nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Hiroshima, Nagasaki urge Japanese government to uphold non-nuclear principles

10-Jan-2026 CGTN. https://news.cgtn.com/news/2026-01-10/Hiroshima-Nagasaki-call-on-Japan-to-uphold-non-nuclear-principles-1JOBGW72YxO/p.html

The city assemblies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have adopted statements urging the Japanese government to adhere to the country’s Three Non-Nuclear Principles, Kyodo News reported.

The Hiroshima City Assembly unanimously adopted its statement on Friday, pointing out that the ruling party’s attempt to revise the non-nuclear principles has caused concern, and strongly urging the Japanese government to take the feelings of people in the atomic-bombed cities seriously and to uphold the Three Non-Nuclear Principles, the report said.

The Nagasaki City Assembly passed its statement on Thursday by a majority vote, noting that successive Japanese governments have regarded the Three Non-Nuclear Principles as a national policy. It said the ruling party’s intended revision of the principles while amending the country’s security documents is totally unacceptable.

On August 6 and 9, 1945, in an effort to force Japan, which had launched a war of aggression, to surrender as soon as possible, the U.S. military dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, respectively. The Three Non-Nuclear Principles – not possessing, not producing, and not allowing the introduction of nuclear weapons into Japanese territory – were first declared by then-Japanese Prime Minister Eisaku Sato in 1967 and formally adopted by parliament in 1971, establishing them as Japan’s basic nuclear policy. The National Security Strategy, one of the three documents approved by the Cabinet in 2022, states, “The basic policy of adhering to the Three Non-Nuclear Principles will remain unchanged in the future.”

Japanese media have previously reported that Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi is considering reviewing the third of the Three Non-Nuclear Principles, which prohibits nuclear weapons from entering Japan’s territory, when updating related documents.

January 12, 2026 Posted by | Japan, politics | Leave a comment

The Unbroken Thread: China’s Civilisational-State vs. The West’s Contractual Empire – A Study in Divergent Destinies

10 January 2026 Andrew Klein, PhD, https://theaimn.net/the-unbroken-thread-chinas-civilisational-state-vs-the-wests-contractual-empire-a-study-in-divergent-destinies/

Abstract

This article contrasts the developmental trajectories of China and the United States (representing the modern West) by examining their foundational civilisational codes, historical experiences, and political philosophies. It argues that while the U.S. follows the extractive, individual-centric model of a classic maritime empire (extending the Roman pattern), China operates as a continuous civilisational-state, its policies shaped by a deep memory of collapse and humiliation and a Confucian-Legalist emphasis on collective resilience. The analysis critiques the Western failure to comprehend China through the reductive lens of “Communism,” ignoring the profound impact of the “Century of Humiliation” and China’s subsequent focus on sovereignty, infrastructure, and social stability as prerequisites for development. The paper concludes that China’s model, focused on long-term societal flourishing over short-term extraction, presents a fundamentally different, and perhaps more durable, imperial paradigm.

Introduction: The Mandate of History vs. The Mandate of Capital

The rise of China is often analysed through the prism of Western political theory, leading to a fundamental category error. To compare China and the United States is not to compare two nation-states of similar ontological origin. It is to compare a civilisational-state – whose political structures are an outgrowth of millennia of unified cultural consciousness and bureaucratic governance – with a contractual empire – a relatively recent construct built on Enlightenment ideals, but ultimately sustained by global financial and military hegemony (Jacques, 2009). Their paths diverge at the root of their historical memory and their core objectives.

China’s Catalysing Trauma: Modern China’s psyche is indelibly shaped by the “Century of Humiliation” (c. 1839-1949), beginning with the Opium Wars – a stark example of Western imperial extraction enforced by gunboats (Lovell, 2011). This was compounded by the collapse of the Qing dynasty, civil war, and the horrific suffering during the Second World War. The foundational drive of the People’s Republic, therefore, was not merely ideological victory but the restoration of sovereignty, stability, and dignity (Mitter, 2013). Every policy is filtered through the question: “Will this prevent a return to fragmentation and foreign domination?”

America’s Founding Myth: The U.S. narrative is one of triumphant exceptionalism. Born from anti-colonial revolution, it expanded across a continent it saw as empty (ignoring Native nations) and engaged with the world primarily from a position of growing strength. Its traumas (Civil War, 9/11) are seen as interruptions to a forward progress, not as defining, humiliating collapses. This fosters an optimistic, forward-looking, and often abistorical mindset (Williams, 2009).

2. Political Philosophy: Meritocratic Collectivism vs. Individualist Democracy

China’s System: The “Exam Hall” State. China’s governance synthesises Confucian meritocracy and Legalist institutionalism. The modern manifestation is a rigorous, multi-decade screening process for political advancement, emphasising administrative competence, economic performance, and crisis management (Bell, 2015). The objective is governance for long-term civilisational survival. The Communist Party frames itself as the contemporary upholder of the “Mandate of Heaven,” responsible for collective welfare. Political legitimacy is derived from delivery of stability and prosperity.

The West’s System: The “Arena” State. Western liberal democracy, particularly in its U.S. form, is a contest of ideas, personalities, and interest groups. Legitimacy is derived from the procedural act of election. While capable of brilliance, this system incentivises short-term focus (electoral cycles), polarisation, and the influence of capital over long-term planning (Fukuyama, 2014). Expertise is often subordinated to popularity.

3. The Social Contract: Infrastructure & Security vs. Liberty & Opportunity

China’s Deliverables: Post-1978 reforms shifted focus to development, but within the framework of the party-state. The state prioritises and invests heavily in tangible foundations: universal literacy, poverty alleviation, high-speed rail networks, urban housing, and food security (World Bank, 2022). The social contract is explicit: public support in exchange for continuous improvement in material living standards and national prestige.

The West’s Deliverables: The Western social contract, historically, promised upward mobility and individual liberty protected by rights. However, the late-stage extractive economic model has led to the decline of public goods: crumbling infrastructure, unaffordable higher education, for-profit healthcare, and eroded social safety nets (Piketty, 2013). The contract feels broken, leading to societal discord.

4. Global Engagement: Symbiotic Mercantilism vs. Extractive Hegemony

China’s Method: Development as Diplomacy. China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is the archetype of its approach: offering infrastructure financing and construction to developing nations, facilitating trade integration on its terms. It is a form of state-led, long-term strategic mercantilism aimed at creating interdependent networks (Rolland, 2017). Its “soft power” is not primarily cultural, but commercial and infrastructural.

The West’s Method: The post-WWII U.S.-led order, while providing public goods, has been characterised by asymmetric extraction: structural adjustment programs, financial dominance, and military interventions to secure resources and political alignment (Harvey, 2003). It maintains a core-periphery relationship with much of the world.

Conclusion: The Durability of Patterns

The West’s mistake is viewing China through the simple dichotomy of “Communist vs. Democratic.” This ignores the 4,000-year-old continuum of the Chinese statecraft that values unity, hierarchical order, and scholarly bureaucracy. China is not “learning from Communism”; it is learning from the Tang Dynasty, the Song economic revolutions, and the catastrophic lessons of the 19th and 20th centuries.

China’s course is different because its definition of empire is different. It seeks a Sinic-centric world system of stable, trading partners, not necessarily ideological clones. Its focus is internal development and peripheral stability, not universal ideological conversion. Its potential weakness lies in demographic shifts and the challenge of innovation under political constraints. The West’s weakness is its accelerating internal decay and inability to reform its extractive, short-termist model.

Two imperial models are now in full view. One, the West, is a flickering, brilliant flame from Rome, burning its fuel recklessly. The other, China, is a slowly rekindled hearth fire, banked for the long night, its heat directed inward to warm its own house first. History is not ending; it is presenting its bill, and the civilisations that prepared their ledger will write the next chapter.

