Kyiv mayor: Nearly 1,940 apartment blocks still without heating

January 23, 2026

1,940 apartment blocks still without heating - Kyiv mayor — People warm themselves in an emergency service tent in a residential neighbourhood of Kyiv yesterday

Winter Under Siege: Kyiv’s Second Blackout and a City That Keeps Turning Toward Warmth

When the heat left Kyiv this week, it wasn’t the kind of silence that comes from doors closing on an apartment. It was the sudden hush of radiators gone cold, the low hum of refrigerators that becomes conspicuously loud, the paper-thin clatter of children’s shoes in hallways that were supposed to be warm. As of this morning, Mayor Vitali Klitschko reported that 1,940 apartment buildings were still without heating after another Russian airstrike—a brutal reprise for families who thought they had just been put back on the grid after attacks in early January.

“We are reconnecting buildings for the second time in two weeks,” Mr Klitschko wrote on Telegram, a small administrative note that reads like the chronicle of a city that must relearn basic comforts every few days.

A city of steam and short breaths

Walk through Kyiv now and you’ll see it in the small things: steam rising from manhole covers like the city’s own breath, scarves pulled up to noses on buses running at half-capacity, and neighbors trading tea thermoses on stairwells. Outside a Soviet-era block in the Obolon district, a group of pensioners clustered around a mobile electric heater in a courtyard, their cheeks pink from the cold.

“You learn how to sleep with two layers,” said Olena, 68, who has lived in the same two-room apartment for forty years. “But it’s not the cold I fear. It’s when the heat might not come back at all.”

Temperatures across much of Ukraine have been well below 0°C, the kind of weather that turns a power cut into an immediate humanitarian problem. With more than one million households in Kyiv reported without electricity by President Volodymyr Zelensky earlier this week, what began as a military strike on infrastructure spilled instantly into the domestic realm: no heating, no hot water, no light for medical equipment or for those working from home.

Damage beyond the capital

Kyiv was not the only city that felt the shock. The latest strikes hit energy facilities and other critical infrastructure in Vinnytsia, Dnipro, Odesa, Zaporizhzhia, Poltava and Sumy regions, according to official briefings. For residents in these cities, the strikes are not abstract acts on a map; they are interrupted commutes, schools running on emergency generators, and supply chains that spring leaks.

“These attacks are aimed to break the routine of civilian life,” a Kyiv-based humanitarian coordinator told me. “When a power line falls, it doesn’t only take out a city block. It takes out hospitals’ ability to sterilize equipment, bakeries’ ovens, and the small shops that feed neighborhoods.”

Energy as a front line

Russia has framed the strikes as targeting the energy infrastructure that supposedly fuels Ukraine’s “military-industrial complex.” Kyiv fires back with stronger language, calling the deliberate targeting of civilian energy systems a war crime. The rhetorical divide—military necessity versus collective punishment—doesn’t change the immediate arithmetic of suffering.

Analysts say that damaging energy networks during winter has a multiplier effect: repair crews need safe access, spare parts, and time—three commodities that grow scarce under the threat of repeated strikes. “An electricity grid is like a living organism,” said Dr. Petro Lysenko, an energy systems analyst who has been monitoring Ukraine’s grid resilience. “You can patch it, reroute it, and isolate damaged nodes. But continuous attacks degrade not just hardware but institutional capacity—personnel fatigue, depleted materials, and the erosion of contingency plans.”

On the ground, improvised warmth

In neighborhoods where official reconnection lags, civic resilience becomes the thermostat. Volunteers set up warming centers in school gyms and cultural houses. Small businesses open back rooms as refuge spaces. A bakery in Holosiiv, for example, switched its ovens toward community service for two days, handing out loaves to elderly residents and hot tea to anyone who needed it.

“We are not waiting for miracle repairs,” said Marta, a volunteer organizing a warming point. “We bake, we share, we call the neighbors. It’s the only way to keep going and to keep hope alive.”

1,940 apartment buildings in Kyiv without heating (as of this morning)
More than 1,000,000 households in Kyiv reported without power after the strikes (per President Zelensky)
Regions affected include Vinnytsia, Dnipro, Odesa, Zaporizhzhia, Poltava, and Sumy

Collateral flames and cross-border consequences

The ripple extends beyond Ukraine. In Russia’s Penza region, debris from a downed drone reportedly struck an oil depot, causing a fire—one of four drones intercepted by air defenses, according to the regional governor Oleg Melnichenko. Authorities said there were no injuries, and emergency services were on the scene. The image is grim and global in its symbolism: fragments of a conflict that began on one border can set alight infrastructure on the other, illustrating how modern conflict can spill across lines in unpredictable ways.

Diplomacy moves as sirens wail

As rockets and drones carved their marks across infrastructure, diplomats moved across deserts. Ukrainian, U.S., and Russian officials convened in the United Arab Emirates for security talks this week—work accelerated after a U.S.-drafted plan to end the war was discussed in Moscow by top U.S. negotiators with President Putin. Diplomacy, it seems, is trying to outrun a missile clock.

“Talks are necessary, even urgent,” said a senior Western diplomat who asked not to be named given the sensitivity of the discussions. “But negotiations won’t stick if the weapons keep arriving each week. What will hold any peace is the protection of civilians—not just words.”

What does this mean for the rest of the world?

When energy and civic infrastructure become targets, the damage is not only local. Global energy markets pay attention. Humanitarian flows—donors, aid logistics, refugee routes—are reshaped. And the norms of war, long tested but essential, strain under new tactics. Europe has watched as its deadliest conflict since World War II grinds on, and many question what deterrence looks like in a world where electricity is as strategic as ammo.

Ask yourself: would our cities be resilient enough to handle prolonged outages? How should the international community protect critical civilian infrastructure in an era of long-distance, low-cost strikes? These are not hypothetical questions for Ukrainians; they are urgent operational problems.

For Kyiv’s residents, the calculations are more immediate. The city’s reconnection efforts offer relief, if only temporarily. But the broader human story is of people who stitch their lives back together every morning with tea, shared generators, and the stubborn domestic rituals that declare, “We will not let our lives be defined only by what flies overhead.”

Closing

In the stairwell where Olena lives, a child slammed a door and laughed despite the cold, a small sound against a hard week. “If we can still laugh,” she said, “then someone still believes we will be warm again.” In the interim, Kyiv keeps reconnecting—apartment by apartment, person by person—because cities are, at their best, made of the ordinary things people cannot afford to lose: light to read by, warmth to sleep under, and the company of neighbors who will share a cup of tea in the dark.

Denmark signals quick start to U.S. talks on Greenland

hanad

January 23, 2026

Talks with US on Greenland to start quickly - Danish FM — Greenland's prime minister said allies would have to step up their commitment to Arctic security

The Day Greenland Stepped Into the Global Spotlight

There is a hush over Nuuk that feels almost ceremonial: the soft clack of boots on wet pavement, the distant creak of a fishing trawler, and the plume of warm breath in arctic air. For decades, Greenland’s vast white silence has been its shield; now that silence is breaking up into a conversation the world can no longer ignore.

Diplomatic channels are warming up, Danish officials say. Meetings between Denmark, Greenland and the United States to redraw — or at least clarify — the terms of American military access to the Arctic are expected to begin soon. But the Danish foreign minister when I spoke with him in Copenhagen insisted on one thing: these talks must be removed from the fevered glare of headlines.

