Bank of England was effectively a government financier for centuries. The Fed itself explicitly coordinated with Treasury, especially during World War I, the Great Depression, and WWII. In the US, the canonical origin of Fed independence was the 1951 Fed-Treasury Accord, which was intended to give the Fed freedom to fight inflation. In other words, it was a check on the short-term proclivities of lawmakers, who might push inflationary policies. What elevated the notion of central bank independence to the level of sacred doctrine was the nasty bout of inflation in the 1970s, and the perceived failure of the politicians to reign it in.  This is when the Fed chairman at the time, Paul Volcker, famously hiked interest rates to as high as 20%, thus subjecting the US to two punishing recessions. The politicians naturally didn’t like it, but Volcker’s bitter medicine worked and inflation came down. Fed independence became associated with credibility. It may even have become – at some collective subliminal level – a quiet substitute for trust in institutions subject to the whims of vote-cajoling elected officials. Read more Is Russia’s economy really on the verge of collapse? But that was a different era and Volcker’s move is unthinkable now. A sharp rise in rates was possible then without blowing up the government finances (or financial markets) because debt levels were lower, markets less levered, and asset prices less central to economic stability. The politicians grumbled about the recessions induced by Volcker’s actions, but ultimately it was politically tolerable. The country was still fundamentally healthy enough. Volcker even gained folk hero status. To this day, his name is associated with principled and difficult decisions by a central banker in the face of political exigencies. But the financialization of the US economy, which started in the 1970s and really picked up steam in the 1990s, altered the conditions that made Fed independence possible. As asset prices became central to economic growth, rate hikes didn’t just slow what might be an overheated economy, but directly threatened what was now one of its key pillars. After the 1987 stock market crash, newly appointed Fed Chair Alan Greenspan responded by aggressively providing liquidity and signaling that the Fed would act to stabilize markets – usually by lowering interest rates regardless of where inflation was. Thus was born the famous “Fed put” – the notion that when markets fall hard enough the Fed will step in and essentially provide a floor. Over time, this expectation hardened into an informal rule of the system. The Fed didn’t explicitly promise to protect asset prices, but market participants began to price in an implicit safety net. This, to put it mildly, did little to discourage Wall Street’s tendency of turning US financial markets into a big casino. This repeated itself after the dot-com crash (2000-’02), during the Global Financial Crisis (2008), and, most dramatically, in March 2020, when the Fed intervened at unprecedented speed and scale in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. We thus entered a world in which it was no longer politically or economically acceptable to let markets work themselves out. That was the first quiet constraint, but a big one. Read more The GDP myth: What it really shows, and what it doesn’t Meanwhile, the US kept creeping toward a state called “fiscal dominance,” where debt and deficits are so high that monetary policy loses traction. Interest rates are normally raised to blunt inflationary pressure, but there comes a point when the debt is so large that the higher rates simply drive debt service costs even higher – thus forcing more debt to be issued to cover the added expense. This gimmick – covering debt with new debt – is inherently inflationary. So we arrive at a point where the position of the central bank becomes lost in the fog. It’s not even clear whether the Fed is now too powerful (its rate decisions have major real effects on the US economy and can force certain fiscal actions) or whether it has lost its potency (boxed in on all sides, it can no longer even credibly fight inflation). In either case, the classical notion of independence is an anachronism lost to time. And yet there was Powell, poised and dignified, standing in front of a traditional blue curtain with the US flag in the background and looking straight into the camera. It was a reassuring image of an upstanding man defending a temple being vandalized. His message was correct and, within the context of the rituals of our time, strong. But nothing that temple stood for is any longer intelligible, and Powell can’t any more save it than Trump can destroy it. Fed independence disappeared quietly and slowly at the unrelenting hands of market forces and the hollowing-out of the American economy. Trump’s invectives are merely the fireworks at the end. The media narrative is one of conflict of personalities and a transgression of norms. Indeed, erosion that is structural rather than dramatic is often misinterpreted as a crisis of norms. This is what makes institutional – or civilizational – decline both so hard to detect and so hard to stop.