References…………………………..

January 12, 2026 Posted by | China, politics international | Leave a comment

Chris Hedges: Grand Illusion

Gangster states have no need of diplomacy. Trump and Rubio, for this reason, have gutted the State Department, along with other forms of “soft” power that achieve influence without resorting to force, including the U.S. role in the United Nations

By Chris Hedges , ScheerPost


“We live in a world in which you can talk all you want about international niceties and everything else, but we live in a world, in the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world that have existed since the beginning of time.” — Stephen Miller to Jake Tapper on CNN, Jan. 5, 2026.

“He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist. Such a saying may sound hard; but, after all, that’s how it is.” — Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf

“The Fascist State expresses the will to exercise power and to command. Here the Roman tradition is embodied in a conception of strength. Imperial power, as understood by the Fascist doctrine, is not only territorial, or military, or commercial; it is also spiritual and ethical… Fascism sees in the imperialistic spirit — i.e., in the tendency of nations to expand — a manifestation of their vitality.” — Benito Mussolini in The Doctrine of Fascism

ll empires, when they are dying, worship the idol of war. War will save the empire. War will resurrect past glory. War will teach an unruly world to obey. But those who bow down before the idol of war, blinded by hypermasculinity and hubris, are unaware that while idols begin by calling for the sacrifice of others, they end by demanding self-sacrifice. Ekpyrosis, the inevitable conflagration that destroys the world according to the ancient Stoics, is part of the cyclical nature of time. There is no escape. Fortuna. There is a time for individual death. There is a time for collective death. In the end, with weary citizens yearning for extinction, empires light their own funeral pyre.

Our high priests of war, Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth, Stephen Miller and the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dan “Razin” Caine, are no different from the fools and charlatans who snuffed out empires of the past — the haughty leaders of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the militarists in imperial Germany and the hapless court of Tsarist Russia in World War I. They were followed by the fascists in Italy under Benito Mussolini, Germany under Adolf Hitler and the military rulers of imperial Japan in World War II.

These political entities committed collective suicide.

They drank the same fatal elixir Miller and those in the Trump White House imbibe. They too tried to use industrial violence to reshape the universe. They too considered themselves to be omnipotent. They too saw themselves in the face of the idol of war. They too demanded to be obeyed and worshiped.

Destruction to them is creation. Dissent is sedition. The world is one-dimensional. The strong versus the weak. Only our nation is great. Other nations, even allies, are dismissed with contempt.

These architects of imperial folly are buffoons and killer clowns. They are ridiculed and hated by those rooted in a reality-based world. They are followed slavishly by the desperate and the disenfranchised. The simplicity of the message is its appeal. A magic incantation will bring back the lost world, the golden age, however mythic. Reality is viewed exclusively through the lens of ultranationalism. The flip side of ultranationalism is racism.

“The nationalist is by definition an ignoramus,” wrote Yugoslav-Serbian novelist Danilo Kiš. “Nationalism is the line of least resistance, the easy way. The nationalist is untroubled, he knows or thinks he knows what his values are, his, that’s to say national, that’s to say the values of the nation he belongs to, ethical and political; he is not interested in others, they are no concern of his, hell — it’s other people (other nations, other tribes). They don’t even need investigating. The nationalist sees other people in his own image — as nationalists.”

These stunted human beings are unable to read others. They threaten. They terrorize. They kill. The art of power politics between nations or individuals is far beyond their tiny imaginations. They lack the intelligence — emotional and intellectual — to cope with the complex, ever-shifting sands of old and new alliances. They cannot see themselves as the world sees them.

Diplomacy is often a dark and deceptive art. It is by its nature manipulative. But it requires an understanding of other cultures and traditions. It requires getting inside the heads of adversaries and allies. For Trump and his minions, this is an impossibility.

Skillful diplomats, such as Prince Klemens von Metternich, the Austrian Empire’s foreign minister who dominated European politics after the defeat of Napoleon, do so by crafting agreements and treaties such as the Concert of Europe and the Congress of Vienna. Metternich, no friend of liberalism, adroitly kept Europe stable until the revolutions of 1848…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Gangster states have no need of diplomacy. Trump and Rubio, for this reason, have gutted the State Department, along with other forms of “soft” power that achieve influence without resorting to force, including the U.S. role in the United Nations, the U.S. Agency of International Development, the U.S. Institute for Peace — renamed Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace after most of the board and staff were fired — and Voice of America.

Diplomats in gangster states are reduced to the role of errand boys. Hitler’s Foreign Minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop, whose primary experience in foreign affairs before 1933 was selling fake German champagne in Britain, appointed party hacks from the SA or Brownshirts — the paramilitary wing of the party — to diplomatic posts abroad. Benito Mussolini’s Foreign Minister was his son-in-law, Galeazzo Ciano. Mussolini — who believed that “war is to man what maternity is to woman” — later executed Ciano for disloyalty. Trump’s Special Envoy to the Middle East, Steven Charles Witkoff, is a real estate developer, often accompanied on diplomatic missions by Trump’s feckless son-in-law Jared Kushner.

The Italian philosopher Benedetto Croce quipped that fascism had created a fourth form of government, “onagrocracy,” a government by braying asses, to add to Aristotle’s traditional triumvirate of tyranny, oligarchy and democracy.

Our ruling class, Democrats and Republicans, piece by piece, dismantled democracy. In Germany and Italy, the constitutional state, as well, collapsed long before the arrival of fascism. Trump, who is the symptom, not the disease, inherited the corpse. He is making good use of it. https://scheerpost.com/2026/01/09/chris-hedges-grand-illusion/

January 11, 2026 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

British and European leaders have shown themselves weak and complicit in the kidnapping of Maduro.

Ian Proud, Jan 08, 2026, https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/british-and-european-leaders-have?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3221990&post_id=183823495&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

The US attack on the Venezuelan capital of Caracas and kidnapping of President Maduro and his wife was illegal under international law. British and European leaders tacitly supporting US actions through silence is weak and will damage further their reputations in the developing world.

The UN Charter was agreed in 1945 to ensure that countries no longer interfered in the sovereign affairs of other countries. Of course, that legal basis was built on shaky foundations, as the outline of post-war borders was complex and in many parts of the world disputed, including in Europe. The Second World War ended at a time when Britain and other European nations were accelerating their departure from colonialism, creating wholly new sovereign states based on former colonial boundaries.

The UN charter didn’t and does not try to rewrite the map of the world. Nor does it seek to impose a template for how countries are governed. The countries of the world continue to be led by a mix of monarchies, democracies and autocracies in many shapes and sizes.

No country has a right to impose its will or preferred mode of governance on another country, however dysfunctional that country may be. In the case of Venezuela, few would argue that it is a democracy in the purest sense, despite the holding of elections. That some countries consider prior Venezuelan elections to have been rigged is immaterial under the UN Charter. No third country can interfere violently in the affairs of another state, even if that state appears a violent dictatorship.

I personally do regard Nicolas Maduro as, at the very least, an authoritarian leader who is predisposed to undemocratic and repressive means to govern his people. But I could say the same about countless other countries, not only in Latin America but in Africa, the middle east and Asia.

Europe itself, while governed by seemingly democratic systems, has stood accused by the US in this past year of being anti-democratic by stifling free speech and choreographing the appearance of democracy with the help of a compliant media. The institutions of Europe are by design anti-democratic, as citizens do not have the opportunity directly to choose any of the six so-called Presidents in charge, nor their unelected aides-de-camp, however they are called.

So, love him or, in many liberal cases, loathe him, western leaders aren’t given a say under international law about whether Nicolas Maduro is the rightful leader of Venezuela.

