Iconos

Iconos
Volcán Popocatépetl

martes, 13 de enero de 2026

Making Imperialism Great Again?

by Ron Paul | Jan 13, 2026 

https://original.antiwar.com/paul/2026/01/12/making-imperialism-great-again/

It did not take long for President Trump to change the reason for sending the US military to “arrest” Venezuela President Nicolás Maduro and his wife. The allegation that President Maduro ran a drug cartel was front and center in the months leading up to President Maduro’s “arrest.” Afterwards, President Trump said the invasion was about Venezuela’s oil and announced plans for the US government to send American oil companies into Venezuela.

About a week after the invasion, President Trump had a meeting with executives from American oil companies to discuss plans for Venezuela. Some of the companies’ executives at the meeting were less than enthusiastic about developing Venezuelan oil. One reason for this is that, since the Venezuelan government nationalized oil activities twenty years ago, fracking has made the US the world’s leading producer of oil and natural gas. Rebuilding the oil industry in Venezuela could cost as much as a billion dollars for an uncertain payoff. Among the complications, Venezuelan oil does not easily flow though pipelines unless it is cut with solvents, making it more expensive to transport.

In his first press conference after the Venezuelan first couple was seized, President Trump said: “We are going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper, and judicious transition.” He later stated that Maduro’s successor Vice President Delcy Rodriguez would “pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro,” if she does not adequately fulfill the US government’s demands.

Following the invasion of Venezuela, there have been suggestions that President Trump will direct the US military to invade other countries as well. For example, Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Marco Rubio said, “if I lived in Havana and I was in the government, I’d be concerned.”

To no one’ s surprise, Senator Lindsey Graham was delighted by the possibility that Venezuela was just the first of many regime change wars President Trump will wage. Senator Graham even got President Trump to autograph a Make Iran Great Again hat. Many Iranian victims of the Shah of Iran’s secret police might disagree with Senator Graham on whether having the CIA install another puppet government in Iran will make that country great.

President Trump’s newfound love of regime change wars may be one reason why he is seeking to increase the military budget to 1.5 trillion dollars. President Trump claims that tariff revenue can fund the increase, but that is simply not possible. The majority of the increase in spending would come from other taxes, including the Federal Reserve’s regressive and hidden inflation tax.

A recent poll by the Pew Research Center found that there is much less support for an “activist” US foreign policy among Americans under 50 than among older Americans. This is the case among both Democrats and Republicans. In fact, the differing view on foreign policy among younger people was a major factor behind President Trump’s support from younger people in 2024. Continued betrayal by President Trump of his no more regime change wars pledge will cause the president and the Republicans to lose support among younger voters.

lunes, 12 de enero de 2026

Trump says US will take Greenland 'one way or the other'

AFP

Mon, January 12, 2026

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trump-says-us-greenland-one-075538408.html

President Donald Trump said Sunday the United States would take Greenland "one way or the other," warning that Russia and China would "take over" if Washington didn't act.

Trump says controlling the mineral-rich Danish territory is crucial for US national security given increased Russian and Chinese military activity in the Arctic.

"If we don't take Greenland, Russia or China will, and I'm not letting that happen," Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One, despite neither country laying claim to the vast island.

Trump said he would be open to making a deal with the Danish self-governing territory "but one way or the other, we're going to have Greenland."

Denmark and other European allies have voiced shock at Trump's threats over the island, which plays a strategic role between North America and the Arctic, and where the United States has had a military base since World War II.

A Danish colony until 1953, Greenland gained home rule 26 years later and is contemplating eventually loosening its ties with Denmark.

The vast majority of its population and political parties have said they do not want to be under US control and insist Greenlanders must decide their own future -- a viewpoint continuously challenged by Trump.

"Greenland should make the deal, because Greenland does not want to see Russia or China take over," Trump warned, as he mocked its defenses.

"You know what their defense is, two dog sleds," he said, while Russia and China have "destroyers and submarines all over the place."

Denmark's prime minister warned last week that any US move to take Greenland by force would destroy 80 years of transatlantic security links.

Trump waved off the comment saying: "If it affects NATO, it affects NATO. But you know, (Greenland) need us much more than we need them."

domingo, 11 de enero de 2026

As genocide continues in Gaza, the West Bank is pushed into a new Nakba

By Penny Green

11 January 2026

Israel's destruction of refugee camps in Jenin and Tulkarm is severing families from their homes, emptying communities and accelerating Palestinian erasure

https://www.middleeasteye.net/big-story/genocide-continues-gaza-west-bank-pushed-new-nakba

Israel's genocide of the Palestinian people has never been confined to Gaza alone.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the shattered, bomb-scarred, ghostlike refugee camps of Jenin, Nur Shams and Tulkarm, destroyed and emptied by Israel as a stark warning to Palestinians of the consequences of resisting occupation and genocide.