“We will start those discussions quickly,” he told me, rubbing his temples. “But we will not send them live on social media. This isn’t about spectacle. It’s about security.”

Why Greenland?

Ask a schoolchild in Nuuk or a diplomat in Brussels and you’ll get the same short answer: geography. Greenland is the world’s largest island — roughly 2.16 million square kilometers — three quarters of it a humming white fortress of ice. It sits like a gatekeeper between North America, Europe and the Arctic Ocean; its northern bays and airstrips, historically sparse and strategically brittle, have in recent years become linchpins of global strategy.

Beyond the maps are deeper stakes. Greenland’s surface is 80% ice sheet; its population is small — roughly 56,000 people, most of them Inuit — and clustered along the coasts. Yet beneath the ice and gravel lie minerals and metals that the renewable and defense industries covet: rare earths, uranium and other “critical minerals” that global supply chains have taxed and fought over.

Climate change speeds the shift. The Arctic is warming at approximately four times the global average, opening stretches of ocean that once were impassable and exposing resources once locked beneath centuries of ice. Shipping lanes shorten, seasonal windowing expands, and the geostrategic calculus rewrites itself.

On the Ground in Nuuk: “Sovereignty Is a Red Line”

I met a small-group of local leaders in a community hall whose walls were papered with photographs of seals, family gatherings, and hunting trips. Jens-Frederik Nielsen — Greenland’s prime minister — was direct. “We’ve been part of Denmark’s kingdom for many years,” he said, folding his hands. “But this island has a people. We will discuss partnership, we will discuss security, but sovereignty is a red line.”

He’s not alone in that view. A fisherman I met in Ilulissat, bundled in a patched parka, shook his head when I mentioned talk of “total access.”

“You don’t just come and take a place where my grandparents charted the coast,” he said, voice steady. “We know the seas. We know the storms. This is not a parking lot.”

Those words reveal two realities at once: pride in local identity and anxiety about being a pawn in a bigger game. Greenlanders I spoke with — teachers, shopkeepers, hunters — share a desire for economic opportunity. They also want respect for local governance and rights over land and resources.

Washington’s Calculus

From the U.S. perspective, the Arctic is no longer peripheral. Military planners point to the island’s northern bases — most notably the airfield at Pituffik, known to many by the name of its American custodian, Thule — as vital nodes for early-warning systems, satellite tracking and transatlantic reach.

A U.S. official, speaking on background, described the approach bluntly: “We need assured access to key facilities. We’re not looking to erase sovereignty. We’re looking for long-term, predictable partnerships that keep the Arctic secure.”

That language sounds reasonable, yet the heat in public rhetoric has stoked fear. The president’s aides have at times spoken of “lasting access,” language that, stripped of diplomatic nuance, can sound dangerously absolute. That’s why Danish officials have insisted the island’s status under international law is not on the table.

Allies, Adversaries, and the New Arctic Order

In Brussels and across European capitals, leaders are recalibrating. The European Union has acknowledged a need to reinforce the Arctic’s security architecture and to invest more in Greenland’s economy. Officials say the EU plans to increase financial support to the island and to coordinate defense investments with partners such as Canada, Norway and Iceland.

“We underestimated how quickly the Arctic would matter to the 21st-century security environment,” an EU foreign policy advisor told me. “Now we must catch up — but must do so with diplomacy and respect for local choice.”

But this isn’t simply a transatlantic quarrel. Moscow and Beijing’s growing activity in the High North provides urgency. Russia has modernized northern bases and naval capacity, and Chinese companies have invested in ports and mining projects across the Arctic rim. That combination — Russian military posture and Chinese economic reach — has European and American planners uneasy.

What’s on the Table

Updated military access agreements for existing bases, with clearer operational rules;
Proposed restrictions on certain foreign investments in strategic sectors;
Financial packages to boost local infrastructure and resilience in Greenlandic communities;
Cooperation on search-and-rescue, environmental monitoring and ice forecasting.

Any such package faces a delicate political tightrope: balancing defense imperatives with local sovereignty and environmental stewardship.

Voices from the Arctic Frontline

“We want partners, not proprietors,” said Aqqaluk Petersen, a young mayor from a fishing town near the Jakobshavn glacier. “Investment could mean jobs and better hospitals. But if decisions are taken in rooms where no Greenlandic voice sits, then there will be resistance.”

A retired U.S. military planner I met in Copenhagen put it more plainly: “Long-term presence requires a long-term consent. You can’t bolt strategy onto a community and call it security.”

Why This Matters to You

If you live in London, Shanghai or Minneapolis, Greenland might still seem “far away.” But the island’s fate is tied to global concerns: rising seas driven by melting ice, the security of maritime trade routes, and the supply chains for the technologies that power daily life — smartphones, electric cars, wind turbines. Who controls access to these resources, and under what rules, will ripple across economies and ecosystems.

So let me ask: do we want brittle deals struck in flashpoints of political theater, or carefully negotiated frameworks that sit on respect, environmental safeguards and local consent?

What Comes Next

Diplomats will meet. Military planners will run options on maps. Greenlanders will push for terms that protect home and culture. European capitals will hedge, seeking both transatlantic cooperation and an independent strategic posture. It will be messy, and it will take time.

But perhaps that messiness is healthy — an opportunity to craft something better than a headline-grabbing tantrum. If Arctic security is the problem, then the solution must be strategic, rooted in law, and attentive to the people who live where the ice meets the sea.

“We are at the beginning of a conversation,” Jens-Frederik Nielsen told me as we left the hall. “If the world wants Greenland as an asset, it must treat Greenland as a partner.”

That is a simple demand, and perhaps the most difficult to grant: behind sovereignty and strategy lies a human ledger — a ledger of homes, livelihoods and futures. Will global powers write the next chapter with humility and patience? Or will they repeat old mistakes and assume might alone rewrites right?

For everyone watching: this is not just a negotiation over turf. It’s a test of how the world makes rules in an era where climate change redraws maps faster than diplomacy can. Greenland’s silence is over. The question for the rest of us: will we listen?

Spain Confirms Final Death Toll in Train Disaster: 45 Fatalities

hanad

January 23, 2026

Final death toll from Spain's rail disaster is 45 — Of those 45 people, all are Spanish apart from three women from Morocco, Russia and Germany, according to the latest update

A country stunned: the human cost behind the headlines

The sun set over whitewashed Andalusian hills as families lit candles and placed them on kitchen tables, on village church steps, at the corners of narrow streets where neighbors lingered and whispered. Spain, a land of festivals and crowded summer trains, found itself holding its breath: two more bodies pulled from the twisted metal of a high-speed train have pushed the official death toll to 45.

It is hard to make sense of numbers when grief is local and immediate. For the people of Adamuz, a town best known for its dusty olive groves and Sunday markets, the list of names is not a statistic but a row of chairs kept empty at funerals. “He used to joke that trains were as much a part of Spanish life as siestas,” said María López, who grew up with one of the victims. “Now we can’t sit through the silence.”

What happened on the rails?

The catastrophe unfolded on a stretch of renovated, straight track in southern Andalusia, where a modern Iryo service derailed and crossed into the path of a Renfe high-speed train. Emergency teams spent days combing through wreckage, and forensic coordinators—tasked with a grim and delicate job—confirmed the final recoveries this week.