In the case of the US, that country has justifiable concerns about the flood of drugs channelled through Venezuela that reach its shores and ruin the lives of people addicted to substance misuse. This is undoubtedly a legitimate national security interest for the Americans and gives them the right to act to prevent these hostile acts, including, should they choose, through the use of force. Without getting into the wider debate about US attacks on alleged drug boats, those actions, nevertheless, are still governed by international human rights law.

They do not give the USA the right forcibly to depose a serving President, however unpalatable a character he may be.

That UK and European leaders have tacitly, though their silence of US actions, come out in support of the overthrow of Maduro speaks more of international relations, not international law.

They have set themselves up as judge and jury from affair, on the basis that they agree with the US assessment that Maduro is the wrong sort of leader for Venezuela. For all the pontification about letting Venezuelan people decide, Euro-elites aren’t bright enough to realise that they are aiding and abetting Donald Trump in making a choice on Venezuela’s behalf.


This theatre played out vividly at the UN Security Council on Monday 5 January in which the various European states represented at the table, one by one, refused even to mention the actions of the US in overthrowing Maduro in their statements. Echoing Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s refusal to denounce US actions, the UK’s Representative at the table, James Kariuki, who unfortunately I know of old, stuck to remarking on the undemocratic nature of Nicolas Maduro, the need for a transition to democracy and to abide by international law. And nothing else.

No mention of the fact that US actions were in breach of international law. No mention of the unilateral military attack by the US on Venezuela’s capital nor the kidnapping of Maduro. Simply, Maduro is bad, too bad, let’s find someone new to replace him, of whom, implicitly, we approve.

Every other European state at the table, including Greece, France, Latvia and Denmark, offered a slightly longer-winded version of the same position. The Danes were a little more nuanced, given their not misplaced fear, that they may be next, if America decides to make a move to annex Greenland illegally.

And therein the root cause of the British and European positioning. European foreign policy appears to rest almost entirely on a desire not to offend President Trump.

In London, Riga, Paris and Copenhagen, leaders still cling to the hope that President Trump will, through flattery, still support their efforts to maintain a proxy war in Ukraine.

That if they refuse to denounce him over Venezuela, he might eventually come round again to the idea of regime change in Moscow, through a war in Ukraine that leaders continue to fantasise is winnable when all the evidence suggests otherwise.

So, the requirements of international law have become entirely incidental to the foreign policy imperative of defeating President Putin and, hopefully, perhaps, seeing him, cuffed and blindfolded, whisked off in a US military helicopter to a kangaroo court in New York. Everything else, including the requirements of the UN Charter, is simply inconvenient detail.

Yet, ultimately, Britain and Europe remain weak and unable substantively to influence President Trump’s actions, rendering them weak and as passengers on a runaway US train as it relates to Ukraine policy.

Unfortunately, countries across the developing world – including the Latin American countries at the Security Council who to varying degrees denounced the US move – will have been shocked by the position Britain and Europe has taken. That their leaders are clinging on vicariously to a western hegemon, in which the US acts as global policemen, and they stand back, aghast, while offering obsequious applause.

The main beneficiary of this will, of course, be China and to some extent Russia who have progressively railed against western dominance through alternative global political fora for dialogue and mutually beneficial cooperation. I should think the queue of countries lining up to join BRICS will grow longer after this illegal US attack on Venezuela.

January 11, 2026 Posted by | EUROPE, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Oil Companies Are Key Partners in Trump’s Imperial Plans for Latin America

People react to the news of the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, after US military actions in Venezuela this morning, in Doral, Florida, near Miami on January 3, 2026. US President Donald Trump said Saturday that the United States will “run” Venezuela and tap its huge oil reserves after snatching leftist leader Nicolas Maduro out of the country during a bombing raid on Caracas. Trump’s announcement came hours after a lightning attack in which special forces grabbed Maduro and his wife, while airstrikes pounded multiple sites, stunning the capital city. (Photo by GIORGIO VIERA / AFP via Getty Images)

Stocks in ExxonMobil, Halliburton, and ConocoPhillips surged the day after Trump’s illegal attack on Venezuela.

By Derek Seidman , Truthout January 8, 2026

or months, U.S. President Donald Trump proclaimed that his pressure campaign against the government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, backed by dozens of illegal killings through drone strikes, was about fighting drugs and cartels. But at his press conference after the U.S. abduction of Maduro, Trump couldn’t stop talking about oil.

“We’re gonna take back the oil,” Trump brazenly said. “Very large United States oil companies” will “go in” and “spend billions of dollars,” he promised. “We’re gonna be taking out a tremendous amount of wealth out of the ground.”

All told, Trump uttered the word “oil” at least 20 times during the press conference. Oil company stocks — ExxonMobil, Halliburton, ConocoPhillips, Valero, Phillips 66 — surged the following day, with Chevron, the only major U.S. oil corporation with a current foothold in Venezuela, seeing its share value jump more than 5 percent.

Further demonstrating the administration’s drug accusations to be mere propaganda, the Justice Department recently dropped its longstanding claim that Maduro was the head of “Cartel de los Soles,” implicitly conceding that it is indeed not a drug cartel but a slang term referring to political officials who have become corrupted by drug money.

The Trump administration’s barefaced imperial grab for Venezuela’s oil is fraught with challenges, and it’s far too early to predict what will happen. But its abduction of Maduro and effort to gain control over Venezuela’s oil industry aligns with the administration’s openly stated vision of reasserting undisputed political and economic hegemony across the Americas and the Caribbean, including control over natural resources and trade routes, through gunboat diplomacy backed by military threats. In doing so, Trump is looking to corporate allies like Chevron, which could stand to benefit handsomely from his administration’s action — though this is far from guaranteed……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………https://truthout.org/articles/oil-companies-are-key-partners-in-trumps-imperial-plans-for-latin-america/?utm_source=Truthout&utm_campaign=26a84c82c8-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2026_01_08_10_43&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bbb541a1db-26a84c82c8-650192793

January 11, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

Oil in Venezuela: Strangulation, Not a Steal

8 January 2026 David Tyler, https://theaimn.net/oil-in-venezuela-strangulation-not-a-steal/

It’s not drill baby drill, after all. Picture a vast, rusting skeletal oil rig off Venezuela’s coast, derricks frozen mid-stroke like the limbs of some colossal fossil. If you’ve heeded Stenographers R Us, the mainstream international media franchise embedded with the rich the powerful and the fabulously ruthless, you’d think Washington’s frenzy over this country boils down to a simple heist. But you’d be wrong.

Put to one side Bull Dust Trump’s buccaneering fantasy, a daring smash and grab raid for the world’s largest proven oil reserves, a tanker-load of cut-price fuel so cheap that every man can run at least one Ram V8 or Ford F-Series truck. And one for the little woman. Above all, it’s the heist that pays for itself. You steal Venezuela’s oil. Take over their country. All free of charge; funded by the plundered oil.

Trump’s lying. Of course. Like his career as a deal-maker, turning Caracas into a McDonald’s hamburger franchise is a fantasy founded on a fiction based on a lie, pure and simple. Behind the headlines, see the levers of power post-Maduro’s Manhattan manacles, muffs and blindfold, the full, Gitmo rig, and a sharper, more sinister pattern swims into view. Not just touring the trophy in a van with the back door open. This isn’t about nicking the black gold. It’s all about the chokehold, a slow but sure squeeze to block off the oil, denying the flow not just to Venezuela, but to anyone who dares defy The Hulk.

The Chokehold Takes Shape

Cast your mind back to the early 2010s. US sanctions began to creep from diplomatic tiffs to industrial strength sabotage. PDVSA, Venezuela’s state oil mammoth, didn’t just falter; it was engineered into failure. Spare parts were embargoed, rigs starved of foreign cash, refineries left to rust in the tropical brine and the sulphur that makes the nation’s heavy, treacle-thick crude, notoriously hard to refine.