[Link to media]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 1/14/26 9:29am
President Vladimir Putin has met with Steve Witkoff six times, and will likely accommodate his request for more talks on Ukraine, the diplomat has said Moscow is open to further contact with US President Donald Trump’s senior envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said. Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Lavrov noted that Russian President Vladimir Putin has already met with Witkoff six times. “I am sure that if they express... interest [for another meeting], then this interest will be met with understanding,” he added. Also on Wednesday, Bloomberg, citing anonymous sources, claimed that Witkoff and Kushner expect to meet with the Russian president, possibly by the end of the month. According to the publication, the plans have yet to be finalized. If the talks take place, Witkoff and Kushner will present Washington’s latest draft plans for settling the Ukraine conflict to Putin, it added. Trump’s senior negotiators last visited Moscow in early December 2025. Later that month, Witkoff and Kushner met with Putin envoy Kirill Dmitriev in Miami. Both sides characterized the talks as “constructive.” Read more Trump comments on readiness of Putin and Zelensky to sign peace deal US negotiators concurrently held a separate round of talks with Kiev’s representatives and officials from several European countries in Florida. US-mediated efforts to resolve the Ukraine conflict have intensified in recent months, after Trump’s initial peace plan was leaked to the media in November 2025. The roadmap reportedly envisaged Kiev ceding the remainder of Donbass to Moscow, as well as renouncing its NATO membership aspirations and capping the size of its military, among other points. Last month, Ukraine and its European backers presented a 20-point counter-proposal, which has significantly watered down or distorted the original US-drafted proposal. In late December, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov stressed that the framework promoted by Vladimir Zelensky “is radically different… from the 27-point [proposal] we were working on with the US side.” He noted that Moscow is still “fully ready” to resolve the Ukraine conflict as long as its core security concerns are addressed.

[Link to media]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 1/14/26 9:22am
Washington’s “abuse” of financial instruments through sanctions is pushing the rest of the world away from the greenback, Paulo Batista has told RT The US is the main enemy of the dollar, prominent Brazilian economist and former International Monetary Fund (IMF) executive director, Paulo Nogueira Batista Jr., has told RT.  Washington has increasingly weaponized its national currency, undermining trust in the greenback and the broader Western financial system, he said, in an exclusive interview with RT. “The main enemy of the dollar and of the international payment system controlled by the West is the US itself,” Batista said. “There is a move away from the dollar, from US Treasuries, to a large extent derived from the abusive use by the US of instruments [such as] SWIFT, of reserves.” He said the “most notable case” of such abuse is Russia, which saw about $300 billion in Central Bank reserves frozen in the West under sanctions imposed after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. Beyond the asset freeze, the US and its allies removed most Russian banks from the SWIFT interbank messaging system and imposed full transaction bans on key financial institutions, effectively cutting Russia off from the dollar- and euro-dominated Western financial system. READ MORE: CIS conducting trade almost entirely in national currencies – Putin According to Batista, 2022 was a turning point when de-dollarization and the shift away from US-linked financial institutions – already slowly progressing – picked up pace. “Countries like Russia and China, also Iran, had already suffered sanctions or fears of sanctions from the US… But this was a watershed because of the scale of Russia’s reserves and the assets frozen. Since 2022, major central banks, for example China’s, are moving away from US Treasuries,” he said. ©  Google screenshot READ MORE: US dollar hits 30-year low in global foreign reserves – IMF The dollar’s share of global foreign exchange reserves has steadily declined over the past four years. Russia has essentially eliminated Western currencies in trade with CIS and BRICS nations, which have been doing the same with their other partners. Looking ahead, Batista said that while the greenback will remain an “important” global currency, the move away from the dollar will continue and its “hegemony” will gradually weaken.