More than 120 people were hurt in the crash, official coordinators say; among the 45 dead, most were Spanish citizens, with three foreign victims identified as women from Morocco, Russia and Germany. The scale of the disaster—Spain’s deadliest rail accident in over a decade—has reopened uncomfortable questions about how such tragedies occur on tracks deemed safe and modern.

Two separate incidents, one shaken system

As the nation mourned, other incidents compounded the sense of crisis. Near Cartagena in Murcia, a passing commuter train was struck by a crane arm that swung into its windows—an accident that left six people with minor injuries. In Catalonia, a commuter service outside Barcelona collided with a retaining wall that collapsed onto the tracks after heavy rain; one train driver was killed and 37 passengers were injured.

These back-to-back events prompted the suspension of Barcelona’s Rodalies commuter network for safety checks, leaving hundreds of thousands of daily users stranded and tentative riders asking: can we trust our trains again?

Voices from the ground: grief, anger, and urgent questions

At a packed mass in honor of David Cordón, a former international beach football player killed in the crash, sorrow turned sharply to demands for answers. “David loved life. He would never have imagined ending like this,” said Ana Ruiz, a longtime friend. “We need to know why. We need to know who is responsible.”

Across towns and cities, the mood is less ceremonial and more insistent. “People are scared,” said José Navarro, a commuter from Valencia who rides high-speed lines weekly. “It’s not just about this train. It’s about whether maintenance, weather preparedness and human oversight are up to scratch.”

From the union side, Diego Martín Fernández, secretary general of the Semaf drivers’ union, has been blunt: “To restore public confidence, we need guarantees. The safety checks must be thorough and transparent—procedures cannot be bypassed in the name of speed or schedules.” Semaf has called a national strike for 9–11 February, citing repeated safety failings. The union says the workforce won’t return to stations without firm commitments.

Officials respond—but questions remain

Transport Minister Óscar Puente, speaking in Madrid, insisted he would negotiate with unions to avoid the strike and emphasized that the recent tragedies are not linked. “We must be careful not to conflate unrelated events,” he said, while also promising full investigative resources. “We owe the families the truth.”

Investigators describe the Andalusian collision as “extremely strange”—a loaded phrase when you consider the stretch involved had been recently renewed and was straight and level. That description has deepened suspicion and frustrated relatives who crave clarity and accountability.

How big is Spain’s high-speed system?

Spain is proud of its rail network: it operates one of the world’s largest high-speed systems, with over 3,000 kilometers of dedicated high-speed lines connecting Madrid to cities across the peninsula. Millions of travelers rely on those routes for work, tourism and family. That scale makes systemic safety questions especially consequential, not only for Spaniards but for the many international visitors who use trains to explore the country.

Beyond the tracks: climate, maintenance and politics

Analysts point to a tangle of factors that can conspire to create disasters: aging infrastructure kept in motion by tight budgets, extreme weather that strains drainage and embankments, and the human errors that can arise in rushed operational cultures. Heavy rains were linked to the Barcelona-area incident; elsewhere, landslips and flooding have punctuated a wetter and more volatile climate pattern across southern Europe.

“Rail systems elsewhere have faced similar pressures,” said Dr. Elena Martínez, a transport safety expert at a Madrid university. “What matters is resilience—regular, documented maintenance; clear, respected safety procedures; and independent oversight that isn’t swayed by the need to meet timetables or political promises.”

Public faith in rail safety is a fragile commodity. In the immediate aftermath, many regular commuters reported switching to cars or buses, a short-term response with long-term consequences: more road congestion, higher emissions, and greater inequality for those without alternate transport options.

What happens next?

The investigative machinery is in motion: forensic teams, rail regulators and independent experts will examine black boxes, signaling records and maintenance logs. Families seek not only explanations but also systemic change so that other lives aren’t lost needlessly. Parliament is likely to demand hearings; unions will press for binding guarantees; and towns like Adamuz will measure each news update against the names of friends and neighbors they have already buried.

As you read this, ask yourself: what level of risk is acceptable in public transport? How much should speed and efficiency be weighed against maintenance and oversight? These are not just technical questions but civic choices about what we value as a society.

Small rituals, lasting questions

In the days following the crash, people left flowers at stations, candles along platforms, messages on benches. These gestures are small and human—an attempt to make order out of chaos, to anchor memory within place. They are also a reminder that infrastructure is more than concrete and steel; it is the web of routines and relationships that make daily life possible.

Spain will ultimately tally lessons learned and, we hope, implement them. Until then, the country mourns and waits, and relatives continue to search for names that might still be missing from lists. For those who board trains tomorrow, the landscape of travel feels different: quieter, more solemn, a little more uncertain. And for a nation that built one of the globe’s proudest rail systems, the urgent task is to ensure that speed and safety travel together—always.

Current official death toll: 45
Injured: more than 120
Spain’s high-speed network: over 3,000 km, one of the world’s largest
Rodalies commuter strike called by Semaf: 9–11 February

Cosmonaut Captures Breathtaking Aurora from Space — Watch the Video

hanad

January 23, 2026

Watch: Stunning aurora filmed from space by cosmonaut

When the Sky Turned Red: Riding a River of Light from Space to Shore

It began as a whisper on social feeds — a streak of crimson unfurling above the curvature of Earth — and quickly became a chorus. High-definition video from the International Space Station showed bands of light folding and flowing like a slow, otherworldly ocean. Back on the ground, people stepped out of kitchen doors and pubs, phones held up against cold air, mouths open in that soft, stunned silence that comes when something ordinary is made sacred.

“We were sailing inside that light,” wrote one of the crew members aboard the station, describing the sensation of watching the aurora from orbit. The video he sent — miles of red and green spilling beneath the ISS — made the familiar scientific explanation suddenly intimate: charged particles from the Sun, racing across space, colliding with atoms high in our atmosphere and turning invisible energy into color.

Why the lights looked like fire

Auroras are not a light show orchestrated for Instagram. They are the visible signature of space weather: when the Sun spews plasma in a coronal mass ejection or intensifies its solar wind, electrically charged particles spiral along Earth’s magnetic field and slam into oxygen and nitrogen atoms. The specific colors you see depend on which gases are struck and how high up the encounter happens. Oxygen gives us the familiar neon-green at roughly 100–150 kilometers above the surface; at higher altitudes, rarefied oxygen can yield an eerie red. Nitrogen supplies blues and purples.

“People marvel at the prettiness, but the physics is brutal and beautiful,” said Dr. Elena Vargas, a space-weather researcher. “What you’re watching is particles, sometimes traveling hundreds of kilometers per second, dumping energy into the atmosphere. The scale of that transfer is enormous.”

Storms, scales, and what “strongest in two decades” really means

News feeds called it the most intense geomagnetic storm in roughly 20 years — a shorthand that captures public imagination. In the technical language of space weather, storms are measured by indices such as Kp and categorized from G1 (minor) to G5 (extreme). When the aurora reaches latitudes normally reserved for mid-latitude countries — when people in Dublin or northern England see shimmering curtains — it generally signals a major disturbance in Earth’s magnetic environment.