Output didn’t dip, it plummeted from three million barrels a day to under 800,000. The Intercept, and Democracy Now! map the blueprint: not haphazard penalties, but a calculated corrosion of the coronary arteries of the economy. And here’s the exquisite irony in the crude itself; that heavy, sour Venezuelan black isn’t some elixir of cheap bounty.

It demands bespoke refineries, the kind that gobble margins unless global prices pitch high, say at the $60-70 per barrel sweet spot for US shale outfits. By idling millions of barrels, Washington doesn’t just punish Caracas; it rigs scarcity, propping up prices for its own patch and Saudi bedfellows.

Why would the planet’s oil glutton sabotage a gusher? Follow the boardroom gaze across the trading floors: scarcity keeps the market taut, volumes crimped, returns plump for the anointed players. The Grayzone and The Real News call it engineered sabotage, with Chevron and Exxon not clamouring for a bargain-bin blowout, but biding time for PDVSA’s orderly dismemberment and disembowelling. It will be privatised, of course, to some asset-stripper, on terms dictated from Foggy Bottom.

The Empire’s Ledger: Workers Foot the Bill

Yet no imperial romp runs on fairy dust, and the tab for this buccaneering lands not in some mythical oil jackpot, but squarely on the brows of ordinary Americans. Imagine the bills: 80 billion dollars a year vanishing into overseas bases, the concrete teeth enforcing sanctions and glowering at rivals across 25 countries since 2001.

Tack on another 62 billion in fossil fuel subsidies; bargain priced pollution, tax loopholes ladled to a coterie of oil titans, as with our gas industry, and the mathematics unmasks itself. The truck driver filling up at dawn, the nurse tallying grocery receipts inflated by freight costs: they’re clobbered doubly, once by the pump’s regressive bite from jacked global crude, again by tax dollars greasing the imperial gears. No plunder’s bounty offsets it; this is a quiet expropriation from wage packets to corner suites.

Now widen the lens to Latin America, where the rogue elephant lumbers, trunk swinging. Step forward Marco Rubio, son of Cuban exiles, his irony bypass a marvel of surgical precision. There he is on ABC’s 7:30 Report, cool as a Miami breeze, labelling Havana a “huge problem” mired in “a lot of trouble” for cradling Maduro; ripe, he implied, for Uncle Sam’s rapture. Rubio has the gall to scorn Cuba’s “senile incompetents” while a demented Donald Trump cheers intervention and why stop with Venezuela?

Trump paints Colombia’s Petro a narco-overlord and Mexico’s Sheinbaum a cartel consort.

Cuba’s original sin harks to 1959, when Fidel Castro’s revolution swept away the neon bordello Washington had bankrolled. Havana wasn’t just a city then; it was an offshore playground for Mafia dons and sugar barons, gangsters and generals carousing amid the roulette wheels while peasants toiled in the cane fields. Paradise Lost. Be not afraid. Trump has the team to turn back the clock.

Socialism didn’t just nationalise assets; Cuba reclaimed dignity, dodging the fate of a permanent Americano brothel. The reprisal? The Bay of Pigs bloodbath, a six-decade embargo tighter than a drum, whispers of invasion perennially on the wind. Rubio’s ire isn’t bungled governance; it’s the gall of autonomy. Now Venezuela’s shell is broken, Havana may well be next; Latin America is no mere backyard, but a type of professional wrestling tournament where Trump shows off US muscle.

China’s Jolt: Crude Hijacked, Chains Rattled

Beijing, too, savours the aftershock. Picture the tankers rerouted: China guzzles 60-90% of Venezuela’s exports, some 470,000 barrels daily. That’s 4-7% of its total crude thirst, a sliver that balloons to strategic heft in a 30-35% import pool menaced by US writ (Iran in the crosshairs too).

Trump’s hijack doesn’t just nick barrels; it disrupts The Panda’s supply lines, spiking costs and forcing frantic diversification. Beijing’s Foreign Ministry thunders condemnation, pledging legal armour for billions in PDVSA loans, but the calculus shifts: no Taiwan gambit while Washington clutches the taps.

Trump: Puppet or Pyromaniac for Neocon Zealots?

Spare us the fairy tale about “transactions”.

Trump isn’t negotiating. He is issuing demands. He is the public face for a crowd that thinks power makes the rules. Stephen Miller says the quiet part out loud: America has “rights” to Greenland, and the military is “always an option”. That is not diplomacy. It is threat.

Greenland is the test case.

If the United States says it can take what it wants from an ally’s territory, then NATO is no longer a defensive pact. It becomes a protection racket. Denmark’s Prime Minister is right to spell out the obvious: if an ally is the aggressor, Article 5 becomes meaningless. The alliance stops. The guarantee dies. The post-war settlement cracks.

Europe can see it. Britain, France, Germany can mouth support for Denmark’s sovereignty, but the damage is already done. You cannot demand unity on Ukraine while leaning on a founding member with a bully’s grin. You cannot preach rules and practise coercion.

This is the return of gunboats.

The language changes first. “Rights” becomes a blank cheque. “Security” becomes a pretext. “Options” becomes a threat. Then the map changes. Resources become the prize: minerals, oil, shipping lanes, bases, ice. Sovereignty becomes conditional. Obedience buys “stability”. Independence buys punishment.

Greenlanders don’t want American rule. Danes are no longer sure America is a safe partner. That is what this behaviour produces: distrust, hedging, rearmament, fragmentation. Not order. Not peace. Not alliance.

And it’s the same playbook in Venezuela.

Venezuela’s mistake was not incompetence alone. It was disobedience. It traded with Russia and China. It tried to keep control of its crude and its policy. For that, it was put in a vise. Sanctions dressed up as morality. Pressure dressed up as rescue. A national oil company turned into a target.

The aim is simple: break the state, break the industry, and decide the terms of recovery. Not to “liberate” Venezuelans, but to control the output, the contracts, and the alignments. To make sure rivals don’t benefit. To make sure the price, and the leverage, stays where Washington wants it.

Call it what it is.

Greenland is not a quirky real estate stunt. Venezuela is not a humanitarian project. They are chapters in the same doctrine: America takes, others comply, and law follows power like a dog behind a ute.

If you keep pretending it’s “dealmaking”, you help the fraud along.

Name the grip. Or live inside it.

This article was originally published on URBAN WRONSKI WRITES 

January 11, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, SOUTH AMERICA, USA | Leave a comment

Venezuela today. Greenland tomorrow?

9 Jan 26, https://secure.declassifieduk.org/page/email?mid=8c66e2426c734ac1a627c6af5564d142

During the early hours of Saturday morning, US forces bombed Venezuela and kidnapped its president, Nicolás Maduro.

The objective, according to US president Donald Trump, was to secure access to Venezuela’s massive oil reserves and assert US domination over the hemisphere, pushing out geopolitical rivals like China, Russia, and Iran.

Venezuelan authorities will soon be “turning over between 30 and 50 MILLION Barrels of High Quality Oil… to the United States of America”, Trump wrote on social media.

The Trump administration also told Venezuela’s interim president Delcy Rodriguez that “the country must kick out China, Russia, Iran, and Cuba and sever economic ties”, according to ABC News.

Keir Starmer, a former human rights lawyer, has repeatedly refused to be drawn on whether the kidnapping of a foreign head of state was a violation of international law.

“Are we willing to risk damaging our most important economic and national security partnerships as a result [of condemning Trump]?”, the prime minister reportedly asked colleagues.

Yvette Cooper, Britain’s foreign secretary, could only bring herself to say that she had “raised the importance of complying with international law” with her US counterpart, Marco Rubio.

Yet pressure is mounting on Starmer’s government to respond in concrete terms to the attack, with UN human rights chief Volker Turk now spelling out its brazen illegality.

“It is clear that the operation undermined a fundamental principle of international law – that States must not threaten or use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”, he said in a statement on Wednesday.