[Link to media]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 1/14/26 9:16am
The “global majority” shares Moscow’s condemnation of America’s attack on Caracas, the Russian foreign minister has said The US attack on Venezuela earlier this month in which President Nicolas Maduro was abducted was a blatant violation of international law, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Wednesday. Speaking at a press conference after meeting with Namibian Foreign Minister Selma Ashipala-Musavyi, Lavrov stated that Moscow’s assessment of the US operation in Caracas remains unchanged. He added that the condemnation is shared by the overwhelming “global majority,” including the Global South and East. ”Only Western Europeans and other allies of Washington try to shamefully avoid the principled assessments, although everybody understands that we’re talking about a flagrant violation of international law,” the foreign minister said. Speaking at the UN Security Council last week, Russian envoy Vassily Nebenzia described Maduro’s abduction as “a cynical crime that cannot be justified.” Chinese envoy Sun Lei also condemned the US, saying the military intervention in Venezuela threatens peace and security in the region. The US military launched an attack against the oil-rich country on January 3, abducting Maduro and his wife. They were taken to a US warship and later flown to New York, where they appeared in court last week on charges of drug-trafficking conspiracy. Both pleaded not guilty. Read more 80 people killed in US raid on Venezuela – NYT After the kidnapping, US President Donald Trump said Washington would “run” Venezuela while cooperating with officials in Caracas until a transition is achieved. He stressed that the US needs “total access… to the oil and to other things in their country.” Days later, Trump announced that Venezuela’s interim authorities would “turn over” 30 to 50 million barrels of “sanctioned oil” to be sold and “used to benefit the people of Venezuela and the United States.” Acting Venezuelan President Delcy Rodriguez, a close ally of Maduro, said neither the US nor any other “foreign agent” will control Venezuela. Rodriguez signaled openness to “cooperation” with the US, but vowed that her country “will never return to being the colony of another empire.”

[Link to media]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 1/14/26 8:59am
Brussels is facing significant pushback from key member states over its ongoing policy of refusing to speak with Moscow EU leadership is facing pressure to create a special negotiator role for talks with Russia, Politico reported Wednesday, citing diplomatic sources. The bloc’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, is known as a gaffe-prone Russia hawk who has for years outright refused to engage in diplomacy with Moscow. French President Emmanuel Macron and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni have both recently argued for direct talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, a stance notably echoed this week by European Commission spokesperson Paula Pinho. According to diplomatic sources cited by Politico, EU member states and Brussels are concerned their interests could be overlooked by US President Donald Trump, who for months has sought to mediate an end to the Ukraine conflict through direct talks with both Kiev and Moscow. The idea of a special European envoy has been under consideration since last March, sources told the outlet, which is known for extensive insider links in Brussels. Read more EU admits it will have to talk with Putin The role has not been defined and there are multiple possible candidates, though according to Politico Kallas “has consistently positioned herself as the only candidate for any role in negotiations over Ukraine’s future.” Kallas reportedly has strained relations with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who has recently sought greater control over functions normally handled by the EU’s diplomatic corps, the External Action Service. Some member states, including Slovakia, have argued that Kallas should be dismissed due to what they call her apparent “hatred” of Russia. Politico named former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi and Finnish President Alexander Stubb as potential lead-negotiators with Russia, citing public statements and insiders. A sitting national leader could be “a bit more free in what they say,” one diplomat suggested. Another said discussions about candidates remain premature. Russian officials have repeatedly stated that Moscow is open to good-faith negotiations, provided the West respects Russia’s security concerns and abandons the goal of inflicting a strategic defeat through Ukraine. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has argued that Western Europe effectively “removed itself from the talks” through a series of confrontational actions going back as far as its support for the 2014 armed coup in Kiev.