This decades-long settler colonial project in Palestine has multiple planes of erasure. While the world has, albeit through a distorted lens, focused on the catastrophe wrought upon Gaza, Israel has ensured that its plans for Palestinian elimination proceed apace in the West Bank.

Settlement expansionsettler attacks on farmers under the protection of Israeli forces, the routine theft of livestock, the destruction of village schools and homes and the forced displacement of Palestinians in the East Jerusalem neighbourhoods of Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan all amount to systematic attempts to destroy, in whole or part, the Palestinian people and their relationship to their ancient homeland.

During a recent visit to the northern West Bank, I witnessed the physical destruction of refugee camps and was struck by how closely the lives of Palestinians there mirror the devastation faced by refugees in Gaza.

It was a glaring reminder that this genocide targets all Palestinians across historic Palestine.

Between 21 January and 9 February 2025, Israel launched Operation Iron Wall, targeting alleged "terrorist elements" in three refugee camps in the northern West Bank.

The head of the Nur Shams Public Committee, Nihad Shawish, 52, told us: "Just as in Gaza, they are trying to claim the camp is a centre for terrorism. But in reality, the resistance is just a few people looking for freedom." And, just as in Gaza, all Palestinians are conceptualised by Israel as "terrorists" and targets for elimination.

During the 19-day operation, around 40,000 refugees from the camps of Jenin, Tulkarm and Nur Shams were forcibly removed from their homes by heavily armed Israeli special forces using armoured vehicles, drones and bulldozers.

Unrwa, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, has described the Israeli offensive as "the longest and most extensive displacement crisis since 1967". It estimates that 43 percent of Jenin, 35 percent of Nur Shams and 14 percent of Tulkarm refugee camps have been destroyed or severely damaged.

Buildings on either side of the lanes in Nur Shams camp, which extended from the main road between Nur Shams and Tulkarm up to the top of the camp, were bombed or bulldozed to widen two-metre alleys into 12-metre tank-accessible thoroughfares. Every inhabitant was expelled.

Apartheid journeys

The journey itself to these devastated camps exposes, at every turn, the brutal reality of Israeli apartheid.

Travelling through the West Bank is a daily endurance challenge for Palestinians. An apartheid road system means that while illegal Israeli settlements are connected by unfettered highways to Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, Palestinians are forced to travel on rough, circuitous roads and pass through tunnels blocked by endless checkpoints and stark yellow barrier gates.

A journey that would take 20 minutes on settler roads takes three hours or longer for Palestinians.

En route from Ramallah to Tulkarm, we encountered a new spectacle of Israeli supremacism: enormous Israeli flags lining both sides of the highway every 10 metres. To outside observers, they may reflect deepening Israeli insecurity, but for Palestinians, they are simply another form of intimidation.

We passed the beautiful village of Sinjal, now encircled by 30-metre-high layers of razor wire. All but two entrances have been permanently sealed by Israel, while the remaining two may be closed at any moment at the whim of Israeli forces. Villagers have no explanation as to why they have been targeted so viciously beyond "another act of occupation".

The settlement project has expanded dramatically since my last visit in 2022.

Emboldened by global impunity and a far-right government in which settlers hold key ministries, Israel has approved the legalisation or construction of 69 new settlements.

"We're advancing de facto sovereignty," Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich declared as he announced plans for more than 3,400 settlement homes in the E1 project, which would link vast settlement blocs in occupied East Jerusalem to Maale Adumim, thus physically isolating Palestinians in East Jerusalem from those in the occupied West Bank.

We drove past the large and expanding illegal settlement of Eli, perched on a hill with its ghastly red-roofed houses themselves a statement of genocidal intent, a threat to the well-being of local Palestinian villagers who have seen their olive trees uprooted and faced violent attacks.

Eli is also known for its Bnei David pre-military academy, which trains settlers for officer positions in elite combat units.

We passed petrol stations Palestinians are forbidden to use, and new outposts disfiguring ancient terraces and olive groves. These ugly illegal outposts will inevitably expand into ugly illegal settlements.

A nearby road we could see but not access would have brought us to our destination in Tulkarm in less than half the time. But Israel has barred all Palestinians from it.

Instead, we travelled rough roads, stopping at unpredictable checkpoints where threatening young soldiers determined whether our journey would continue or end. At one point, we took an alternative route to avoid another closure.