With the dust still settling in Caracas, Trump has now turned his imperial gaze to Greenland, a semi-autonomous Arctic territory of the kingdom of Denmark, which is a member of NATO.

The White House says it has been discussing “a range of options” to acquire Greenland, including military force, referring to the issue as a “national security priority”. 

Greenland might seem quite apart from Venezuela in geographical, political, and cultural terms, but the US government has long folded both regions into its designs for hemispheric domination.

After the German invasion of Denmark in April 1940, US secretary of state Cordell Hull declared “Greenland is within the area embraced by the Monroe Doctrine”, an 1823 doctrine which has been repeatedly relied upon to assert US hegemony in the Americas

During the Cold War, the US army stationed 48 surface-to-air nuclear weapons and air-to-air missiles at Thule air base on Greenland, while a US army research and development facility was established beneath the territory’s icecap.

Washington’s current interest in Greenland, however, has more to do with its location for military purposes, the opening of trade routes in the Arctic Ocean (which will increase in importance amid climate change) and the island’s richness in critical minerals like lithium and cobalt.

While Starmer reserved judgment on Trump’s illegal attack on Venezuela, he has signed a joint statement alongside France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and Denmark, affirming “Greenland belongs to its people”.

But will Starmer actually take any meaningful action to stand up to Trump? “Nobody’s going to fight the US over the future of Greenland”, said Trump’s aide Stephen Miller on Tuesday. He might just be right.

January 11, 2026 Posted by | ARCTIC, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Golden Dome changes both NATO and the EU.

Now the wording is changed to: “The United States will deter – and defend its citizens and critical infrastructure – against any airstrike against its territory“. The level of ambition has been raised significantly.

Av Ingolf Kiesow, The Royal Swedish Academy of War Sciences (Kungliga Krigsvetenskapsakademien 22 dec 2025

SIPRI’s 2024 yearbook is titled “Role of nuclear weapons grows as geopolitical relations deteriorate.” The content of that statement has grown in importance in 2025.

Golden Dome

On January 27, 2025, just a few days after taking office for a new term as President of the United States, Donald Trump signed an “Executive Order” to the US Department of Defense – now called the “War Department” – to build a missile defense system, what he later came to call “The Golden Dome”.

According to a statement by the then Department of Defense (now the “Ministry of War”), the Golden Dome will “unify a range of capabilities to create a system of systems to protect the United States from air attack by any aggressor“. Congress approved $24,5 billion for the purpose on September 5.

Donald Trump has said that this grant should be seen as a first installment and that the entire project should be fully operational before his presidential term ends.

He said in May that the total cost could be estimated at $175 billion. The Congressional Budget Office has since estimated that it will cost more than $500 billion. Other observers argue that the need to continuously replace satellites in the system, as Earth’s gravity pulls them out of orbit, means that the cost will exceed a trillion or several trillion dollars before it can be operational.

A first contract under Golden Dome was signed on November 4. Space X will receive $2 billion to build a system of 600 satellites with Lockheed Martin to create an “Air Moving Target Indicator (AMTI).” These low-altitude satellites will detect and track advanced threats from maneuvering glide missiles and stealth aircraft and then feed the data obtained into the US missile defense targeting system.

Congress has pointed out that the US missile defense strategy has so far been formulated as the US striving afterr “to defend against rogue states as well as against unauthorized or accidental missile launches while relying on nuclear weapons to deter China and Russia from striking American territory“.

Now the wording is changed to: “The United States will deter – and defend its citizens and critical infrastructure – against any airstrike against its territory“. The level of ambition has been raised significantly.

The relationship between the White House and Congress on the Golden Dome is marked by suspicion. In a statement, the Congressional Office laments that the administration has failed to provide the public with a detailed account of the project, has not held meetings with representatives of the business community, and has reportedly instructed military officials not to discuss the Golden Dome publicly.

Reactions to the Golden Dome

On May 8, China and Russia issued a joint statement criticizing the project for undermining the link between strategic offensive weapons and strategic defensive weapons, i.e. the very idea of ​​a nuclear balance. Russian press spokesman Peskov said that while a decision on Golden Dome is a sovereign matter for the United States, it is also in the common interest of both countries to create a new legal framework to replace the no longer functioning nuclear arms treaties between the United States and Russia.

However, as of the end of October 2025, no preparations for negotiations on US-Russian arms control have been initiated. Donald Trump is said to have said that it might be a good idea, but without wanting to discuss the matter in more detail. On January 5, 2026, the only Russian-American arms control agreement still in force, the so-called New START agreement, expires.

In addition to China and Russia, there has also been criticism in the West that the US is trying to make the US invulnerable to nuclear attack with Golden Dome and thereby create a strategic advantage. This would damage the balance that has so far rested on the theory of mutual deterrence, a concept that also presupposes a certain degree of mutual vulnerability.

China shows off its weapons

China celebrated the eightieth anniversary of its victory over Japan in World War II with a military parade in Beijing on October 3 of this year. The parade was characterized by three things: coordination with the authoritarian countries of the world, the focus of Chinese defense on preparations for a war with the United States, and the belief that the next war will be fought globally.

Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un sat on either side of Xi Jinping during the parade, and among the invited guests were a large majority of presidents and prime ministers from the global south.

The new weapons systems on display included new advanced fighter jets, tanks, hypersonic anti-ship missiles and long-range rocket artillery. Three different groups of missile systems were displayed: five nuclear-capable systems, three cruise missile systems and three hypersonic missile systems.

The direction has been interpreted abroad as a warning to the United States not to try to oppose a possible upcoming attempt to invade Taiwan and to keep the United States away from the waters along China’s coasts in the Pacific Ocean.

FOBS has been a headache for the Pentagon

The presence of a Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS) in both Russia and China has been a particular concern for Western defense forces in recent times. This is especially true since China conducted a pair of test flights in the summer of 2021, when a launch vehicle was launched into orbit around the Earth and a hypersonic glide missile was released, which re-entered the atmosphere on the other side of the world and hit a designated target. The launch vehicle remained in a relatively low-altitude orbit (around 150 kilometers) and the entire crew moved at hypersonic speed the entire way, making them very difficult – almost impossible – to detect and combat.

Some of the missiles displayed at the military parade may be included in FOBS, which would mean that production and supply to units is ongoing.

After China’s first hypersonic missile flight, it took the United States several years to build a similar system and get the missiles flying, which has been a major concern for the Pentagon. The lack of a US system to defend against FOBS has been explicitly cited by the Defense Intelligence Agency as one of the reasons for introducing Golden Dome.

Truce in the trade war with China, but not peace and no deal………………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………. Since NATO is designed to function under American leadership, Europe must now create its own organization in peacetime in order to be able to function without or at least with weakened support in wartime. That is the only conclusion that seems logical to draw in the light of this article. Whether such an adaptation can take place within the framework of NATO or can best be done within the EU or through the creation of an entirely new European defense organization has become a pressing question.

How Europe should dispose of its own nuclear weapons assets to deter Russia from attacking is also an issue that is now demanding attention even in peacetime.

Conclusions for Europe.

In any case, the connection between economic and military strength will play a central role. If the US fails to mobilize the financial resources required for Golden Dome and if the EU fails to find the means to both help Ukraine avoid defeat in the war with Russia and at the same time build up our own defenses, the situation may become difficult to manage.

Since Donald Trump came to power, however, the US has committed serious violations of international law, such as the prohibition of genocide in connection with its support for Israel’s war in Gaza and against the rules on freedom of the seas and human rights in connection with the killing of suspected smugglers from Venezuela and Colombia without prior trial. Being part of NATO and being part of the same alliance as the US is beginning to feel embarrassing to a European.

The nonchalance with the rules of international law also raises uncertainty about how serious the US is about its own membership in NATO and its obligations to help the EU preserve sovereignty over its territory.