[Link to media]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 1/14/26 8:43am
Radicalization, diaspora politics, and fears of foreign interference have turned public discontent into a dead end The wave of protests in Iran is showing signs of gradual decline. The number of people on the streets is decreasing, there are fewer areas of instability, and state institutions are slowly regaining control over the situation. This suggests that the protests have reached their peak and unrest is gradually declining.  However, the protests have not been uniform in their nature. When the first demonstrations erupted late last year, they were driven by socio-economic problems: rising prices, inflationary pressures, employment issues, and quality of life concerns. These demands were quite pragmatic and came from real social groups – primarily from the merchant class, which historically holds particular significance in Iranian society. Moreover, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei openly acknowledged people’s right to protest, recognizing the validity of their discontent and demands. As time went on, however, things changed. By January 3 or 4, the initial demonstrators stopped protesting and returned to their jobs. But radical elements swiftly infiltrated the streets, using the social agenda as a pretext. The escalation of protests resulted in mass riots, assaults on infrastructure, and violence. The situation was perceived differently in Iran and globally. Many in Iran viewed this turn of events negatively, seeing it as a threat to public stability, while among the émigré community and non-systemic opposition, these actions were interpreted positively – as evidence of the protest movement’s “determination” and “irreversibility.” Initially, security forces acted with restraint. During the first days of the protests, law enforcement officials in various regions refrained from using force; they patrolled the streets unarmed and relied on minimal measures to maintain order. In stark contrast, radicalized groups employed incendiary devices, cold weapons, and firearms, resulting in casualties and escalating violence. For a significant portion of Iranian society, the protests lost the image of “peaceful social discontent” and began to be associated with an attempt at violent destabilization, akin to the logic of “color revolutions.” This, in turn, sharply narrowed the “social base” of the protests and helped the authorities regain control of the situation. Consequently, the current phase of protests is characterized not only by decreased intensity but also by a loss of legitimacy in the eyes of the broader public; this significantly limits the potential for further escalation. Read more Is Iran about to get regime-changed? Iran has a population of nearly 90 million people, and its society is highly diverse. For this reason, protests in the country tend to be localized: some are driven by economic problems, others involve the youth, or flare up in certain cities. These isolated demonstrations do not merge into one large protest movement with clear leadership and an actionable agenda. The radical slogans of certain demonstrators and their use of the pre-revolutionary Iranian flag reflect the desperate state of the radical opposition groups. Decades after the establishment of the Islamic Republic, the diaspora still hasn’t found a recognizable or authoritative leader who would genuinely represent a national opposition force.  In this context, the diaspora has latched onto the figure of Reza Pahlavi, despite his marginal status within Iran itself. The vast majority of Iranians do not see him as a political leader and hold negative views towards him, especially due to his public endorsement of Israeli strikes on Iran in 2025. Such a stance, amid external pressures and conflict, is seen as unacceptable and only further alienates him from the Iranian public. Additionally, rumors circulate in Iran that Reza Pahlavi has abandoned Islam in favor of Zoroastrianism. Pahlavi himself does not directly refute these claims, instead offering evasive comments about his “personal spiritual identity.” In a society where Islam remains a vital component of cultural and social identity, this ambiguity is viewed negatively, and further distances him from the Iranian populace. One of the key factors shaping the Iranian population’s attitude toward protests is the regional experience of the past 15 years. Iranians have closely observed the protest waves across the Arab world, particularly in Libya, Yemen, and especially Syria. The Syrian conflict has served as a stark example of what can happen when internal dissent meets active external intervention: rather than achieving political reforms, Syria ended up in a state of protracted war; this eventually led to the collapse of the state and deep social division.  This experience has instilled a cautious attitude toward street politics among Iranians. Even groups that are critical of the government and the socio-economic situation increasingly separate these issues from the idea of a radical political overhaul. Fears of chaos, national disintegration, and the loss of sovereignty often outweigh the desire to engage in protests. Read more Point of no return: The Middle East entered a new era of conflict in 2025 At the same time, historical experience and comparative analysis reveal that in countries with rigid institutional frameworks and strong security apparatuses, successful protest movements are nearly impossible without external support – including financial, informational, diplomatic, and organizational support. Iran is no exception to this rule. However, this introduces a key paradox: as soon as external involvement becomes apparent (through the involvement of the diaspora, propaganda, or political statements by Western officials), the protests lose legitimacy in the eyes of Iranians. That’s because they are seen not as an internal social process but as a tool of external pressure. In the context of prolonged sanctions and so-called “hybrid pressure,” this perception only intensifies. As a result, protests in Iran are caught in a bind: without external support, they fail to instigate significant political change, yet with too much outside backing, they risk losing their domestic appeal. This largely explains why the recent waves of protests, despite drawing international attention, have had only limited political impact. The present-day protests reflect not so much a direct threat to the political stability of Iran, but rather the country’s deep-seated social contradictions. They signal a demand for reforms, changes to the socio-economic model, and the revision of feedback mechanisms between the government and society. Both regional experience and the country’s own historical memory make Iranians increasingly skeptical about street politics as an effective tool for change. With no sufficient internal support and no public trust in scenarios associated with foreign intervention, protests remain an important but constrained element of Iran’s internal dynamics.  On January 12, an estimated 200,000 people flooded the streets of Tehran and its Enqelab (Revolution) Square. Simultaneously, tens of thousands in other cities participated in mass demonstrations in support of the current regime and Supreme Leader Khamenei. These gatherings were open and public, indicating the genuine level of public support of the government. Read more Trump is not bluffing about Greenland and here’s why Such events are crucial for understanding the political resilience of modern Iran. If the ruling authorities and Khamenei himself lacked legitimacy or real public support, they wouldn’t attract so many supporters on the streets. People do not take to the streets during the day, with their faces uncovered, waving national flags and chanting slogans in favor of the regime unless they are willing to defend it openly. The diaspora may attempt to portray these demonstrations as “staged” or “bought,” but these claims do not hold up under scrutiny. Experience shows that when coercion or bribery is involved, individuals either stay home entirely or participate passively. Genuine mass engagement, emotional slogans and signs are all signs of real public motivation. Moreover, in situations where society senses an impending “revolutionary turning point,” such groups tend to rally around victors rather than show support for the existing power structure. The contrast between pro-government rallies and the protests held by radical groups is also striking. Supporters of the current regime take to the streets openly during the day, while radicals tend to act at night, hiding their faces and engaging primarily in vandalism and violence. These represent fundamentally different forms of political behavior, and Iranian society clearly sees the difference.  All this indicates that the Iranian political system remains stable and the ruling authorities are supported by a large segment of society that is willing to express its stance openly. While social discontent is certainly present, it is evident that it does not equate to a mass rejection of the government or a loss of its public legitimacy. As to the country’s issues, Iranians will address them in their own way.