These disturbances are more frequent during the Sun’s 11-year activity cycle. We are currently living in the upswing of Solar Cycle 25, which has produced above-average activity compared with some past cycles. That rising activity makes dramatic auroral displays a more common headline than they might have been a decade ago.

From the ISS to the Irish coast: moments and voices

The footage from space was arresting, but the human stories down below made it real. In a seaside town on Ireland’s west coast, a fisherman named Sean O’Mahony left his nets and walked out onto the pier with his wife and toddler.

“We’ve had Northern Lights before, but this — it looked like the sea had climbed the sky,” he said. “Molly wouldn’t stop laughing; she kept pointing and shouting, ‘more, more!’ It’s something you keep.”

In Galway, an amateur photographer named Aoife Brennan described balancing a tripod between gusts of wind to capture streaks of crimson above the distant outline of Connemara mountains. “People at the pub spilled out and began clapping like it was a concert. Someone started singing an old sean-nós tune. It felt like the whole town forgot its phone bills and went to look at the sky.”

Local color and folklore: how communities make meaning

Across cultures, auroras carry stories. In Irish folklore, the lights have been linked to the Otherworld — omens of change or the handiwork of fair folk. In the Arctic, Sámi and Inuit traditions have long woven auroral displays into myth, sometimes seeing them as spirits of the dead or as a sign to be treated with respect. Those narratives don’t clash with science; they layer human meaning atop cosmic mechanics.

Not just beautiful — potentially disruptive

For all the wonder, space weather has teeth. Strong geomagnetic storms can induce currents in long-distance power lines, interfere with GPS and satellite communications, and increase drag on low-Earth-orbit objects. Airlines sometimes reroute polar flights to avoid communication blackouts. In 1989, a geomagnetic storm collapsed Quebec’s power grid for hours. In 2003, the “Halloween storms” knocked out satellites and disrupted radio.

“A spectacular aurora is a telltale of energetic processes that can affect infrastructure,” warned Dr. Vargas. “We’re seeing more of these events as the Sun wakes up, and it’s a reminder that our technologies are embedded in a space environment.”

Quick facts: Auroras occur in roughly oval regions around Earth’s magnetic poles called auroral ovals.
Oxygen emissions: green at about 557.7 nm; red emissions at higher altitudes produce crimson tones.
Geomagnetic storm scale: G1 (minor) to G5 (extreme); the Kp index ranges from 0 to 9.

Why this matters beyond the spectacle

There’s a larger arc to this story: humanity’s relationship to a star that both sustains and sometimes disrupts modern life. As our dependence on satellites, global positioning systems, and electrical grids grows, so does our vulnerability to solar tantrums. Yet those same solar storms gift us some of the most profound natural beauty many of us will ever see.

Does that contradiction — vulnerability and beauty in the same event — change how we think about technology and nature? Perhaps. It nudges us to treat the sky not as a backdrop but as an active participant in our shared infrastructure and culture. It also requires investment: better forecasting, hardening of critical systems, and international cooperation to protect assets in space and on Earth.

When the next curtain falls

As you read this, scientists on the ground are combing through data from satellites and magnetometers, translating flickers on a screen into actionable forecasts. Amateur skywatchers are cleaning lenses and checking forecast maps. And somewhere, a child who watched the sky catch fire is likely to be a little more awake inside, carrying that image forward.

So, what will you do the next time the night seems to glow unnaturally? Will you step outside and wait with your neighbors? Will you look up and let a celestial phenomenon remind you how small and connected we all are?

When the Sun reaches for us with particles and light, the Earth answers with color — green, red, blue — and a moment of communal awe. In those moments, the border between science and story dissolves, and every observer becomes, briefly, a witness to the conversation between our planet and its star.

Interim Venezuelan leader Rodriguez to embark on an official US visit

hanad

January 23, 2026

Venezuela's interim leader Rodriguez set to visit US — Delcy Rodriguez would be the first sitting Venezuelan president to visit the United States in more than a quarter century

A Quiet Revolution in Diplomacy: Why a Venezuelan Visit to Washington Matters

There are moments when the air itself seems to rearrange. In Caracas, the late-afternoon heat takes on a different feeling—tenser, layered with possibility—when a foreign phone call becomes domestic policy. That is the mood now, after reports that the interim president of Venezuela, Delcy Rodríguez, has been invited to visit Washington. If the trip happens, it will be the first bilateral visit by a sitting Venezuelan head of state to the United States in more than 25 years, save for the routine passage of UN delegations to New York.

“We’re not talking about a courtesy call,” said a senior White House official, who asked not to be named because discussions are sensitive. “This would be a strategic, pragmatic engagement—very calibrated.”

Why the Visit Is Such a Big Deal

For decades, Venezuela and the United States have traded rhetoric as if it were industrial-grade fuel: hot, explosive, and capable of burning everything in its path. From the hawkish populism of Hugo Chávez to deep alliances with Tehran and Moscow, Caracas and Washington long operated like two giant ships orbiting different suns. Now, buoyed by economic pressures, shifting alliances, and the magnetic pull of Venezuela’s oil fields—estimated at roughly 300 billion barrels of proven reserves, the largest in the world—both capitals appear to be rethinking old scripts.

“This is less about handshakes and more about access,” said Marta Espinosa, a Caracas-based energy analyst. “Who controls the taps controls leverage. The United States wants predictable exports; Venezuela wants investment and legitimacy.”

Diplomacy, Sanctions, and the Art of the Possible

Delcy Rodríguez’s journey from an insider in Venezuela’s previous administrations to an interim leader engaging Washington is the sort of plot twist diplomats dream about. She is still reportedly subject to various sanctions and asset restrictions—a reminder that politics rarely cleans house overnight. But the invitation signals an American willingness to interact with a leader once branded untouchable.

“We’re in a process of dialogue, of working with the United States, without any fear, to confront our differences and difficulties,” Rodríguez said in a recent address. Whether that translates to relief from sanctions, easier foreign investment, or a stable route for oil exports is the question now hanging over both capitals.

There are practicalities behind the headline-grabbing optics. Since 2019 Washington has imposed significant sanctions on Venezuela, particularly targeting the state oil company and senior officials. Those measures were intended to pressure Nicolás Maduro’s government—accused by many in the international community of democratic backsliding—while avoiding a chaotic vacuum.

“Sanctions are blunt instruments,” said Benigno Alarcón, a political scientist at Andrés Bello Catholic University. “They can fracture elites, but they also hurt ordinary people. The United States appears to be trying a mixed strategy: pressure plus engagement.”

The Domestic Chessboard

Inside Venezuela, the invitation is a political litmus test. Hardliners—figures like Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello and Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López—still command loyalty in parts of the armed forces and the bureaucracy. Their stance toward opening up to Washington is far from monolithic.

“Some in the military see this as capitulation,” said a retired officer who now runs a coffee shop in La Guaira and asked that his name be withheld. “Others see the smell of dollars and foreign parts—that’s persuasive.”

Rodríguez has been reshuffling military leadership—appointing twelve senior officers to regional commands in recent days—moves that observers interpret as an attempt to solidify control while signaling continuity to both domestic and international audiences.

“Every promotion is a message,” the retired officer said. “It’s for the troops. It’s for the generals. It’s for the people watching from Miami and Madrid.”