Donald Trump’s fickleness and the uncertainty about what the investment in Golden Dome will entail create uncertainty for Europe and the rest of the “West”. For Europe, this means having to walk a balance between the desire not to lose the US as an ally in the long term and, on the other hand, the prospect of perhaps having to face a growing threat from Russia alone. In addition, the US may demand help in its power struggle with China, something that it is not in Europe’s interest to allocate resources to.

Can the EU prepare for a period of reduced American support without irreparably damaging the relationship with the US? Can the EU build a partnership with countries in the global south and even with China that resembles the world trade and payments system that functioned before Xi Jinping and Donald Trump came to power in their respective countries?

Puppet dreams? Yes, maybe, but what choice do we have?

The author is an ambassador and member of KKrVA. https://en.kkrva.se/golden-dome-forandrar-bade-nato-och-eu/

January 11, 2026 Posted by | EUROPE, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Nuclear Power: Private Sector -Question for UK government

Question for Department for Energy Security and Net Zero

UIN HL13206, tabled on 18 December 2025

 Lord Spellar: To ask His Majesty’s Government when they intend to publish a new framework for a private sector route to market for advanced nuclear
technologies.

Lord Vallance: The government will provide a framework that
will set out a pathway for privately led advanced nuclear projects, this framework will be published early this year.

 Hansard 6th Jan 2026 https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-12-18/HL13206

January 11, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

US will ‘fix’ Cuba and Nicaragua – Republican senator

7 Jan, 2026. https://www.rt.com/news/630708-us-senator-cuba-colombia-nicaragua-to-be-fixed/

Rick Scott issued threats to the socialist countries after American commandos abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro

Republican US Senator Rick Scott has said that Washington would install a new president in Colombia, as well as “fix” Cuba and Nicaragua.

He made the remarks in an interview with Fox Business, just days after US commandos abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, during a raid in Caracas.

US President Donald Trump described the operation as his enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine, designed to ensure Washington’s domination in the Western Hemisphere and said American companies must gain access to Venezuela’s rich oil reserves.

Trump’s actions would “change Latin America,” Scott told Fox on Wednesday. “We’re gonna fix Cuba, Nicaragua will be fixed. Next year, we’ll get a new president in Colombia,” the senator added, declaring that “democracy is coming back to this hemisphere.”

The US first imposed a trade blockade and sanctions on socialist-run Cuba and Nicaragua during the Cold War. Last year, Washington imposed restrictions on Colombia’s left-wing president, Gustavo Petro, whom Trump accused of aiding drug cartels. Petro denied the allegations and has heavily criticized Trump for ordering strikes on alleged narcotics smuggling boats in the Caribbean.

Asked by journalists aboard Air Force One on Sunday whether he was planning to attack Colombia, Trump replied, “It sounds good to me.”

Petro, a former member of a communist guerrilla group, denounced Trump’s threats. “I swore after the 1989 peace agreement never to touch a weapon again, but for the sake of the homeland, I will take up arms once more, even though I do not want to,” he wrote on X earlier this week.

The US Department of Justice indicted Maduro and Flores on drug-trafficking and weapons charges, to which they pleaded not guilty when they were brought before a New York judge on Monday. Venezuela condemned the US operation as a violation of its sovereignty, with Acting President Delcy Rodriguez denying that the country would be ruled by foreign powers.

January 11, 2026 Posted by | politics international, SOUTH AMERICA, USA | Leave a comment

Delcy Rodríguez swears to uphold sovereignty of the nation as acting president of Venezuela

Rodríguez promised to respect the constitution and uphold national sovereignty following the US attack on Venezuela, which left more than 80 people dead and resulted in the kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife.

January 08, 2026 by Pablo Meriguet, https://peoplesdispatch.org/2026/01/08/delcy-rodriguez-swears-to-uphold-sovereignty-of-the-nation-as-acting-president-of-venezuela/

On January 5, Delcy Rodríguez assumed the presidency of Venezuela. The former vice president swore before parliament that she would uphold the constitution and the sovereignty of the nation after the US attack on January 3, in which the US military took President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores prisoner.

The president of the National Assembly, Jorge Rodríguez, urged the president to protect Venezuela “for her honor, for the people of Venezuela, for the example of the Liberators of America to zealously guard our sacred territory.”

Delcy Rodríguez stated that she accepted the task under very difficult circumstances, but that she would not rest until Venezuela was a free, sovereign, and independent nation. “I come with pain for the suffering that has been caused to the Venezuelan people after an illegitimate military aggression against our homeland. [There are] two heroes whom we have as hostages in the United States of America: President Nicolás Maduro and the first combatant of this country, Cilia Flores,” she told Venezuelan parliamentarians.

Rodríguez also promised to ensure an administration that guarantees peace for Venezuelans: “[We will build] a government that provides social happiness, political stability, and political security. [I ask all sectors of Venezuelan society to] move Venezuela forward in these terrible times of threat to the stability and peace of the nation.”

Although Rodríguez initially stated in a Council of Ministers meeting that Venezuela has only one president, Nicolás Maduro, a Supreme Court ruling ordered the vice president to assume the office of president to avoid a power vacuum.

The weight of the most dangerous presidency on the planet

Rodríguez has insisted in her recent speeches that her administration does not imply a break with the Chavista process. In this regard, she has taken every opportunity to demand Maduro’s release and condemn the US military attack. On January 6, Rodríguez declared seven days of national mourning for the death of the “young martyrs” who “gave their lives defending Venezuela and President Nicolás Maduro.”

However, Rodríguez has now inherited an extremely difficult task while in the crosshairs of the most powerful army in the world. Trump himself demanded “full access” to natural resources, while warning of new attacks: “If [the new government] doesn’t behave, we will launch a second attack.”

Trump also stated that major US oil companies will begin operating in Venezuela and that, in addition to making significant profits, they will have to rebuild the South American country’s oil industry.

It is not yet clear what agreements Rodríguez has reached with a US administration that has demonstrated its military power and whose pressure on Caracas has reached levels of violence never before seen against Venezuela.

In this regard, with the threat of more deadly attacks on one hand, a virtually devastated air defense system on the other, and the top leader of Chavismo under arrest, Rodríguez does not have much room for maneuver or negotiation.

Hence, Trump has assured that Venezuela will deliver between 30 and 50 million barrels of oil (worth USD 2.8 billion) in the coming months, and news about the negotiations was confirmed by Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA on Wednesday, January 8.

However, it appears that the Trump administration also recognizes, for the time being, Chavismo as the primary national actor with whom it can negotiate and achieve its geopolitical and economic objectives. Trump has publicly rejected María Corina Machado as the new leader of Venezuela and the idea that elections should be called immediately.

But it is still too early to draw conclusions in a situation that remains unclear amid the dust of missiles, gunfire, and collapsed buildings following the January 3 attack. What is certain is that communication channels have not been closed, nor have the agreements that, it seems, will continue to be made to avoid a new military scenario.

January 11, 2026 Posted by | politics, SOUTH AMERICA | Leave a comment

Trump Abandonment of Global Treaties, Including Landmark Climate Deal, ‘Threatens All Life on Earth’

“Trump cutting ties with the world’s oldest climate treaty is another despicable effort to let corporate fossil fuel interests run our government.”

Jake Johnson, Jan 08, 2026, https://www.commondreams.org/news/trump-withdraws-global-treaties

President Donald Trump on Wednesday withdrew the United States from dozens of international treaties and organizations aimed at promoting cooperation on the world’s most pressing issues, including human rights and the worsening climate emergency.

Among the treaties Trump ditched via a legally dubious executive order was the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), making the US—the world’s largest historical emitter of planet-warming greenhouse gases—the first country to abandon the landmark agreement.