[Link to media]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 1/14/26 8:24am
The island is crucial for building the Golden Dome missile defense system, the US president has said America must take control of Greenland for the sake of national security, as the island is crucial for building the proposed Golden Dome missile defense system, US President Donald Trump has said. Trump’s statements regarding Greenland have escalated in recent weeks, with the US president growing increasingly insistent on acquiring the territory from Denmark by any means, while hinting at the possibility of using force to annex the island. He offered a new rationale on Wednesday, arguing that control of Greenland is necessary for his Golden Dome missile defense shield plan to come to fruition. “The United States needs Greenland for the purpose of National Security. It is vital for the Golden Dome that we are building. NATO should be leading the way for us to get it,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Trump announced the Golden Dome initiative early last year. The system, which is expected to involve space-based components and options for preemptive strikes, has projected costs exceeding $542 billion over two decades. Read more Trump threatens Greenland’s leader with ‘big problem’ NATO will become “far more formidable and effective with Greenland in the hands of the US,” Trump claimed, adding that without America, the bloc “would not be an effective force or deterrent.”  The US president also reiterated his claim that if the US does not seize Greenland, Russia and China will do so – which both Moscow and Beijing have dismissed, as well as regional officials. Trump floated his Greenland annexation plans early into his second term, renewing the push to acquire the Danish autonomous territory “one way or the other” in recent weeks. While Copenhagen has expressed willingness to cooperate with the US within the framework of NATO, it insists that the future of the island must be determined by its people, who voted in 2008 to retain their self-governing status. Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen reaffirmed the island’s commitment to Denmark and the EU on Tuesday at a joint press conference with his Danish counterpart, Mette Frederiksen. Trump responded by saying, “that’s gonna be a big problem for him.”

[Link to media]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 1/14/26 7:57am
President Donald Trump earlier signaled support for protests in the Islamic Republic and threatened new strikes The US has opened a new air and missile defense coordination cell at a key airbase in Qatar amid rising tensions with Iran and President Donald Trump’s promises to assist protesters in the Islamic Republic. In a statement on Tuesday, US Central Command said the facility at the Al Udeid Air Base, which houses some 10,000 troops, will be comprised of American and allied personnel and seeks to “enhance integrated air and missile defense.” The new cell is also intended to tighten information-sharing, threat warning, drills and joint responses for air and missile defense, US officials said. Reuters reported, citing three unnamed diplomats, that some personnel had been advised to leave the base by Wednesday evening for unknown reasons. The agency noted that the US took the same measures ahead of strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities last summer, while the Al Udeid Air Base came under a retaliatory attack from Tehran at the time. Read more Iran ‘prepared for war’ – foreign minister The move comes amid soaring US-Iran tensions, with Trump offering symbolic support for the riots, which began in late December as protests over the sharp devaluation of the Iranian rial and the sanctioned country’s cost-of-living crisis. The US president, in particular, has urged Iranians to keep protesting and said “HELP IS ON ITS WAY,” while also warning of “very strong” action in case of a harsh crackdown on rioters. At the same time, Trump did not rule out talks with Iran. Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said Tehran did not seek war but was prepared for it, and Iranian officials have warned neighboring states that host US forces that they could face retaliation if Washington attacks. Officials in Tehran have also insisted that the US and Israel had had a “big hand” in fostering the current protests. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Qatar have privately pressed Washington not to strike Iran, warning that a conflict could trigger severe regional instability and disrupt oil markets, the Wall Street Journal reported.

[Link to media]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 1/14/26 7:24am
Bipartisan legislators in the House and Senate introduced bills to prevent federal funds from being used to attack NATO member states A bipartisan group of US lawmakers has introduced new legislation to block any potential American military action against Greenland, an autonomous territory under Danish sovereignty, challenging President Donald Trump’s threats to annex the island. Bills dubbed the ‘No Funds for NATO Invasion Act’ and the ‘NATO Unity Protection Act’ were put forward in the House and Senate this week, respectively. In the House, Republican Don Bacon joined Democratic representatives to introduce a bill that prohibits using federal funds to “blockade, occupy, annex, [or] conduct military operations against” any NATO member state. The House bill also seeks to prohibit US officers or employees from “taking any action to execute” such an invasion. The Senate bill was introduced by Democrat Jeanne Shaheen and Republican Lisa Murkowski, who stated that “the mere notion that America would use our vast resources against our allies is deeply troubling.” The legislative move comes amid growing congressional pushback against Trump, who has declared the US will acquire Greenland “one way or another” and has not ruled out using military force. Western media outlets have reported that the president has already ordered senior commanders to draw up a plan for a potential invasion. Read more Greenland’s defenses are ‘two dog sleds’ – Trump Some GOP figures have dismissed the prospect of invasion. House Speaker Mike Johnson has stressed there is “no declaration of war pending for Greenland,” while Senator Rand Paul has expressed doubt over an invasion ever taking place given bipartisan opposition.  However, some Republicans have echoed the president’s stance, with Representative Randy Fine introducing on Monday a competing ‘Greenland Annexation and Statehood Act’ to facilitate making it the 51st US state. Trump has justified his push by claiming that the US must act before Russia or China “take over” Greenland – an assertion dismissed by officials in Copenhagen, Beijing, and Moscow.  China’s Foreign Ministry has slammed the US president for using China and Russia as “pretexts” for his Arctic push, while Russia has opposed the militarization of the region, framing it as a zone for peaceful cooperation.

[Link to media]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 1/13/26 7:40am
“It is still unclear” what President Donald Trump thinks of the plan, a source told the paper Britain and France are likely to drop their plan to deploy troops to Ukraine after a potential ceasefire unless they have US backing, the Financial Times reported on Tuesday, citing sources. Russia has warned that any Western forces in Ukraine would be treated as “legitimate targets.” Three FT sources claimed that the leaders of Italy, Germany, France, Canada, and the UK, as well as European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, are set to meet US President Donald Trump and Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky at the World Economic Forum in Davos next week. According to the paper, talks will revolve around security guarantees that the US could potentially provide in case of a Russia-Ukraine truce. However, Western European capitals are said to be “nervous” about how committed Trump is to supporting Ukraine. Read more UK military chief ignores Russian warnings on Ukraine troop deployment “Without the US, none of this happens,” one FT source said, referring in particular to pledges from Britain and France to deploy troops. “It is still unclear what Trump really feels.” Britain and France last week signed a ‘Declaration of Intent’ with Ukraine that sets out plans for a troop deployment on Ukrainian soil after a peace deal. The roadmap envisions the deployment of several thousand troops far from the front line and the creation of ‘military hubs’. US envoy Steve Witkoff said Trump “strongly stands behind” security protocols for Ukraine but did not provide specifics on what Washington would do to enforce them. The US president also earlier portrayed support for Kiev as a largely European responsibility, although he did not rule out some degree of assistance. Russia has rejected the idea of any Western troop deployment in Ukraine, warning that foreign units would be treated as “legitimate targets” and that plans by Kiev’s backers would amount to outside intervention.

[Link to media]

As of 1/15/26 11:51pm. Last new 1/14/26 4:47pm.

Next feed in category: Russia Global Affairs