Voices from the Street

Outside the corridors of power, Venezuelans are navigating a landscape of cautious optimism and bitter skepticism. In a market in eastern Caracas, vendors tally sales in bolívares and barter in hard currency. A fruit seller named Alba summed up the complex feelings: “If a plane brings investment, I will sell more oranges. If it brings war, I will sell them for my children’s safety.”

Opposition activists and democracy campaigners, who have long demanded full political freedoms and fresh, internationally supervised elections, worry that high-level diplomacy could paper over the need for accountability. “Any normalisation must include amnesty for political prisoners, truth, and a clear timetable for elections,” said Javier Morales, an activist whose brother remains detained. “Otherwise it’s a deal between elites.”

Geopolitics and the Global Ripples

Venezuela’s pivot—or partial pivot—toward engagement with Washington ripples beyond the Andean highlands. For Beijing, Moscow, Havana, and Tehran, who cultivated close ties with Caracas during its years of estrangement from the U.S., any warming with Washington represents both a strategic loss and a potential opening for renegotiated relationships.

“You can’t separate energy geopolitics from the broader architecture of the hemisphere,” said Dr. Isabel Romero, an international relations scholar in Bogotá. “The European Union, CARICOM, even Brazil and Colombia will watch closely. A negotiated path could defuse a humanitarian crisis that has pushed more than seven million Venezuelans into exile.”

Indeed, migration—estimated at roughly seven million people displaced since the crisis intensified in the 2010s—remains among the most pressing human consequences. Remittances, family separations, and brain drain are part of a long shadow that any diplomatic reset will have to acknowledge.

Questions for the Reader

What would you want to see from a diplomatic thaw between a superpower and a fractured nation? Are energy interests an acceptable starting point, or must human rights and democratic restoration be the non-negotiables? These are not rhetorical flourishes; they are the choices being negotiated in back rooms, on parade grounds, and in kitchens where people plan for another uncertain year.

What Comes Next

If the visit to Washington goes forward, it will not be a singular event but a test case: can transactional diplomacy be turned into something more durable? Can sanctions and incentives be calibrated to protect citizens without empowering bad actors? Can the international community encourage free elections and human rights while avoiding the pitfalls of ill-prepared regime change?

“Diplomacy is ugly, often slow, and always imperfect,” Dr. Romero said. “But it is better than the alternative—chaos. The key is to anchor any engagement in clear, measurable benchmarks.”

For now, Caracas waits. Markets and ministries adjust. Families watch the headlines with a mixture of hope and fatigue. And in Washington, diplomats run numbers and maps, aware that the fate of a nation—and perhaps the tone of hemispheric politics—may hinge on whether two leaders can find a language they both can live with.

Quick facts: Venezuela’s proven oil reserves are roughly 300 billion barrels—the largest on earth.
Migration: About 7 million Venezuelans have left the country since the crisis deepened in the 2010s (UN and IOM estimates).
Sanctions: Washington has used sanctions as a principal lever of policy toward Venezuela, particularly since 2017–2019.

Diplomacy is, at its best, an act of imagination. It asks opposite camps to picture a common future. Whether that imagination will be commanded by oil derricks or by ballot boxes is the unfolding story—one that will be written by politicians, generals, and ordinary people in market stalls, office towers, and family living rooms across the hemisphere.

Former Uvalde police officer acquitted in school shooting trial

hanad

January 22, 2026

Former officer acquitted in Uvalde school shooting trial — 19 students and two teachers were killed in the attack

Acquittal in Uvalde Case Reopens Wounds: A Town, a Trial, and the Question of Accountability

The courtroom exhaled before the word fell. When the verdict was read, Adrian Gonzales — the 52-year-old former Uvalde school district officer who stood at the center of a national debate about policing and public safety — bowed his head and pressed his palms to his face. Around him, lawyers offered pats on the shoulder. In the gallery, parents and siblings of the children and teachers killed at Robb Elementary sat frozen: some trembling, some wiping away tears, others staring as if trying to steady themselves against a wind that will not die down.

A jury in Corpus Christi found Gonzales not guilty on all 29 counts of criminal child endangerment, each count carrying a possible two-year sentence. After more than seven hours of deliberation, that verdict closed one chapter in a story that began in the small, sunbaked town of Uvalde, Texas, on 24 May 2022 — a day when 19 students and two teachers were murdered in one of the deadliest school shootings in American history.

What the trial centered on — and what it leaves unsettled

Gonzales was among the earliest of more than 400 officers who arrived at Robb Elementary that afternoon. Prosecutors argued that officers waited — for 77 minutes, in the government’s reckoning — before entering the classroom where the gunman had barricaded himself. In that gap, the assault on the children and teachers continued. The charge against Gonzales was not that he pulled the trigger; it was that his failure to act put children in immediate danger.

“They have decided he has to pay for the pain of that day and it’s not right,” defense attorney Jason Goss told jurors in closing, framing his client as one individual unfairly burdened with collective blame. Special prosecutor Bill Turner countered with a different moral calculus. “You can’t stand by and allow it to happen,” Turner told the jury, asking them to see Gonzales’s alleged inaction as criminally culpable.

Gonzales said he could not see the shooter and denied freezing; he insisted he did not leave the scene when response teams were organizing. The jury’s not-guilty finding suggests it did not find the prosecution’s case proved to the standard required in criminal court — beyond a reasonable doubt.

Courtroom scenes and small-town reverberations

The trial was convened hundreds of kilometers from Uvalde itself, in Corpus Christi, after defense lawyers argued a fair trial would be impossible in a town still raw from grief and outrage. Jurors came from across the region, and the 19-day trial played out under intense public scrutiny. Families of the victims traveled to attend, and the courthouse hallways hummed with raw emotion: whispered prayers, clipped legal strategizing, and the occasional, heartbreaking quiet.

Outside the courthouse, a neighbor who did not want to be named said, “Uvalde changed overnight. The people who live here are not just statistics — they’re mothers, fathers, teachers. There’s sorrow and a demand for answers.” A retired law enforcement trainer in Texas, speaking on background, told me, “This kind of prosecution is unusual — rare. The law penalizes certain failures, but proving criminal intent or gross negligence in the fog of a mass-casualty incident is hard.”

Facts, figures, and the bigger American conversation

Some details of the Uvalde response are undisputed: more than 400 officers responded, the gunman was a former student, and the gunman was eventually neutralized by officers after the delay. State and federal reviews concluded that officers allowed the shooter to remain inside a classroom while they debated tactical options — a lapse many officials, including then–Attorney General Merrick Garland, later said cost lives.

This case sits at the intersection of three national fault lines: policing practices and accountability, grief and the search for justice by victims’ families, and the broader debate over gun policy and public safety. In recent years, public-health data has underscored what many already felt in their bones: firearm deaths are a major—if not the leading—cause of death among American children and teens. That reality feeds the urgency and anguish that follow tragedies like Uvalde.

Only two people have been criminally charged in connection with the shooting: Gonzales and former school district police chief Pete Arredondo, who faces similar charges and has pleaded not guilty. The specter of systemic failure, not just individual error, has loomed over reviews of that day’s law-enforcement response.

A community’s rituals of remembrance

Walk Uvalde’s streets and you will find memorials and small altars — stuffed animals, crosses, hand-lettered signs — evidence that the town has tried to stitch meaning onto a wound. Locals speak of neighbors hanging on to rituals: shared meals, communal prayer services in Spanish and English, and school classrooms repurposed as spaces for counseling. “We keep going for the kids who are still here,” said a teacher who moved back to Uvalde after the shooting. “Everything we do is for them.”

At the same time, families who lost children have pushed for accountability. Some insisted that criminal charges were necessary to prompt broader reforms; others feared the trial would only deepen trauma. The tension between collective institutional responsibility and individual culpability is at the heart of what this trial attempted to resolve — but did not, ultimately, settle.

Legal nuance: why prosecutions of police are rare and difficult

Prosecutors who bring charges against officers face a steep evidentiary climb. Criminal statutes typically require proof of a person’s culpable state of mind or a level of gross negligence that goes beyond split-second poor judgment. As one criminal law scholar explained to me, “Courts and juries allow reasonable mistakes in chaotic situations. To convert those mistakes into crimes usually requires a showing of conscious disregard for human life.”

That standard is both legal and cultural. In communities across America, police are often given the benefit of the doubt in moments of crisis; at the same time, trust can be eroded when mistakes compound into tragedies. Which is why trials like Gonzales’s are watched not only as criminal adjudication but as moral reckonings.

Questions that linger

After the verdict, many in Uvalde and beyond asked: What does justice look like after a mass shooting? Is criminal prosecution the right mechanism to address systemic failures? How do communities hold institutions accountable without further fracturing the trust needed for public safety? These are not questions with easy answers.

“We wanted answers. We wanted to see accountability,” said a parent of a child killed at Robb Elementary, voice breaking. “But we also want truth — and truth is complicated.”

Robb Elementary attack: 19 students and two teachers killed (24 May 2022)
Gonzales: acquitted on 29 counts of criminal child endangerment
Jury deliberation: more than seven hours
Officers on scene: over 400; delay before entering classroom: 77 minutes (as reported in investigations)

A larger story of grief, law, and the search for reform

The Gonzales verdict will almost certainly not be the last word in the public discourse around Uvalde. For the families who lost children, the ache remains — as raw as it was three years ago. For law-enforcement leaders and reform advocates, the case raises structural questions about training, command, and crisis decision-making that do not fit neatly into criminal statutes.

And for the wider public—citizens, voters, policymakers—the trial is a prompt to ask hard questions: How should societies balance legal standards with moral urgency? How do we prevent such tragedies in the first place? Which changes are administrative and cultural, and which require the force of law?

In the quiet that follows courtroom drama, communities like Uvalde get back to the lifework of living with loss. They also keep pushing for changes they hope will stop history from repeating. “We didn’t come here for spectacle,” said a community advocate. “We came here to tell the world: look at us, hear us, and do better.”

How will we answer that plea? That is the continuing story — not only of Uvalde, but of a country still grappling with how to keep its children safe, and how to hold institutions accountable when they fail.

Irish Doctor Recounts Harrowing Shark Attack Encounter Off Australian Coast

hanad

January 22, 2026

Irish doctor recalls scene of shark attack in Australia — There was four shark attacks in 48 hours in Sydney in recent days

A jog that turned into a rescue: Life and fear at Manly Beach

The sun had just started to lift off the Tasman Sea, painting Manly Beach in stripes of gold and blue, when a morning jog became an impromptu medical mission.

“I thought it was training,” one witness later told me, voice still catching on the memory. “You know, kids doing CPR on the sand. Then I saw the blood.”

Brian Burns, a clinical professor of emergency medicine who was out running, says his professional instincts switched on the moment he saw the scene: surfboards scattered, lifeguards clustered, and a young man being worked on in the sand. What had begun as an ordinary Australian morning—the coffee shops opening, surfers paddling out—was suddenly about saving a life.

What unfolded on the beach

According to accounts from people at the scene and hospital staff, the surfer had been pulled from the water with catastrophic injuries consistent with a shark bite. He was in cardiac arrest when bystanders and trained lifesavers reached him. Burns and the beach lifeguards commenced CPR while awaiting paramedics.

“Everyone just moved,” a surf club volunteer said. “No panicking—people jumped from the water, others grabbed towels, someone ran for the defibrillator. It felt like a well-oiled machine, weirdly, in the middle of chaos.”

By the time an air ambulance touched down, the team had begun advanced life support—intravenous fluids, adrenaline—and, critically, blood transfusions were already underway on the beach. The patient was rushed to Royal North Shore Hospital and taken straight into surgery. Staff described a rapid, coordinated response that likely made the difference between life and death.

Prehospital transfusion: a game-changer

One of the most striking details from the rescue was the ability to deliver large volumes of blood to the victim before he ever reached the hospital. The system in Sydney allows for blood products to be transported to a patient in the field—an example of prehospital transfusion protocols becoming more common in trauma systems around the world.

“By the time we got him into the trauma theatre, he’d had 12–13 units of blood,” Burns said. “That level of intervention on the beach isn’t something you used to see often. It gave surgeons a fighting chance.”

Why are these attacks happening now?

The incident in Manly was not isolated. Local authorities warned swimmers and surfers across parts of New South Wales to stay out of the water after four shark incidents in a 48-hour window. Heavy rains were blamed for stirring up murky coastal waters, washing nutrients—and sometimes fish—closer to shore. Where prey goes, predators can follow.

“We’re seeing a confluence of factors,” explained Dr. Mei Li, an oceanographer who studies coastal ecosystems. “Warmer seas, shifting fish populations, and increased human presence along shorelines—more people in the water, more chance of encounters. Then you add heavy runoff from storms: visibility drops, sharks can mistake a human for prey, or simply come closer in search of food.”

Globally, unprovoked shark attacks are still relatively uncommon. The International Shark Attack File (ISAF) records between roughly 60 and 100 confirmed unprovoked attacks worldwide each year, with fatalities typically in the single digits annually. Yet for local communities the statistical rarity offers little comfort when it’s your friend or neighbor on the sand.

Faces behind the headlines

Walk along Manly and you hear stories: the lifeguard who has grown up with the sea, the café owner who sets out milk and sugar as he waits for the morning rush, the grandmother who remembers when beaches felt less complicated. Each person interprets risk through the lens of lived experience.

“You accept a certain risk when you live here,” said Tom, a lifeguard in his thirties, towel slung over his shoulder. “But that doesn’t make moments like this any easier. We train for it, but training and reality are different. The kid who pulled him out—he’d been surfing since he was six. It’s heartbreak.”

Another surfer, Maya, watched from the promenade, hands clenched around a paper cup. “I love the ocean. I’m not going to stop surfing because of fear. But maybe we need better signals, more education. It’s not just about closing beaches—people need to know how to help.”

What the emergency response showed

The rescue highlighted several strengths: quick action by fellow surfers and lifeguards, a system capable of delivering blood and advanced resuscitation in the field, and seamless transfer to a major trauma centre. Those are the things that separate a tragic statistic from a story of survival.

Rapid bystander intervention and CPR
Lifeguard and surf-club coordination
Prehospital advanced life support and transfusion
Air ambulance transport to a specialist trauma centre

Wider implications: climate, coastlines, community

This episode is more than a dramatic headline; it’s a small, sharp example of larger trends. Coastal population growth worldwide continues to put more people in proximity to marine predators. At the same time, changing marine ecosystems—driven by warming waters and altered food webs—appear to be nudging some species closer to shore. Add in extreme weather events and more frequent storm runoff, and the conditions for encounters rise.

How do we live with the sea’s power and beauty while managing the risks? There’s no single answer, but communities are experimenting with solutions: drone surveillance for sharks, increased public education on what to do during an encounter, fishery management to reduce attractants near swimming areas, and better-equipped lifeguard services.

“We have to respect the ocean,” Dr. Li said. “We’re part of the coastal ecosystem now, whether we like it or not. If we want safe beaches, we need cross-disciplinary solutions—environmental management, emergency medicine, public policy, and community engagement.”

Looking inward: what would you do?

Stories like Manly’s force uncomfortable questions: How would you react if someone needed help in the water? Do you know basic CPR? Are our beaches and rescue services keeping pace with changing risks?

For the man who was bitten, answers came in the form of coordinated human effort—friends on surfboards, trained lifeguards, doctors and paramedics who knew exactly what to do. At least in that narrow window, the community’s muscle memory for emergencies worked.

A complicated gratitude

In hospital hallways and on the sand, gratitude mingles with a solemn recognition of vulnerability. “You never expect to be that person,” Tom the lifeguard said. “But you train so you can be. That’s all we can do—train, prepare, and act.”

As the city discusses better ways to keep beaches safe, as scientists study shifting marine patterns, and as surfers continue to paddle out at dawn, the Manly rescue remains a vivid reminder: the sea will always be a place of joy and danger, and how we respond to that truth says a lot about who we are.

Harris rules out any scenario where Ireland joins Peace Board

hanad

January 22, 2026

Harris: No scenario in which Ireland joins Board of Peace — Donald Trump described his 'Board of Peace' as the 'most prestigious board ever assembled'

When “Peace” Has a Price Tag: Ireland’s Quiet Refusal and a Global Moment of Doubt

There is a certain hush in the corridors of Leinster House that morning — not the hush of indecision so much as the careful, almost wary silence of a country weighing how loudly to denounce a spectacle staged half a continent away. In Davos, at the glittering World Economic Forum, a so‑called “Board of Peace” was consecrated with the pomp of summitry and the clang of headlines. The cost of permanent membership: one billion dollars. The names invited: a roster that mixes allies, autocrats and indicted leaders in a way that makes diplomats cough into their coffee.

Back in Dublin, Ireland’s deputy prime minister made the calculation public: under its present shape, Ireland will not sign up. The words landed not as a gavel strike, but as the small, deliberate sound of a country reminding the world that words like “peace” still have to mean something.

What is the Board of Peace?

At Davos, the initiative was presented as a new global convening to shepherd peace processes around the world. It carries a headline figure — $1 billion for permanent membership — and a promise of influence. But in practice it already looks less like a neutral mediation body and more like a VIP club where power, politics and pay‑to‑play optics collide.

Leaders in several European capitals recoiled. Some declined the initial invitation outright. Others are treating it as a diplomatic hot potato. Why the unease? Because the board’s list of attendees reportedly includes figures who are under indictment for war crimes, as well as strongmen whose human rights records are deeply contested. And because its structure, as presented, appears to carve out space for private, parallel channels of influence that could, critics warn, undercut the United Nations and longstanding multilateral norms.

Echoes Across Dublin: Why This Matters at Home

Ireland’s modern foreign policy is stitched together from a few golden threads: a commitment to international law, a storied record in UN peacekeeping, and the political capital of being a small nation that has often punched above its weight in mediation and humanitarian diplomacy. When Irish politicians talk about peace, there is an archive of credibility behind them — from peacekeepers in Lebanon to decades of quiet diplomacy.

So when Irish leaders say they cannot envision Ireland joining the board “as currently constructed,” it is not simply diplomatic theatrics. It’s a guardrail rooted in institutional memory. “We’ve always believed peacebuilding must be rooted in legitimacy, in international law, and in institutions that represent more than a gated list of friends and patrons,” one retired Irish ambassador told me. “You can’t attach the word ‘peace’ to something that sidelines the organisations designed to hold states accountable.”

Street Voices and Small Truths

Outside a bakery near Grafton Street, locals remarked less about doctrine and more about image. “If it smells like a photo op, it probably is,” said Maeve, who runs the shop. “I don’t want Ireland’s name put next to people who make war — not for a cheque, not for a handshake.”

A young teacher waiting for a bus asked, “Are we to believe peace can be auctioned off?” She smiled sadly and added, “It feels like the tune has changed. Diplomacy used to be slow and steady. Now it’s flashy, fast, and you need a golden ticket.”

Red Flags: Governance, Legitimacy, and the UN

The practical objections are straightforward. First, who governs the board? Who has vetoes? Where are the checks? Critics argue that the initial charter leaves too many questions unanswered and too few safeguards in place to prevent politicized decision‑making. Second, the invitations: including leaders under ICC indictment or accused of serious human rights violations invites moral incoherence. Third, the fee: a billion dollars for a permanent seat smacks of an elite club rather than a global public instrument for conflict resolution.

These are not trivial concerns. Multilateral institutions like the UN exist precisely because they bundle legitimacy with process. When parallel mechanisms arise that look like they could supplant or dilute those institutions — or when they reward the very actors whose actions created crises in the first place — the consequences are potentially destabilizing.

European Nervousness and a Larger Shift

This episode has also revealed a fault line in transatlantic relations. A handful of European governments have declined the Davos signing. France signaled reluctance. Britain, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Italy and Slovenia reportedly stayed away. One senior EU official told journalists that the move amplified an ongoing debate in Europe about strategic autonomy and the need to rely on European instruments for security as well as diplomacy.

That debate is not purely abstract. The shocks of recent years — the war in Ukraine, supply‑chain crises, and the perception of unpredictable American policy swings — have accelerated European efforts to build capacity. The idea is not to sever ties with the United States but to avoid being blindsided when global frameworks change shape overnight.

Questions to Ponder

What kind of global architecture do we want for resolving war? Should peace be brokered by small clubs of powerful players, or by institutions that represent the wider international community? And perhaps most pressingly: can legitimacy be bought, rented, or convened with a big enough cheque?

These are not just academic questions. When a diplomatic initiative rebrands itself as a source of peace but allows the very architects of violence a seat at the table, it risks hollowing out the moral currency that peacebuilding depends on.

Where Ireland Fits In

Ireland’s measured response — to analyze, to confer with European partners, and to decline the Davos signing ceremony — reflects both principle and prudence. Dublin wants to be part of solutions, to offer its experience in mediation, and to push for a humanitarian response to crises like the one in Gaza. But it also knows that credibility is an asset you spend only once.

“We will consult broadly,” the Taoiseach indicated in public remarks, balancing caution with an acknowledgement of the need for action. Critics accused the government of dithering. Supporters called the refusal to appear at the signing ceremony responsible.

At its best, Irish diplomacy has been quietly distinctive: firm in principle, generous in aid, and adept at building bridges in messy contexts. The test now is whether Dublin can translate that tradition into constructive engagement that strengthens, rather than circumvents, global architectures for peace.

Final Thought

In a world where headlines are made quicker than consensus can be built, the temptation to stage a dramatic solution is powerful. But genuine peace—stable, just, and lasting—has never been a product of spectacle. It grows in institutions that are transparent, accountable, and broadly accepted. The question facing not just Ireland but the world is whether we will defend those institutions, or let the label of “peace” be repurposed by spectacle and money.

Which would you trust: a glossy global board with a price tag, or the slow, sometimes frustrating machinery of multilateral law and consensus? The answer we choose now will shape the next chapter of international diplomacy.

US, Denmark to revisit 1951 Greenland defense treaty, sources say

hanad

January 22, 2026

US, Denmark to renegotiate 1951 Greenland pact - source

At the edge of the world, an old pact gets a new pulse

The morning light in Nuuk slips across corrugated tin roofs and the skeletal masts of fishing boats, catching the distant blue of an ice fjord. Dogs bark, gulls wheel, and the smell of coffee and diesel hangs in the air. For most of the 56,000 people who call Greenland home, life still revolves around the sea and seasonal rhythms. Yet the conversation in kitchens, cafes and municipal offices has turned to one of the thorniest questions in international affairs: who decides the fate of Greenland?

This spring, Washington and Copenhagen quietly signaled they would reopen negotiations over a post‑World War II security arrangement that has shaped the island’s geopolitics for seven decades. The 1951 defense pact between the United States and Denmark—born in the chill of early Cold War anxieties and anchored by the Thule Air Base in northwest Greenland—has long governed U.S. military access to the island. Now, amid a changing Arctic and sharper geopolitical competition, both capitals appear ready to retune that old accord.

Why reopen an agreement from another era?

At first glance, a piece of paper signed in 1951 might seem an odd thing to reexamine. But the Arctic today is not the Arctic of the mid‑20th century. Ice that lingered for millennia is receding; new shipping routes loom open in the summers; mineral prospects and scientific installations are proliferating. Meanwhile, military activity has intensified across the high north.

“The world has rotated around the poles since that treaty was penned,” says Anne Sørensen, a Copenhagen‑based analyst who focuses on Arctic security. “The questions now are about transparency, Greenlandic sovereignty and how to protect vital early‑warning and communications infrastructure without sidelining the people who live here.”

To put the scale in perspective: Greenland is the planet’s largest island, covering about 2.16 million square kilometers, yet it holds fewer than 60,000 inhabitants. It enjoys wide autonomy—home rule was established in 1979, and self‑government expanded in 2009—but defense and foreign policy still formally fall under the Kingdom of Denmark. That constitutional reality is part of the tension. Greenlanders say decisions about military presence, land use and environmental safeguards affect their communities directly, and they want a say.

The local view: cautious pride, lingering pain

In Ilulissat, near the river of icebergs that inspired the Ilulissat Icefjord World Heritage designation, the mood is complicated. Elders speak of the Cold War days when the arrival of U.S. personnel brought jobs and new goods. But those years also left scars: forced relocations during early base expansions, contamination incidents, and a feeling, among some, of being a pawn in a larger geopolitical game.

“They promised jobs, they promised development, but my uncle told me about the time they moved families and didn’t look back,” says Katrine, a municipal council worker who requested to use just her first name. “We are proud to be strategic. But we also want respect—clean land, clean water, and a voice at the table.”

Across Nuuk’s harbor, a fisherman named Malik shrugs when asked about the pact’s revision. “If new ships come, we will see more money, maybe. But we also see more risk—noise, fuel, and more eyes on our waters,” he says. “We do not want our fjords to be used as chess squares without asking us.”

What’s at stake for the United States and NATO?

For the United States, Greenland is less about glamour and more about geometry. The island sits astride the shortest great‑circle routes between North America, Europe and the Arctic. Thule Air Base, established in the 1950s in Qaanaaq municipality, has long housed early‑warning systems and played a role in satellite tracking. In an era when hypersonic weapons and space‑based sensors are reshaping deterrence, having secure infrastructure in Greenland is a strategic priority.

“You can afford to treat the Arctic as a sideshow only if your enemies do,” says Mark Reynolds, a retired U.S. Navy officer who now studies Arctic logistics. “That’s not the case. Russia has hardened bases along its northern flank; China is investing in port and scientific ventures and calling itself a ‘near‑Arctic state.’ The U.S. and NATO are trying to recalibrate posture to deter and reassure at the same time.”

That recalibration has financial and political dimensions. Washington has periodically funded upgrades to runways, radar, and climate monitoring stations in Greenland. But each dollar spent on security is scrutinized back home and locally. How to balance defense needs with environmental protections, indigenous rights and potential economic development is the central knot to untie.

What might renegotiation look like?

No formal text has been released. But experts and Greenlandic officials suggest several likely topics:

Greater Greenlandic participation in talks and decision‑making, potentially elevating Nuuk from consultative to co‑equal status in specific defense matters;
Clearer environmental safeguards, compensation frameworks and cleanup commitments tied to any expansion of basing or infrastructure;
Transparency measures—public reporting, parliamentary oversight in Denmark and local Greenlandic institutions—so that communities can see the terms and impacts of military activity;
Arrangements for economic spinoffs: guaranteed hiring, education or infrastructure projects that benefit local communities.

“This is not about renouncing alliances,” says a Danish foreign ministry official who asked for anonymity because talks are nascent. “It’s about modernizing an agreement so it reflects current law, democratic expectations and the rights of Greenlanders.”

Climate, commerce and the long view

Beyond radar and runway improvements, the negotiations touch on broader questions about the Arctic’s future. What happens as sea ice declines and shipping corridors open? How will mineral exploration—greenland’s deposits of uranium, rare earths and other high‑value resources—be governed? Who benefits when a port or a radar array is built?

These questions are not merely bureaucratic. They are existential for communities that have stewarded this land for millennia. “We are watching our ice melt and our seasons shift,” says a climate scientist at the University of Greenland. “We need safeguards so that global security interests don’t translate into local harm.”

What should readers take away?

When a superpower and a small kingdom decide to retune a Cold War agreement, the world listens because the implications ripple far beyond one island. But the heart of the story lies in the people of Greenland—fisherfolk, municipal leaders, young students, elders—who will live with the consequences. They want recognition, compensation, and a real seat at the table.

So, what do you think? When strategic necessity clashes with local sovereignty and environmental stewardship, who should carry the final word? As readers who live far from the Arctic, we might feel removed from the fjords and base runways. But the choices made about Greenland will echo across global trade routes, climate resilience, and the norms of how powerful states partner with small communities.

In the coming months

Expect a messy, human conversation. Negotiations will likely involve technical teams, diplomats, Greenlandic representatives and civil society groups. Media attention will focus on hooky moments—statements from Washington, protests in Nuuk, perhaps new infrastructure projects—but the most consequential work will happen in small rooms and municipal halls.

At a café in Nuuk, a teacher stirs her tea and looks out toward the harbor. “We are at a crossroads,” she says. “If these talks are done right, our children will feel respected. If not, the old wounds will open again.”

That image—a patchwork of hope, caution, and pragmatic negotiation—captures why renegotiating a 1951 pact matters today. This is a global story with a very local center: ice, house paint, harpoons, and the steady, patient lives of people who have always known how to read the long seasons. It is their future, and the world will be watching how fairly it is handled.

12 3...223 Page 1 of 223