President Donald Trump on Wednesday withdrew the United States from dozens of international treaties and organizations aimed at promoting cooperation on the world’s most pressing issues, including human rights and the worsening climate emergency.

Among the treaties Trump ditched via a legally dubious executive order was the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), making the US—the world’s largest historical emitter of planet-warming greenhouse gases—the first country to abandon the landmark agreement.

The US Senate ratified the convention in 1992 by unanimous consent, but lawmakers have repeatedly failed to assert their constitutional authority to stop presidents from unilaterally withdrawing from global treaties.

Jean Su, energy justice director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement that “Trump cutting ties with the world’s oldest climate treaty is another despicable effort to let corporate fossil fuel interests run our government.”

“Given deeply polarized US politics, it’s going to be nearly impossible for the U.S. to rejoin the UNFCCC with a two-thirds majority vote. Letting this lawless move stand could shut the US out of climate diplomacy forever,” Su warned. “Withdrawing from the world’s leading climate, biodiversity, and scientific institutions threatens all life on Earth.”

Trump also pulled the US out of the International Institute for Justice and the Rule of Law, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the UN International Law Commission, the UN Democracy Fund, UN Oceans, and dozens of other global bodies, deeming them “contrary to the interests of the United States.”

The president’s move came as he continued to steamroll domestic and international law with an illegal assault on Venezuela and threats to seize Greenland with military force, among other grave abuses.

Below is the full list of international organizations that Trump abandoned with the stroke of a pen:


(a) Non-United Nations Organizations:

(i) 24/7 Carbon-Free Energy Compact;

(ii) Colombo Plan Council;

(iii) Commission for Environmental Cooperation;

(iv) Education Cannot Wait;

(v) European Centre of Excellence for Countering

Hybrid Threats;

(vi) Forum of European National Highway Research Laboratories;

(vii) Freedom Online Coalition;

(viii) Global Community Engagement and Resilience Fund;

(ix) Global Counterterrorism Forum;

(x) Global Forum on Cyber Expertise;

(xi) Global Forum on Migration and Development;

(xii) Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research;

(xiii) Intergovernmental Forum onMining, Minerals, Metals, and Sustainable Development;

(xiv) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change;

(xv) Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services;

(xvi) International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property;

(xvii) International Cotton Advisory Committee;

(xviii) International Development Law Organization;

(xix) International Energy Forum;

(xx) International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies;

(xxi) International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance;

(xxii) International Institute for Justice and the Rule of Law;

(xxiii) International Lead and Zinc Study Group;

(xxiv) InternationalRenewable Energy Agency;

(xxv) International Solar Alliance;

(xxvi) International Tropical Timber Organization;

(xxvii) International Union for Conservation of Nature;

(xxviii) Pan American Institute of Geography and History;

(xxix) Partnership for Atlantic Cooperation;

(xxx) Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combatting Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia;

(xxxi) Regional Cooperation Council;

(xxxii) Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century;

(xxxiii)Science and Technology Center in Ukraine;

(xxxiv) Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme; and

(xxxv) Venice Commission of the Council of Europe.

(b) United Nations (UN) Organizations:

(i) Department of Economic and Social Affairs;

(ii) UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) — Economic Commission forAfrica;

(iii) ECOSOC — Economic Commission forLatin America and the Caribbean;

(iv) ECOSOC — Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific;

(v) ECOSOC — Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia;

(vi) International Law Commission;

(vii) International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals;

(viii) InternationalTrade Centre;

(ix) Office of the Special Adviser on Africa;

(x) Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary General forChildren in Armed Conflict;

(xi) Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict;

(xii) Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence Against Children;

(xiii) Peacebuilding Commission;

(xiv) Peacebuilding Fund;

(xv) Permanent Forum on People of African Descent;

(xvi) UN Alliance of Civilizations;

(xvii) UN Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions fromDeforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries;

(xviii) UN Conference on Trade and Development;

(xix) UN Democracy Fund;

(xx) UN Energy;

(xxi) UN Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women;

(xxii) UN Framework Convention on Climate Change;

(xxiii) UN Human Settlements Programme;

(xxiv) UN Institute for Training and Research;

(xxv) UN Oceans;

(xxvi) UN Population Fund;

(xxvii) UN Register of Conventional Arms;

(xxviii) UN System Chief Executives Board for Coordination;

(xxix) UN System Staff College;

(xxx) UNWater; and

(xxxi) UN University.

Rachel Cleetus, policy director and lead economist for the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said Trump’s withdrawal from the world’s bedrock climate treaty marks “a new low and yet another sign that this authoritarian, anti-science administration is determined to sacrifice people’s well-being and destabilize global cooperation.”

“Withdrawal from the global climate convention will only serve to further isolate the United States and diminish its standing in the world following a spate of deplorable actions that have already sent our nation’s credibility plummeting, jeopardized ties with some of our closest historical allies, and made the world far more unsafe,” said Cleetus. “This administration remains cruelly indifferent to the unassailable facts on climate while pandering to fossil fuel polluters.”

January 10, 2026 Posted by | climate change, Legal, USA | Leave a comment

‘Year of bloodshed’: West Bank authorities record nearly 24,000 army, settler attacks on Palestinians in 2025

Around 35,000 trees have been uprooted or destroyed by illegal settlers this year, while 14 Palestinian citizens have been killed

News Desk, JAN 6, 2026, https://thecradle.co/articles-id/35236

Head of Palestine’s Colonization and Wall Resistance Commission (CWRC), Minister Muayyad Shaaban, said in a new report that over 23,000 attacks have been carried out on Palestinians by settlers and the Israeli army in the occupied West Bank this year.

According to the CWRC report, 2025 saw Israeli troops and illegal settlers commit 23,827 attacks across the territory.

“The attacks were categorized as follows: 1,382 targeted land and trees, 16,664 attacks targeted individuals, while 5,398 attacks targeted property,” the report reads.

“The Israeli army was responsible for 18,384 attacks, while colonizers carried out 4,723 attacks, and both parties together were involved in an additional 720 attacks,” Shaaban is quoted as saying during a press conference at CWRC headquarters in Ramallah.

The minister said 2025 was “a year marked by bloodshed.”

“The occupying power did not simply expand colonies; it aimed to redefine the very concept of control. That is, domination is no longer limited to physical land, but rather, it extends to reshaping geography, symbolism, and the entire existence of the Palestinian people,” he added.

As a result of this year’s violence in the occupied West Bank, 14 Palestinian citizens have been killed. 

Shaaban went on to say that 35,000 trees have been destroyed this year, and that settlers have caused 434 fires, which impacted Palestinian property and agriculture.

Meanwhile, land confiscation and settlement expansion are surging.

“Israeli occupation authorities effectively control approximately 41 percent of the West Bank, maintain a tight grip on nearly 70 percent of Area C, and control over 90 percent of the Jordan Valley through a comprehensive system of military orders and expropriation measures,” according to CWRC.

The 1993 US-sponsored Oslo Accords established the Palestinian Authority (PA) and its security forces, and gave the Palestinians limited autonomy in some parts of the occupied West Bank. This was said to be in preparation for the eventual establishment of a Palestinian state.

However, the accords did not end Israel’s military occupation and gave the Israeli government time to confiscate more Palestinian land and continue illegally expanding West Bank settlements. 

The agreement resulted in the splitting of the West Bank into areas A, B, and C. Area A gave the PA authority over civil and security matters, while Area B gave it control only over civil matters. In Area C, Israel was granted full control.

Since then, illegal settlements have continued to expand, including in Areas A and B.

Since the start of 2025, Israel has been occupying multiple West Bank refugee camps and has been carrying out a systematic campaign of destruction and displacement.

Tens of thousands of Palestinians have been uprooted from their homes in the occupied West Bank since the start of the year, mainly in Jenin, Tulkarem, and Tubas.