These cumulative acts of apartheid are designed to make Palestinian life so unbearable that people will be driven to leave their land.

Gaza in the West Bank

Driving along a rough gravel road, we eventually reached Tulkarm. The ruins of Nur Shams refugee camp lay on our left, its entire population forcibly expelled in January.

The camp is now an eerie ghost town, with about a third of its buildings completely or largely destroyed. Great empty swathes have been cut through the heart of Nur Shams by Israeli bulldozers. Hundreds upon hundreds of homes were demolished ostensibly to create armoured vehicle and tank access.

A blue Star of David had been spray-painted on what was once the home of a Palestinian refugee, now used as a military base. No one else remains. As I climbed a mound to take a photograph, two passers-by urgently warned me to step down. "Snipers shoot at anyone and without warning," they called out.

Refugees described how, as soon as they invaded the camps, Israeli forces cut off all communication and utilities. Internet, electricity and water disappeared instantly. These displaced refugees were evicted to a literal nowhere. Some found relatives to stay with, while many more sought shelter in mosques, abandoned schools, wedding halls and other public spaces. They now live at the margins of survival.

"It was just like the Nakba, especially as we didn't know where we were heading... no one knew where we were being forced to go," said Nihad.

Refugees sheltering in the unfinished El Muowahad School in Thenaba village, between Nur Shams and Tulkarm, described the terror of heavily armed raids, Apache attack helicopters overhead, exploding suicide drones and the frantic flight from their homes with only the clothes on their backs.

"They started blowing up our houses on 26 January, and in seven days the camp was completely emptied," recalled Khaled, 50, sitting exhausted on a plastic chair in the school corridor he shares with 21 families from Tulkarm camp.

"Nobody expected this," he continued. "I didn't even get one T-shirt from my home. It's demolished now." Houses left standing were set on fire. Evictions were brutal. "Even when the Red Crescent gave us the medicine we needed, soldiers snatched it from us and threw it to the ground," Hakem told us, adding that more than 1,800 homes in the Tulkarm camp were destroyed.

For nearly 12 months, 122 displaced refugees have lived in the unfinished school, sharing cramped rooms of 10 to 12 people. "Facilities are minimal or non-existent," Khaled explained.

"When we arrived, there was no electricity, so we connected it ourselves." On the ground floor, four toilets are shared by all men, women and children. There is only one shower. "Like prisoners, we all stand in a line," he added. 

One washing machine serves all families. Clothes hang from every railing as people cling to small pieces of routine while their camp lies in ruins metres away.

"Camp life was hard," Nadia, 38, told me, “But not as hard as this."

Dystopian landscape

In Tulkarm and Nur Shams, the already dire conditions for refugees continue to deteriorate. Unrwa initially provided food and services, but this has stopped as Israel's prohibition on its operations in the occupied Palestinian territories takes hold.

"My fridge is empty," Hakem told us. "We all used to work in the occupied cities from Jaffa to Haifa, Jerusalem to Tel Aviv. Now we are living under siege with no possibility of work."

They are also forbidden by military order from rebuilding their destroyed homes. "I just want to go back and live on the rubble of my home," Hakem said. "What else can we do?"

Nadia showed me a video taken by a neighbour after the camp was emptied. The only sounds in this dystopian landscape were footsteps crunching over debris and the eerie noise of birdsong.

Hasan Khreisheh, a Tulkarm politician working with the displaced families, described what has happened in the northern West Bank camps as following Israel's blueprint in Gaza, but in a form of "silent elimination".

For 17-year-old Ayhem, whose education ended when his home was demolished and his family was forced out: "It's very similar to what has happened in Gaza. When I see Gaza on television, I see exactly what we are experiencing." He sleeps with nine family members in one small school room. "I have no social life. My friends have all been forced into different areas, and my best friend was killed. I have lost everything."

Near the school stands what remains of the Nur Shams Public Committee office. Despite the trauma they have experienced, 10 volunteers continue working to support those expelled from the camp. From its roof terrace, we looked out over the devastation of what had once been their homes.

"My house is uninhabitable," said Fatma, 70, "but I am ready to go and live above the rubble. The dignity of humans is in the home. I can see my house from here, but I cannot reach it."

Nihad, the head of the Committee, described the scale of the military assault. Israel's campaign inside the six neighbourhoods of Nur Shams began on 9 January. Hundreds of soldiers, tanks, military vehicles and drones stormed the camp, forcing out every resident.

"Anyone who refused was shot outside their house to encourage people to leave," he said. "The forces controlled the routes we could take. We were forced into a line and filmed by drones. Anyone who stepped outside the line would be shot."

"The Israeli occupation decided to finish the camps," he continued. "In Nur Shams, with a population of 13,000, we had 400 buildings. Each building had multiple levels and housing units. Even if a house wasn't demolished with bulldozers and explosions, the forces set fire to it to make it uninhabitable. Around 2,300 families were forced to leave, and 70 percent of them are living in poverty."

"There is no water, no electricity inside the camps. No sewage pipes, no streets. The whole infrastructure has been destroyed," Fatma added.

Nihad put it bluntly: "The camp has been assassinated."

They also targeted and destroyed the youth centre, the kindergarten, the wedding hall and the disability centre.

'Return to rubble'

Fatma, a highly respected leader of the Nur Shams community, described her experience on the morning of the attack: "They came at 7am on 9 February. They were already inside the camp. They demolished half my house, but we stayed. They used one of our neighbours as a human shield. They came with dogs to search. Then they took over our home and used it as a military barracks. At the end of the day, there were maybe 100 soldiers in my house."

Fatma has cancer. Soldiers tore up her medical notes and destroyed her water tank. "Our small television was shot. They destroyed my washing machine and fridge, which I hadn't finished paying for."

As they destroyed homes, livelihoods and community spaces, Israeli soldiers had also committed a range of other crimes, including openly looting.

"In front of our eyes, they stole our things," Fatma said. "They took my purse and stole the 2,650 shekels I had been given by a Hebron foundation to repair my house, as well as two gold rings, a necklace, a bracelet and a medal."

Despite many refugees saying they would "return to the rubble", the reality is bleak. The destruction of the camps, the expulsion of their residents and Israel's broader drive to remove Palestinians from their land mean their chances of returning are remote.

"'Returning to the rubble' is just a slogan," said Khaled. "How can we go back? Israeli forces will choose who can return, and anyone with links to fighters will never be allowed to. Every day, there is a new decision targeting the families of resistance fighters. And every day they are subjected to collective punishment."

Khreisheh noted that Israel recently announced that some refugees might be permitted to return, except "the families of those martyred, those injured, imprisoned or involved in politics". This would, in practice, exclude almost everyone.

Even renting elsewhere in the West Bank has become increasingly difficult for displaced Palestinians. "We have no money and no place to go," Khaled said. But poverty is only part of the problem. Landlords fear renting to camp refugees.

"Whenever we try to rent a home," he explained, "they first count us, then ask where we are from. When we say 'Nur Shams' or 'Tulkarm camp', they invariably respond: 'I don't rent my house to anyone from the camps.' In some ways, I understand. If any relative is in prison, is a fighter or was killed, landlords fear raids. So they don't rent to us."

Everyone is a refugee

All inhabitants of the camps are refugees, their status derived from the mass expulsions of the 1948 Nakba and Israel's 1967 war.

Refugee status, which rightly traverses generations, is inseparable from the Palestinian right of return. Through international law and at least five UN resolutions, including Article 11 of UN General Assembly Resolution 194, Palestinians are guaranteed the right to return to the lands from which they were displaced.

A core element of Israel's project has always been to prevent the refugees of 1948 and their descendants from returning to their homes.

Yet every refugee I spoke with viewed their status as the ultimate guarantor of return.

More than seven million Palestinian refugees live in exile worldwide. For Israel, the possibility of their return is a demographic nightmare, and it seeks to prevent it at all costs.

Khreisheh was clear that the destruction of the West Bank refugee camps is part of a broader genocidal project to eliminate the very idea of the refugee camp and the political status it confers. Many others echoed this.

"Refugees and their descendants are the only witnesses of the 1948 Nakba," several told me, "and now Israel wants to eliminate the witness camps and eliminate the Palestinian issue."

"You will find a sad and painful story from everyone who fled," one refugee said. "Homes and land grabbed. They have repeated what happened in 1948. The scene is repeating itself."

"We are moving from pain to pain," another added. "This occupation wants to eradicate people from the land. They want to get rid of all the witnesses to the crimes committed since 1948."

The destruction of Jenin, Nur Shams and Tulkarm camps is a calculated act of genocide. By destroying communities, dismantling Unrwa and expelling refugees, Israel seeks not only to dispossess Palestinians of their homes, but to extinguish their history, rights and future claims to justice, including the right of return.

As Nihad said: "They want to end refugee status by eliminating the camp, destroying the possibility of the right of return and, by extension, any possibility of Palestinian self-determination."

"In Nur Shams, our goal is not just to go back to the camp but to go back to our family villages. This is our historic right. We will never depart from this right. The camp is just a station for us. We all hope to return to our homelands."

sábado, 10 de enero de 2026

NATO members Arctic defense buildup to counter Trump's threats

Among the US president's proposed options for takeover is offering residents up to $100,000 each to secede and take US citizenship, which Greenlanders overwhelmingly oppose

News Desk

JAN 9, 2026

https://thecradle.co/articles/nato-members-arctic-defense-buildup-to-counter-trumps-threats

NATO states are weighing steps to strengthen Arctic security after US President Donald Trump escalated claims over Greenland and refused to rule out using force to seize the semi-autonomous Danish territory, POLITICO reported on 8 January.

According to three NATO diplomats who spoke anonymously to POLITICO, the issue was raised during a closed-door meeting of the alliance’s ambassadors in Brussels following recent statements from the White House asserting that Greenland is vulnerable to Russian and Chinese influence.

During the meeting, envoys agreed that NATO should reinforce its Arctic flank by improving intelligence and surveillance, directing more defense spending toward the Arctic, transferring additional military equipment to the region, and increasing the number of military exercises.

NATO states are weighing steps to strengthen Arctic security after US President Donald Trump escalated claims over Greenland and refused to rule out using force to seize the semi-autonomous Danish territory, POLITICO reported on 8 January.

According to three NATO diplomats who spoke anonymously to POLITICO, the issue was raised during a closed-door meeting of the alliance’s ambassadors in Brussels following recent statements from the White House asserting that Greenland is vulnerable to Russian and Chinese influence.

During the meeting, envoys agreed that NATO should reinforce its Arctic flank by improving intelligence and surveillance, directing more defense spending toward the Arctic, transferring additional military equipment to the region, and increasing the number of military exercises.

The NATO diplomats also said that Europe is now scrambling to defuse the situation. 

A military intervention, Denmark has warned, would effectively spell the end of the alliance. As a result, European governments see reaching a compromise with Trump as the preferred and urgent option.

The request for new proposals came only days after the White House’s latest statements, underscoring what diplomats described as the existential risk any incursion into Greenland would pose to NATO and to transatlantic relations. NATO civil servants are now expected to draft concrete options for member states.

Trump has justified Washington’s campaign by pointing to Greenland’s raw materials and oil potential, as well as what he described as a threatening presence of Russian and Chinese ships near the island. 

However, experts cited by POLITICO largely dispute this assessment, noting that Moscow and Beijing have concentrated most of their military activity in the eastern Arctic instead.

Despite the stakes, diplomats said the tone of the Brussels meeting avoided open confrontation, with one participant describing it as “productive” and “constructive.”

Denmark’s ambassador framed the matter as a bilateral dispute with the US, while highlighting NATO’s existing Arctic strategy and the need for further work – an approach that received broad backing from other envoys.

EU capitals recently united in solidarity with Denmark, and Copenhagen is expected to brief EU envoys further at a meeting scheduled for the following day.

viernes, 9 de enero de 2026

Faced with hegemonic coercion, Europe can no longer pretend to be asleep: Global Times editorial

By Global Times

Published: Jan 09, 2026

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202601/1352722.shtml

Europe is facing a "soul-searching question" regarding the future of Greenland: Should it compromise with hegemonic requests or firmly defend its own sovereignty, interests and international rules? After the US' attack on Venezuela, it has put Greenland on its chopping board. Just as the European version of Politico said, "If European governments didn't realize before that Donald Trump's threats to seize Greenland were serious, they do now."

Now within Europe, many voices are discussing "what choices we have," and no matter how conflicted these voices may sound, the very notion of "facing choices" implies a degree of weakness and appeasement toward hegemony. This only reinforces Washington's determination to acquire Greenland. Europe's scattered and disjointed "opposition" regarding the Venezuelan crisis is perhaps one of the catalysts for Washington's recent escalation of threats against Greenland and its arrogant declaration that "Nobody's going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland." The think tank, European Council on Foreign Relations, pointed out in an article, "Accommodating may preserve short-term transatlantic harmony, but it would reward coercion."

Faced with the rise of hegemonism and unilateralism, Europe has exhibited considerable hesitation and indecisiveness. This stems primarily from two illusions. First, it hinges on the hope that "the US will be better if a different party takes power"; second, it holds a wishful thinking that "Europe will not become the next target of bullying." This mentality reveals a harsh reality: Europe feels powerless to cope with various changes alone, and therefore regards its relationship with the US as a higher-priority "strategic asset" that must be carefully maintained. Consequently, some attempt to exchange compromises of principles for the preservation of their so-called core interests in the face of hegemonic behavior. This is a typical appeasement mentality, fantasizing about pacifying powerful forces through concessions.

However, Europe should no longer pretend to be asleep. 

"Preserving Greenland" and "preserving the NATO alliance to ensure security" are not a one-or-the-other choice for Europe. Greenland's status as a key node in the transatlantic shipping route and a core area for Arctic resource development means that if it falls into US control, Europe may completely lose its voice in Arctic affairs. And this is by no means the end of the US taking advantage of Europe. 

From coercing countries to increase NATO military spending and abandon energy cooperation with Russia, to forcing Europe to comply with US trade sanctions against China, the more Europe appeases hegemony, the more the hegemon will take advantage of it, thus accelerating the binding of Europe itself firmly to the hegemonic chariot and turning it into a pawn in the geopolitical game.

What Europe truly needs to ask itself is this: As a key pole in a multipolar world, how should Europe define itself? 

Some in Europe resemble "geopolitical actuaries" who appear shrewd but end up calculating a profoundly muddled account. On matters of fundamental right and wrong, if Europe consistently responds to hegemonic behavior with appeasement and compromise, treats basic morality and conscience as tradable commodities, and places Washington's preferences above all else, it amounts to tacit acquiescence in, and complicity with, hegemonism and power politics. The consequences of unprincipled compromise came so quickly that Europe will swallow the bitter pill as Greenland faces occupation.

More profoundly, the core ideas and principles on which the EU has been built would be fundamentally shaken, putting at risk its image as a "defender of the international order and multilateralism." Respect for and protection of the sovereignty, security, and territorial integrity of all states is a widely accepted norm of international relations forged through the blood and fire of World War II. It is also the foundation and soul of the UN-centered international system and of an international order based on international law. Historical lessons have long written a painful verdict on appeasement.

In pursuing strategic autonomy, Europe is by no means without cards to play. As one of the world's largest economic entities, the EU possesses a vast internal market, an advanced industrial system, and deep-rooted multilateralist traditions, which together constitute its key sources of strength in countering hegemonism. Economically, Europe can further deepen internal market integration, reduce excessive dependence on the US financial system, and advance the internationalization of the euro. In the energy sector, it can adhere to a strategy of diversified cooperation and accelerate the deployment of renewable energy. Diplomatically, it should stop drawing ideological dividing lines and strengthen cooperation with emerging market countries such as China, and help build a multipolar diplomatic landscape. With a longer-term perspective, Europe has by no means reached a dead end.

If Europe truly regards "abiding by international law" and "upholding the purposes and principles of the UN Charter" as core values, it should take internationally recognized principles and norms as its guide, stand on the side of international justice and the historical trend toward multilateralism, rather than acquiesce in the erosion of fundamental principles and a return to a law-of-the-jungle world. In fact, at a time when European countries themselves are increasingly anxious and concerned about "hard power," what kind of outcome would there be in opening their arms to a Hobbesian world?

jueves, 8 de enero de 2026

Greenland allies vow action if Trump moves to seize world’s largest island

A German government source told the Reuters news agency that Berlin was ‘closely working together’ with other allies.

By News Agencies

Published On 7 Jan 2026

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/7/european-allies-reiterate-support-for-greenland-amid-us-threats

European leaders, including in France and Germany, have announced they are working on a plan in the event the United States follows through on its threat to take over Greenland as tensions soar.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot told France Inter radio on Wednesday that while nations want to act if the US moves to seize Greenland from an ally, Denmark, they want to do so “together with our European partners”.

“I myself was on the phone with the [US] Secretary of State [Marco Rubio] yesterday… He discarded the idea that what just happened in Venezuela could happen in Greenland,” Barrot said.

On Saturday, the United States – using fighter jets, attack helicopters, and special forces – abducted Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro, bringing him to New York City to be tried for alleged drug trafficking.

US President Donald Trump’s decision to greenlight the abduction of Maduro led to widespread condemnation and fear that Greenland, which the president has previously said should be part of Washington’s security apparatus, could be forcibly taken.

But since then, European allies have rallied behind Greenland’s sovereignty, saying the country belongs to its people.

‘Sensible dialogue – now’

Johannes Koskinen, chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee of Finland’s parliament, called for the issue to be raised within NATO.

“[Allies should] address whether something needs to be done and whether the United States should be brought into line in the sense that it cannot disregard jointly agreed plans in order to pursue its own power ambitions,” he said.

Denmark’s Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen and his Greenlandic counterpart, Vivian Motzfeldt, requested an urgent meeting with Rubio to discuss the situation.

“We would like to add some nuance to the conversation,” Rasmussen wrote in a social media post. “The shouting match must be replaced by a more sensible dialogue. Now.”

Denmark has warned that any move to take Greenland by force would mean “everything would stop”, including NATO and 80 years of close security links.

Greenland’s government will join a meeting between Rubio and Danish officials next week following renewed US claims on the Arctic island, its foreign minister said on Wednesday.

‌The European Union will support Greenland and ‍Denmark when ‍needed and will not accept violations of international law no matter where they occur, European Council President Antonio Costa said.

“In Greenland, allow me to be ​clear: Greenland belongs to its people. Nothing ‍can be decided about Denmark and about Greenland without Denmark or without Greenland,” Costa said in a speech.

“The European Union cannot accept ‌violations of international law – whether in Cyprus, Latin America, Greenland, Ukraine, or Gaza. Europe will remain ‍a firm and unwavering champion of international law and multilateralism.”

Control of Greenland

Greenland – the world’s largest island, with a population of 57,000 people – is located between Europe and North America. Since 2019, during Trump’s first term, the president has raised the idea of controlling Greenland, saying it would benefit US security.

So far, Trump has not ruled out using force to take the island.

Rubio told reporters on Wednesday that Trump’s intention is to buy Greenland. “That’s always been the president’s intent from the very beginning.”

House US House Speaker Mike Johnson said he hasn’t heard talk of sending the military into Greenland and the US is “looking at diplomatic channels”.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump and his national security team have “actively discussed” the option of buying Greenland.

“He views it in the best interest of the United States to deter Russian and Chinese aggression in the Arctic region. And so that’s why his team is currently talking about what a potential purchase would look like,” Leavitt told reporters.

Neither Leavitt nor Rubio ruled out the use of force. But Leavitt said, “The president’s first option, always, has been diplomacy.”

miércoles, 7 de enero de 2026

Three Key Lessons from the US’s Venezuela Intervention

01/06/2026•Mises WireRyan McMaken

https://mises.org/mises-wire/three-key-lessons-uss-venezuela-intervention

On Saturday morning, the US military attacked Venezuela. After bombings of Venezuelan infrastructure, a small US force landed in Caracas and abducted Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and his wife. Trump has characterized the attack as a “law enforcement” action although Secretary of State Marco Rubio has not been able to state what legal authority has authorized the invasion, or how the United States government has jurisdiction to do so. 

Although the claim of “law enforcement” may be the official position, the administration and its supporters have employed a wide variety of justifications for the bombing and invasion, ranging from democratization to human rights. 

This latest military operation by the US regime serves as a reminder that very little has changed in American foreign policy since 1989 when George H. W. Bush set the stage for today’s policy of endless intervention. The only change, perhaps, is that the Trump’s MAGA coalition—after denouncing regime change and nation-building for years—has now embraced the policy wholeheartedly. 

Regardless of who is supporting it, however, the US’s bombing of Caracas reiterates three key foundations of American foreign policy. We might say that the Venezuela operation “exposed” the true nature of US foreign policy, but none of this is anything new for anyone who has been paying attention. 

One: The US Constitution Means Nothing 

As with all military operations since 1945, the Venezuela bombing—a clear act of war to anyone who isn’t an apologist for the regime—occurred without any Congressional declaration of war. In this case—as with Obama’s Libya War—there was not even so much as a Congressional debate. Trump now says he informed oil companies of the operation before he informed Congress. 

Countless conservatives who have long pretended to care about “the rule of law” or a “strict constructionist” view of the US constitution are now splitting hairs about whether or not the bombing of a foreign country and the kidnapping of its head of state counts as “war.” They’re pretending to be confused as to why anyone would think a mere bombing operation constitutes warfare. This is the same tactic employed by the Left: pretend to be confused by simple English words that are clear to honest people, but which are repeatedly redefined to fit a political agenda. 

The result of their manufactured confusion is this claim: Because we can never be sure of what the word “war” actually means, bombing foreign countries—at taxpayers’ expense, by the way—doesn’t require even the smallest amount of Congressional action. 

Or so we are told. 

So much for Article I of the US Constitution which put the legislature in place as a veto on military action. This veto, by the way, was not something invented by Americans, but was a principle formed out of centuries of resistance against absolutism in Europe when the Stuart kings and other despots sought to foist wars upon the taxpayers without so much as a vote in parliament. Unfortunately, thanks to decades of disregard for the rule of law in modern times—something now embraced by MAGA—this essential pillar of limiting state power has been utterly abandoned. 

Two: International Law Applies only to Other Countries (But Not Israel)

Just as the negation of the Constitution demonstrates that the rule of law is meaningless in domestic American politics, we also know that law means nothing at all for American policy in the international realm. After the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, the US regime spent years lecturing Americans on the so-called “rules-based international order.” In spite of the fact that the US regime had spent years occupying Afghanistan, Iraq, and parts of Syria, the US regime then attempted to claim that the Russians must respect the sovereignty of other states because of an alleged rules-based order. 

This only applies to other countries not named “the United States” or “Israel.” For example, the Russian state claims the right to intervene in its “near abroad” or sphere of influence. Many US foreign policy “experts” deny that any such concept exists. Many even mocked the idea of a sphere of influence. Yet the United States routinely invokes a nearly identical claim over Latin America. The “Monroe Doctrine” is little more than a declaration that Latin America is within the US’s sphere of influence. 

The reality is that US policy is nothing more than an exercise in raw power, and any appeal to international law is used only to justify US intervention. The US regime—and its parasite state, the State of Israel—simply do what each regime’s ruling oligarchs determine to be in the best interests of the ruling class. International law or “court orders” may be used to provide some pretense for policy, but neither the Constitution nor any principle of sovereignty or law means anything in the context of American politics. 

Three: Democracy Doesn’t Matter 

Some defenders of the Venezuela intervention continue to claim that the US action is justified because Maduro was not “duly elected.” The rather fanciful assumption here is that the United States is in the business of spreading democracy. In this way of thinking, the abduction of Maduro means a “duly elected” politician—supposedly María Corina Machado or Edmundo Gonzalez—will become president with the acclamation of the majority. 

First, it is important to remember that US policy has never prioritized the “democratization” of foreign regimes. What really matters is that foreign regimes act as puppet states, compliant with US policy. Whether or not these regimes are democratic is immaterial. For examples of this, we need look no further than the fact that the US is a close ally with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a blood-soaked dictatorship where women have effectively no legal rights and Christianity is illegal. Similarly, the US regime has now allied itself with the ISIS and Al-Qaeda militants who now rule over Syria where religious minorities are routinely targeted and churches are bombed. 

And then there is the current president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, whose term expired in 2024, and who now rules as the unelected strongman of Ukraine with American approval. Historically, the list of dictators supported by the US is very long, indeed. 

Similarly, it is already clear that free elections are hardly a priority for the US regime in Venezuela. For example, Donald Trump has already ruled out the idea of a Machado presidency, even though the US has for years claimed her opposition party has enjoyed immense support in Venezuela. Similarly, Washington claims that Gonzalez won two-thirds of the vote in the 2024 Venezuela election. Yet, Trump has not even hinted at a Gonzalez presidency. Rather, he has declared that a Machado presidency is out of the question since she lacks the necessary “respect” in her country.  

If there is so much public demand for Machado and her party, why not let her take power? Perhaps sensing that the popularity of the opposition party in Venezuela has been long inflated by the US propaganda machine, Trump has stated that the United States government will “run” Venezuela indefinitely. In other words, the de facto government of Venezuela is in Washington, DC where, needless to say, no one has been elected by Venezuelan voters. 

Moreover, the US’s de facto puppet regime in Venezuela is now the same socialist party that Maduro headed. Maduro has simply been replaced by another socialist, Delcy Rodriguez, who was sworn in on Monday. Past experience suggests why the socialist ruling party is likely to stay in place: the US regime’s problem with Maduro’s regime was never its socialism. The only problem was Maduro’s anti-Washington bravado. This is no surprise if we consider the many collectivist despots who have been close US allies throughout history. The American regime loves socialist dictators so long as they are our socialist dictators. 

If Rodriguez agrees to take orders from Washington, she may very well be kept in power, in spite of years of Washington propaganda telling us that the current ruling party lost the election. 

But, if new elections do go forward, and a “duly elected” new president takes over, we can be 100% sure that the new president has received the approval of Washington. No “democratically” elected president in Venezuela will be allowed to take office without the approval of the American regime. In other words, the decision of “the people” is subject to decisions made in Washington. That’s what America calls “democracy.” Elections are only permitted when they produce an outcome acceptable to American politicians. If a majority of Venezuelans elect a president who is deemed unfit by Washington’s viceroys, that candidate will be declared illegitimate, exiled, imprisoned, or assassinated. 

This is a well established model in American history, and, as John Mearsheimer notes, “The United States has a rich history of overthrowing democracies around the world, and we have a rich history of siding with some of the world’s biggest dictators. So this idea that we’re out there protecting freedom & democracy, doesn’t mesh with reality.”