As army and settler violence surges, the government also continues to advance plans for illegally annexing the territory.

Bezalel Smotrich, Israel’s finance minister and staunch backer of the illegal settler movement, said on 30 December that Washington has given Tel Aviv “full support” to expand settlements in the occupied West Bank.

January 10, 2026 Posted by | Atrocities, Israel | Leave a comment

Analysts Warn Venezuela Invasion Could Empower Trump to Take Actions Elsewhere.

“The invasion of Venezuela is a blatant violation of international law,” “It is a prelude, potentially, to a long and violent conflict within Venezuela. And it’s a throwback to other times when leaders who had broken democracy, who had exploited their peoples in Haiti in 1915 or in Panama in 1989, became the fodder for further U.S. invasions and occupation.”

“We’re ready to go again if we have to,” Trump said in a press conference after the invasion. And not just against Venezuela. Trump has threatened military action in Colombia, Cuba, and Mexico.

The US’s first unilateral invasion in South America is Trump’s testing ground for military supremacy in the region.

By Michael Fox , Truthout, January 6, 2026

The bombs fell in the early hours of January 3. They cascaded over the city, one and then another. The bright orange explosions rocked Venezuela’s capital, Caracas, shaking people awake.

“The bombs lasted a while,” Caracas resident and community organizer Yanahir Reyes told Truthout. “And you could hear the helicopters, the planes. It was terrifying.”

The U.S. forces rained down fire — focused on the military barracks in the capital and nearby states, but also hitting surrounding neighborhoods.

Videos of the invading forces spiraled quickly onto social media. Countless videos of the bombs falling, people screaming, trying to make sense of it all, while the explosions shook buildings and destroyed homes. And the sound of the arrival of the U.S. forces echoed across the city.

Shock. Fear. Confusion………………………………………

This was the invasion that Donald Trump had vowed for months. An invasion that U.S. administrations had threatened for years and decades, going all the way back to President George W. Bush.

And it marked the U.S. once again deploying direct military action in other countries in the region. A return to President Theodore Roosevelt’s gunboat diplomacy, where the United States pushes its agenda and its interests by force. The Monroe Doctrine on steroids, or what Trump has called it his own “Donroe Doctrine” — Donald plus Monroe.

It is a terrifying precedent. It is the first time the United States has taken unilateral military action against a nation in Latin America in more than 35 years. Many analysts and Latin Americans had hoped this bellicose foreign policy and direct U.S. aggression had been relegated to the history books.

But those playbooks have been dusted off and are being used again, echoing the December 20, 1989, U.S. invasion of Panama. And it was a copy and paste job — give or take some minor alterations.

“The invasion of Venezuela is a blatant violation of international law,” John Lindsay-Poland told Truthout. He’s the author of the book Emperors in the Jungle, about the history of U.S. intervention in Panama and the 1989 invasion. “It is a prelude, potentially, to a long and violent conflict within Venezuela. And it’s a throwback to other times when leaders who had broken democracy, who had exploited their peoples in Haiti in 1915 or in Panama in 1989, became the fodder for further U.S. invasions and occupation.”

As the 1989 invasion of Panama would be considered a training exercise for the ensuing U.S. wars in the Middle East, the Venezuelan invasion on January 3 was Trump’s testing ground for military supremacy in the region.

“We’re ready to go again if we have to,” Trump said in a press conference after the invasion. And not just against Venezuela. Trump has threatened military action in Colombia, Cuba, and Mexico.

“We should be concerned,” says Steve Ellner, an associate managing editor of the journal Latin American Perspectives, who taught for decades at the Universidad de Oriente in Venezuela. “And we should be concerned because this is meant to send a message way beyond Venezuela, not only way beyond Venezuela in the region, but worldwide.”

1989 Panama Invasion

On December 20, 1989, U.S. President George H.W. Bush ordered the U.S. invasion of Panama. Twenty-six thousand U.S. troops invaded the country. They rained down fire and bombs — attacking the barracks of the Panama Defense Forces in the capital of Panama City and other areas.

The U.S.’s goal was to capture President Manuel Noriega on drug trafficking charges.

Neighborhoods like Panama City’s El Chorrillo went up in smoke. Twenty-thousand homes burned. U.S. forces killed hundreds of people. They dumped bodies into mass graves.

When I visited El Chorrillo in late 2023 to report for the episode of my podcast Under the Shadow about the U.S. invasion, I saw the open wounds that still remain. The bullet holes left by U.S. troops. The pain in people’s voices as they remember that night and the subsequent U.S. occupation.

“So many innocent people died,” said resident Omar Gonzalez, who was only 12 at the time and watched fires engulf homes. “Friends of ours. Children we knew. People. Men and women. Some people who were sleeping at that moment. Elderly people who couldn’t stand up or run away because they lived close to the barracks. And this is the history. It’s painful, more than anything else.”

U.S. forces killed more than 500 people. Victims and their families are still demanding justice. Large murals cover walls, like one depicting a U.S. helicopter flying over rubble engulfed in flames. It reads: “Never forget. Never forgive.”

The Panama invasion marked a new era for U.S. foreign policy in the region in a number of ways………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://truthout.org/articles/analysts-warn-venezuela-invasion-could-empower-trump-to-take-actions-elsewhere/?utm_source=Truthout&utm_campaign=7f1612e76d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2026_01_06_10_12&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bbb541a1db-7f1612e76d-650192793

January 10, 2026 Posted by | SOUTH AMERICA, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

‘No more annexation fantasies’ Greenland PM responding to Trump’s threats

The Cradle News Desk, JAN 5, 2026, https://thecradle.co/articles/no-more-annexation-fantasies-greenland-pm-responding-to-trumps-threats

US imperial ambitions directed at an EU member were met with coordinated diplomatic pushback and explicit warnings against altering borders by force.

Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, on 5 January, publicly rejected renewed threats by US President Donald Trump calling for US annexation of Greenland, warning Washington to “stop the threats against a historically close ally.” 

“It makes absolutely no sense to talk about the US needing to take over Greenland,” Frederiksen said, stressing that “the US has no right to annex any of the three countries in the Danish Kingdom.”

The Danish PM noted that Denmark, “and thus Greenland,” is a NATO member and protected by the alliance’s collective security guarantees.

Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen also responded on the same day through social media, issuing a blunt warning. 

“That’s enough now,” he wrote, followed by a firmer rejection saying “No more pressure. No more insinuations. No more fantasies of annexation.”

Nielsen emphasized that Greenland remains open to engagement but set clear limits, saying “We are open to dialogue. We are open to discussions,” adding that any talks must take place “through the proper channels and with respect for international law.”

The dispute centers on Trump’s repeated claims that Greenland should become part of the US, a position he reiterated while speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One and in a separate interview with The Atlantic.

Trump framed his remarks around security concerns, saying, “We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security,” and asserting that Denmark “is not going to be able to do it.”

He also suggested the issue could be revisited soon, stating, “We’ll worry about Greenland in about two months … let’s talk about Greenland in 20 days.”

The timing of Trump’s remarks heightened concern in Europe, with his comments following US military action in Venezuela and the the abduction of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, and transferring them to US soil for “trial”, events that, according to reports, raised fears that similar logic could be applied elsewhere.

Additional backlash followed a social media post by Katie Miller, a former Trump aide, who shared an image of Greenland colored like the US flag with the caption “SOON.” 

Nielsen called the post “disrespectful,” writing that “our country is not for sale, and our future is not decided by social media posts.”

European leaders, including those of Finland, Sweden, and Norway, voiced support for Denmark, while France’s Foreign Ministry warned that “borders cannot be changed by force.”

France said that it stands in solidarity with Denmark and Greenland and rejects any attempt to alter borders by force, reaffirming that Greenland’s future is for its people and Denmark to decide.

January 10, 2026 Posted by | ARCTIC, politics international | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »