Bulgaria Officially Adopts Euro Almost Two Decades After EU Entry

January 2, 2026

Bulgaria adopts euro, nearly 20 years after joining EU — A man withdraws euro notes from an ATM in Sofia

Midnight in Sofia: A Nation Trades Coins for Community

At the stroke of midnight, beneath a forehead-numbing skyline and the faint crunch of snow on cobblestones, Sofia shed an old skin.

A projection of gleaming euro coins washed over the facade of the Bulgarian National Bank. People in heavy coats cheered. Someone somewhere popped a bottle of champagne. For many, it felt like New Year’s Eve and a national turning point wrapped into one: Bulgaria had joined the eurozone, becoming the 21st country to adopt the single currency.

“It’s like stepping onto a wider stage,” a retired schoolteacher named Elena told me as she stood with her family in the crowd, breath fogging in the cold. “We keep our history in the museums, but we want our children to feel they belong to something bigger.” Her voice threaded hope and caution in the same breath.

Why This Moment Matters

For a country of about 6.4 million people that entered the European Union in 2007, the move to the euro is not merely a monetary adjustment. It is the culmination of decades of political calculation, economic reform, and debate over identity. Central bankers and European officials have long framed the euro as both a practical tool and a political symbol: easier travel, fewer conversion fees, clearer prices for cross-border trade, and visible integration into western institutions.

Christine Lagarde, president of the European Central Bank, welcomed Bulgaria with measured warmth, calling the euro “a practical anchor and a signal of shared values.” Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, added that it should make life easier for citizens who travel or live abroad and boost market transparency.

What changes for ordinary people?

Practicalities abound. Tourists will no longer need to change levs at the airport. Bulgarian exporters may find invoicing simpler for European buyers. The euro will be used daily by more than 350 million people across the continent, raising the scale and liquidity of transactions for industries here.

Lower currency-conversion costs for travellers and businesses
Potentially easier cross-border trade with eurozone partners
Greater price transparency—consumers can more readily compare prices with other EU markets

Joy, Skepticism, and the Noise of Politics

But the street-level mood in Sofia was a patchwork: small celebrations mingled with wariness. Dimitar—no last name given—grinned after withdrawing €100 from an ATM and proclaimed, “Great! It works!”

Across town, a pastry shop owner ran a hand over the display case and grimaced. “Prices no longer correspond to levs. We are already pricing by euros in our heads,” she said, asking to remain anonymous to avoid political backlash. “It’s not that the currency changes food. Markets do.” Her worry resonated with many who fear that switching currencies could accelerate inflation or at least make price increases feel more permanent.

Those fears are not abstract. The National Statistical Institute reported food-price inflation at around 5% year-on-year in November—more than double the eurozone average at that time—and households still feel the squeeze. A recent Eurobarometer poll found 49% of Bulgarians opposed the changeover, underscoring the depth of public ambivalence.

Politics has not been quiet, either. Anti-corruption protests ousted a conservative-led government in mid-December, and Bulgaria faces its eighth national election in five years. President Rumen Radev hailed the currency change as “a final step in our EU journey” but expressed regret that Bulgarians had not been asked in a referendum. “This refusal was one of the dramatic symptoms of the deep divide between the political class and the people,” he said, evoking the protests that have convulsed the capital.

Practical Kinks: Euros on the Ground

Not everything went smoothly. Shopkeepers reported difficulties getting euro “starter packs” from banks; some markets displayed prices in both levs and euros on the same stall, a visible sign of a transition in progress. That double display offered an odd comfort: familiar numbers next to new ones, a bridge for those counting pennies and memories.

Alpha Research analyst Boryana Dimitrova warned that any stumbles—real or perceived—could be exploited by anti-EU politicians. “Currency change is technical, but it becomes political in a flash,” she told me. “When households see their grocery bill jump by a few leva, the message is simple: someone else decided for you.” It’s a reminder that even monetary policy is filtered through trust, or the lack of it.

Experts Weigh the Balance

Economists point to clear positives—but also trade-offs.

“Adopting the euro reduces transaction costs and tends to attract foreign direct investment by removing exchange-rate uncertainty,” explained Dr. Miroslav Petrov, an economist at Sofia University. “But you also hand monetary policy to the ECB. That’s fine if inflation and growth are broadly in line with the eurozone, but it can limit national tools in shocks.” He paused. “The key is fiscal discipline and structural reforms—less flashy, more important.”

Indeed, Bulgaria has operated for years under a currency board arrangement that pegs the lev tightly to the euro. That prior discipline softened the shock of adoption: the conversion is a formalization of a reality that has been in place for decades. Still, the shift places Bulgaria fully inside a monetary union whose policy priorities are set in Frankfurt, not Sofia.

Local Color: Markets, Sparklers, and the Human Scale

Walk around any market in Sofia and you’ll find the heart of the story. Vendors bundle sparklers for New Year’s Eve, their price tags showing both “лв” and “€”. Muscovite pines and jars of pickled peppers sit side by side. The exchange of the lev for the euro did not erase these small rituals—if anything, it underscored how livelihoods and celebrations exist through currency but are not defined by it.

“The whole of Europe has managed with the euro,” one shopper told me while hefting a bag of oranges. “We’ll manage too.” Her resolve was practical, not ideological.

What Does This Mean Globally?

This transition in Bulgaria is part of a larger pattern: the euro continues to expand as a political and economic anchor in a Europe that is reassessing its dependencies and alliances. For countries on the periphery, the single currency offers a certain insulation from volatile exchange-rate swings and, in some views, a bulwark against external political influence—particularly from Russia, a frequent theme in Bulgarian political discourse.

But questions remain universal. How do nations balance sovereignty and integration? When is it right to surrender a national symbol for economic stability? And when does the promise of convenience outpace the day-to-day realities of households?

Looking Ahead

There will be stories to tell in months and years: businesses adapting to euro accounting, consumers checking receipts for rounding errors, politicians using any perceived mishap as a talking point. For now, Bulgarians stand at a threshold—some with optimism, others with anxiety, many with a mixture of both. Currency changed at midnight, but trust will be built more slowly.

So, reader: would you give up your country’s money in exchange for a broader belonging? What does a coin represent to you—a simple tool, an emblem of identity, or something in between?

In Sofia, as the first euro notes passed through trembling fingers, the answers were as varied as the crowd—hopeful, wary, resolute. And that, perhaps, is the most accurate measure of what this moment really signifies.

Church fire in Amsterdam mars unsettled start to Dutch New Year

hanad

January 1, 2026

Blaze at Amsterdam church amid 'unsettled' Dutch New Year — A blaze broke out in the early hours of this morning at the Vondelkerk

Midnight Flame: How Amsterdam’s New Year’s Eve Turned into a Night of Fire and Fracture

On the cold, damp cusp between one year and the next, Amsterdam’s familiar skyline — the church spires, the gabled houses, the blotchy glow of streetlamps — was sliced by a new silhouette: a 50-metre tower collapsing inward, its roof gone, embers curling into a bitter winter sky. The Vondelkerk, a 19th-century church that had watched over Vondelpark since 1872, became the scene of a blaze that felt less like an accident and more like a sharp, public punctuation mark at the end of a chaotic year.

Witnesses described a scene out of a nightmare. “I saw the tower fall and for a moment it felt like the city had been unmoored,” said Marieke, who lives two blocks away and came with neighbours in the grey dawn to see what was left. “There was smoke everywhere — I could still taste it on my tongue.”

Not Just a Fire: Violence, Injuries, and a Nation on Edge

The inferno at the Vondelkerk was only one thread in a frayed tapestry of New Year’s Eve disturbances that spread across the Netherlands. Authorities reported two people killed in fireworks accidents — a 17-year-old boy and a 38-year-old man — and several others seriously injured. Eye wards saw an alarming number of casualties: Rotterdam’s specialised eye hospital said it treated 14 patients for eye injuries that night, ten of them minors, two of whom required surgery.

But the physical toll was accompanied by another kind of damage: an “unprecedented” wave of aggression directed at the very people trying to keep the night from descending into catastrophe. Nine Kooiman, who heads the Dutch Police Union, said there was an “unprecedented amount of violence against police and emergency services.” She told reporters she had been struck repeatedly by fireworks and other explosives while on duty. “I’ve never seen it like this,” she said. “Bravery was commonplace that night, but so was targeted cruelty.”

In cities from Amsterdam to Breda, accounts of petrol bombs hurled at officers and emergency responders were distressingly common. In Amsterdam’s central Dam Square, footage circulated of police moving through a chaotic crowd as pyrotechnics exploded overhead. In the southern city of Breda, local officers battled individuals who attacked with incendiary devices.

Why Did It Escalate?

Several factors collided to make this New Year’s Eve particularly combustible. For one, it was the last legal year for the sale and private use of many consumer-grade fireworks before a planned ban on unofficial pyrotechnics — a ban meant to reduce injuries and curb the large-scale, often illegal detonations that have become a yearly hazard. The Dutch Pyrotechnics Association reported that shoppers spent a record €129 million on fireworks this season, a surge that translated into more explosives in more hands.

Another element was the national overload of emergency services. Shortly after midnight authorities issued a rare country-wide alert on mobiles — a blunt message urging people not to call emergency services unless there was an immediate threat to life. The message was born of necessity: 112 lines — the Dutch emergency number — were being flooded. “We could not get through,” said a paramedic who did not want to be named. “It’s terrifying when people call for every bang and light and you can’t reach those who truly need help.”

The Vondelkerk: More Than Bricks and Mortar

To the people who live nearby, the Vondelkerk wasn’t simply a weathered building; it was a keeper of memories. “My parents had their wedding photos taken in front of that church,” said Ibrahim, a café owner around the corner. “It stood through wars and floods. For it to burn on New Year’s felt like losing an old relative.”

Architectural conservators and cultural historians are poring over the damage assessments. Early reports from city officials were oddly hopeful: while the 50-metre tower collapsed and the roof was badly damaged, the core structure — the bones of the church — was expected to remain intact. Still, the image of charred beams and a roofless nave will be the new photograph of this place for some time.

“We will mourn the loss of original fabric,” said Dr. Elise van der Meer, a historian specialising in Dutch ecclesiastical architecture. “But we mustn’t sentimentalise ruins at the cost of public safety. The burning of historic sites on nights of mass pyrotechnics is a pattern we have to break.”

Faces in the Crowd: Stories from the Ground

The human stories from the night vary in scale and sorrow. There was the volunteer firefighter who describes arriving to find crowds cheering as the blaze ate the roof: “People stood filming on their phones while flames were devouring the church,” he said. “We were trying to pull hoses through a throng of revelers who had no idea the risk they were creating.”

There were small acts of kindness too. A schoolteacher collected blankets for those evacuated from nearby homes. A florist laid a bouquet at a temporary cordon and whispered, “For what we can’t fix overnight.”

And there were the scared children dragged away from a scene they did not understand. “My son asked if the church was angry,” a mother told me, laughter brittle around the edges. “How do you explain that sometimes people are dangerous and sometimes we are just unlucky?”

What Does This Mean for the Future?

The blaze, the violence, and the injuries raise questions about law, culture, and the rituals that govern public life. Do we preserve a centuries-old tradition of private fireworks at the cost of repeated harm? Can a society balance festivity with restraint? The upcoming ban on many consumer fireworks is meant to be an answer, but bans alone do not dismantle the social scripts that lead to mass purchases and risky behaviour.

“Regulation helps, but education and enforcement must go hand in hand,” said Dr. Anouk de Jong, a sociologist who studies crowd behaviour. “If a community sees New Year’s as a time to ‘let go’ regardless of rules, then legality won’t change the impulse. That’s a tougher conversation — about identity and ritual — that we haven’t fully had.”

Questions for the Reader

What would you do if a beloved landmark in your city was suddenly reduced to embers? How do we reconcile the joy of celebration with the responsibility to protect each other? As the Netherlands prepares to tighten rules on fireworks, these are not abstract questions. They are practical, urgent, and deeply human.

One image from that night keeps returning to me: a small boy, soot-smeared and still gripping a candy wrapper, craning his neck to watch the Vondelkerk’s shadow collapse. His wonder was untainted by politics; it was pure, the way a child looks at fire. How we respond now will teach that child — and us all — what it means to celebrate without destroying the things we love.

Aftermath and Where We Go From Here

Amsterdam’s municipal teams and heritage groups will spend months assessing structural safety and planning restoration. The social aftershocks — policy debates, community dialogues, and, one hopes, a reduction in private pyrotechnics — will take longer. The costs are not only measured in euros but in trust, in the fragile agreements between citizens and institutions that keep a city whole.

“We cannot simply rebuild what burned and expect the problem to go away,” said a local councillor. “This is a moment to think differently about how we mark time, how we keep revelry from tipping into ruin, and how we protect the people whose job it is to help us when things go wrong.”

As smoke clears and scaffolding goes up, Amsterdam — like many cities around the world — faces a test: can age-old customs be reimagined for a modern, safer public sphere? Or will the cycle of spectacle and damage continue until something even dearer is lost?

National Guard Pulled Back from Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland

hanad

January 1, 2026

National Guard being removed from Chicago, LA, Portland — Texas National Guard members patrol outside of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement holding facility in Broadview, Illinois

When the Convoys Left: Cities Exhale, Washington Recalibrates

On an ordinary morning in late December, semi-quiet streets in three American cities snapped back into a quieter kind of normal. Armored Humvees and gray National Guard trucks — symbols that had dominated sidewalks and public squares for months — were being loaded, engines idling, then turned toward the highway. Residents leaned from stoops and diner windows, some with relief, some with skepticism. A few applauded. Others crossed the street to get a better look, as if to make sure it was really happening.

“It felt less like protection and more like a message,” said Maria Delgado, a small-business owner near Pilsen in Chicago, watching the last convoy pull away. “Now it’s leaving, and I have to ask: Who decides what keeps us safe? Our neighbors or a spectacle on the news?”

President Donald Trump announced the removal of National Guard forces from Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland, while warning — in blunt, unmistakable fashion — that federal troops could return “in a much different and stronger form” if crime spikes again. The pronouncement landed against a backdrop of courtroom rulings and political pushback that had steadily eroded the administration’s legal foothold for such deployments.

The unfolding legal drama

The past six months have been a study in federal authority tested against state and local control. The deployments began in June amid fierce public battles over immigration policy and protests in multiple cities. Washington, DC — where presidential authority over the capital is unique — saw a particularly muscular federal presence at one point. Other cities, including Memphis and Portland, experienced rotating contingents of military and federal officers.

Supreme Court action: On 23 December, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked the president’s attempt to take command of National Guard forces in Illinois, signaling that such federal control likely applies only in “exceptional” circumstances.
Appellate rulings: A federal appellate court ordered hundreds of California National Guard troops returned to Governor Gavin Newsom’s control, undermining the administration’s efforts to keep the forces under federal command.
District court decisions: Judges overseeing lawsuits from cities found the federal government had not demonstrated that troops were necessary to protect federal property from protesters, and repeatedly questioned the legal basis offered for the deployments.

“At this preliminary stage,” one federal court wrote, “the government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois.” Those words have reverberated through statehouses and city halls, giving local leaders new leverage to push back.

Street-level realities versus headline theater

There’s a difference between what the evening news shows and what people living in these neighborhoods actually experienced. In Chicago, city officials posted data after the president’s announcement showing violent crime fell by 21.3% in 2025 compared with 2024 — the lowest violent crime totals in over a decade, they wrote on social media. For many residents, the statistics undercut the administration’s stated rationale for a heavy military footprint.

“I live two blocks from where they parked those trucks,” said Jamal Peters, a 42-year-old father and landscaper in the South Side. “Never saw one of those guys stop a robbery. What I saw were fewer kids playing outside because they felt watched.”

In Portland, a city that has wrestled with protest after protest, the visible withdrawal left behind murals re-sprayed by volunteers, and a conversation about dignity and authority. “The soldiers made some folks feel safer, others feel policed,” said Nora Chen, who runs a coffee cart near a mural of a raised fist. “Now people are asking: is public safety about boots on the ground or about investment in community services?”

What the leaders said — and what critics answered

The president framed the move as both a concession and a threat: troops were being removed but could come back if crime “begins to soar again.” Local Democratic leaders called the deployments unnecessary from the start and warned of federal overreach. Gavin Newsom’s office mocked the president’s statement as political posturing, saying, in a line that quickly circulated online, “Trump’s rambling here is the political version of ‘you can’t fire me, I quit.’”

“This isn’t just a debate about statistics. It’s about who governs public order,” said Dr. Miriam Alvarez, a constitutional law scholar at a West Coast university. “The courts have been clear: the president’s power to federalize state troops is not unlimited. These rulings are about preserving the balance between federal authority and local democracy.”

Experts, neighbors and the question of evidence

Legal challenges succeeded in part because judges demanded evidence that federal troops were the only remedy. Lawyers for the cities argued the administration exaggerated isolated incidents of violence to justify a show of force. The courts often agreed that the government had not presented proof that federal property was at imminent risk in the way the administration described.

“Law is not designed for theater,” said Thomas Reed, a retired federal judge now teaching at a law school in the Midwest. “If you’re going to suspend state control and put armed federal personnel on local streets, you need more than a few sensational incidents. You need a factual record demonstrating necessity.”

The fallout has been palpable. Military officials quietly began scaling back deployments as the litigation mounted, and in the end, legal defeats nudged the administration toward withdrawal even before the president’s public confirmation.

Beyond the headlines: what this episode reveals

There are broader currents beneath the convoy noise and the court opinions. First: a deepening national debate over federalism — the tug-of-war between Washington’s power and the authority of governors and mayors to protect their communities. Second: the politicization of public safety. The show of force, critics say, was as much about messaging to a political base as it was about preventing crime.

And finally: a civic question many cities are still wrestling with — what kinds of investment actually reduce violence? Is the answer more personnel with military training, or more social workers, youth programs, and economic opportunity for neighborhoods that have been starved of both?

“Invest in schools and mental health and you’ll see fewer 2 a.m. calls to 911,” said Rania Al-Hassan, director of a nonprofit that runs after-school programs in an L.A. neighborhood once patrolled by the Guard. “Military presence addresses symptoms. Community work addresses causes.”

What to watch next

The withdrawal does not end the story; it opens a new chapter. Expect continued legal skirmishes over the limits of presidential authority, renewed debate in state capitals about preparedness for unrest, and political leaders on both sides of the aisle sharpening arguments for the next crisis.

Will the troops remain gone until a demonstrable spike in violence? Will federal-state relations harden into laws clarifying when and how the president may take control of National Guard forces? And for ordinary citizens watching trucks roll away, there’s the quieter, harder question: how do we build safer, healthier neighborhoods without turning them into battlegrounds?

As the last convoy passed out of sight, Delgado wiped her hands on her apron and returned to sweeping the sidewalk. “We’ll see what happens,” she said. “For now, I’m going to focus on making my corner a little brighter. Because that’s something I can change.”

How would you want your city to be protected — by soldiers from afar or by neighbors who know your name? It’s a question worth asking at kitchen tables from Chicago to Portland and beyond.

Mamdani takes oath as New York mayor in late-night ceremony

hanad

January 1, 2026

Mamdani sworn in as New York mayor in midnight ceremony — Zohran Mamdani too his oath of office in the historic City Hall subway station

Under the Vaulted Ceiling: A New York Inauguration Like No Other

At 12:07 a.m., beneath the ceramic glow of a forgotten subway station, Zohran Mamdani rose and took an oath that, for a few dozen people standing in the hush of Old City Hall, felt like the hinge of history.

The platform’s curved tiles threw back light like a theater set. Above them, carved into the arch, the single word CITY HALL looked down as Attorney General Letitia James administered the pledge to “support the Constitution” and the laws of New York. Mamdani’s wife, Rama Duwaji, stood at his elbow. For a moment the city’s rumble — the distant diesel, the muffled heartbeat of trains elsewhere — fell away.

“Happy New Year to New Yorkers, both inside this tunnel and above,” Mamdani said, his voice measured but bright. “This is truly an honour and a privilege of a lifetime.”

Why a Closed Station?

The choice of Old City Hall — a decommissioned stop most New Yorkers only glimpse on guided tours — was deliberate. It is part museum, part metaphor: ornate, intimate, and buried beneath the modern city’s noise. Mamdani’s team called it a nod to “the working people who keep our city running every day,” an image meant to tether his political promises to subway conductors, nurses, bus drivers and the janitors who live in rent-regulated apartments.

Standing among them was Luis, a 58-year-old Transit Authority retiree who volunteers as a tour guide there twice a year. “This place smells like the city you read about in old books,” he said, handing out laminated maps. “To bring a new mayor here — it tells you who he’s thinking about.”

A Campaign Built on Everyday Struggles

Mamdani, 34, campaigned as a democratic socialist who framed his candidacy around the mundane cruelties of modern urban life: skyrocketing rents, packed buses, childcare costs that make two-paycheck households feel precarious. He promised sweeping measures — a rent freeze, free buses, expanded childcare — and wove them into a narrative about dignity and daily survival.

His message resonated. In a turnout that shattered recent patterns, more than two million New Yorkers cast ballots. Mamdani captured roughly half of them — about 50% — and beat Andrew Cuomo, who ran as an independent, by nearly ten points. That scale of participation reflects not only a victory for a single candidate, but a broader appetite for change in a city of roughly 8 million souls.

Policy Promises — In Plain Sight

Immediate push for a rent freeze mechanism to stabilize household budgets
Free bus service aimed at low-income neighborhoods and environmental gains
Expanded publicly funded childcare programs to support working families

These are not minor platform lines; they are expensive, administratively complex and politically combustible. Yet Mamdani sold them not as abstract reforms but as practical fixes to problems New Yorkers live with every day.

Money, Momentum and Modern Organizing

Campaign finance underscored the movement’s muscle. Mamdani raised $2.6 million for transition and inauguration events from nearly 30,000 contributors — a breadth of small donors that meant as much as the total dollar figure. It’s a reminder of how political fundraising in the 2020s is as much a story of grassroots digital mobilization as it is of big checks and institutional backing.

“This is political energy translated into resources,” said Grant Reeher, a Syracuse University political scientist. “Having the state attorney general swear him in, too, sends a signal: he’s staking out independence from national divisions while still demonstrating a network of support at the state level.”

A Nation Watching

This inauguration is not merely a city story. Mamdani will be the first Muslim mayor of New York City, and his victory has implications far beyond municipal sanitation budgets and housing codes. It reverberates through the national conversation about what the Democratic Party can be: a coalition that centers affordability and expands the policy imagination without alienating moderates or Wall Street.

Before the vote, bankers and corporate executives voiced concern. After it, many said they were ready to engage. “People are pragmatic,” said Maya Patel, who manages a small financial services firm across from the East River. “The city’s economy depends on cooperation. We’ll test policies, adapt, but we won’t panic-sell the city.”

From Astoria to Gracie Mansion

Mamdani will trade his one-bedroom apartment in Astoria — a rent-stabilized sanctuary that kept him insulated from the worst spikes in New York rents — for Gracie Mansion on the Upper East Side. The move will be literal, but it also marks a symbolic crossing: the private struggle of a young family becoming the public stewardship of a city with a massive and complex municipal machine.

“There is no greater test of conviction than when policy meets payroll,” said a local nonprofit director who asked not to be named. “How you balance budgets, who you protect, and who you ask to sacrifice — those choices tell you who a leader really serves.”

Alliances, Warnings and the Long Arc of Urban Progress

Letitia James administered the oath in a moment that stitched together local and national threads. James, who rose to national attention for investigations that cut into the fortunes of powerful figures, has been an early backer. Senator Bernie Sanders, the inspirational touchstone for many progressives, will preside over a larger, daytime ceremony on City Hall’s steps, and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is slated to speak. The guest list underscores a coalition that mixes grassroots activists with influential national figures.

History offers both precedent and caution. David Dinkins, the city’s first Black mayor and someone loosely associated with democratic socialist ideas, governed from 1990 to 1993 and navigated budget deficits while persuading businesses to remain in New York. The scale and texture of Mamdani’s challenges differ, but the lesson is familiar: governing a city like New York is always a test of negotiating power, patience and persuasion.

Questions to Watch

As the inaugural confetti settles and the first budgets are drafted, a few questions will define his early months in office:

Can a rent freeze be designed to protect tenants without precipitating a housing supply crisis?
Will free buses measurably reduce traffic and emissions while preserving transit budgets?
How will labor, business and civic sectors be brought into negotiations so policy experiments can scale?

And a softer but no less honest question: can a mayor who came of age in activist circles translate moral clarity into the messy compromises that keep a city running?

What This Means for You

If you live in New York, Mamdani’s decisions will touch the price of your rent, the frequency of your commute and the cost of childcare. If you live elsewhere, his tenure will be watched as a test case — a model for progressive governance or a cautionary tale depending on outcomes. The nation’s conversations about inequality, urban policy and the role of government will, for better or worse, look to New York.

So I ask you: what do you want your city to be — efficient and prosperous, or equitable and compassionate? Must it be only one, or can it strain toward both? New York’s experiment begins now, under an old station’s tile, in the hush after midnight. The work of the day will come soon enough.

Swiss bar blaze kills about 40, wounds roughly 100 people

hanad

January 1, 2026

Around 40 people killed, 100 injured in Swiss bar fire — The area around the building has been cordoned off by police

Smoke on the Mountainside: A New Year’s Night That Turned Tragic in Crans-Montana

The bells and fireworks that usually mark the turn of the year in alpine towns were replaced, in Crans-Montana, by sirens and a hush that felt too large for a ski resort used to laughter and the clink of glasses.

In the small hours of January 1, a blaze ripped through Le Constellation, a popular nightclub and bar tucked into the fashionable slopes of this Swiss resort, leaving a community reeling. Local authorities now speak of a disaster that claimed around 40 lives and injured close to 100 people—most seriously—though investigators caution that the numbers remain provisional as forensic teams work and families wait for news.

What happened that night

It was 1:30 a.m. when the first calls came in. Witnesses remember an ordinary, crowded New Year’s Eve scene—music loud enough to sting, coats discarded, a mix of tourists and locals pressing into the warmth. Then, almost without warning, heat licked the ceiling.

“We thought someone had set off a firework inside,” a young woman who escaped via a narrow staircase told reporters. “Then the ceiling was on fire. It spread so fast. One second we were dancing, the next we were scrabbling for an exit and choking on smoke.” She asked to be identified only as Emma.

Other onlookers described a similar sequence: a spark or flame meeting dry wood in a basement-level room, a sudden rush of smoke, and then chaos. Italian diplomats on the scene said local officials told them the blaze may have been sparked by a firework let off inside the bar. Two patrons told French television that a bottle containing birthday candles had been held up too close to a wooden ceiling, igniting the blaze. Authorities, however, have been careful not to declare a final cause and continue to treat the episode as an accidental fire while a criminal inquiry proceeds.

Scenes of rescue and improvised care

Outside, the mountain air was mercilessly cold—an unforgiving contrast to the furnace inside the bar—and that contrast itself compounded injuries. Paramedics and volunteers hustled victims from the doorway into makeshift triage areas: a nearby bar, the marble lobby of a UBS bank, and even the pavement outside the venue became emergency rooms for the night.

“We set up blankets and used tablecloths as stretchers. There was no time for ceremony,” said a waiter at a nearby restaurant who asked not to be named. “Ambulances were arriving, leaving, then arriving again. People were in shock. Some had burns. Others were just stunned and shaking in the cold.”

Dominic Dubois, a local resident who stood on the snowy street and watched the procession of emergency vehicles, described “ambulances coming back and forth as much as possible” and a scene of people clustered together—some comforting, others searching frantically for missing friends and relatives.

Official response and the toll of uncertainty

Authorities deployed an extraordinary response: ten helicopters and around 40 ambulances, a no-fly zone over Crans-Montana, and hundreds of personnel drawn from regional services. Patients were transferred to hospitals in Sion, Lausanne, Geneva and Zurich. Forensic teams erected white screens and tents in front of Le Constellation as investigators began the grim task of identification.

“The first responders arrived at a scene of chaos,” Stéphane Ganzer, head of security for Valais canton, told reporters. “It was a complicated operations theatre. We have mobilized every available resource.”

Frederic Gisler, the canton’s head of police, acknowledged how raw the situation felt. “Our count is about 100 injured, most seriously, and unfortunately tens of people are presumed dead,” he said, adding that some of the victims are from outside Switzerland. Swiss Federal President Guy Parmelin called the events “heartbreaking” and spoke of a mourning that stretched beyond the canton to the nation as a whole.

Why the investigation matters

Local prosecutor Beatrice Pilloud confirmed a full investigation is underway. “For now we are considering this a fire and not an attack,” she said, emphasizing the careful, methodical work that must follow to understand how the blaze began and why it spread so rapidly.

Understanding the cause is not merely forensic curiosity. It will shape policy debates about building materials, fire-safety measures in nightlife venues, the permissible use of pyrotechnics in enclosed spaces, and enforcement of capacity limits—issues that millions of people who frequent bars and clubs worldwide take for granted until they don’t.

Faces, names, and the small rituals of grief

In the town’s streets, the mood was electric with anxiety rather than celebration. Families gathered in hotel lobbies. The Italian ambassador reported dozens of compatriots converging on the resort seeking word of missing relatives. Hotel clerks, ski instructors, and café owners offered hot drinks and couches to the bewildered.

“We are a place that hosts joy—weddings, races, mountain adventures,” said Anne-Claude Fournier, who runs a chalet rental office. “Tonight we are also a place that shelters sorrow. People who come here for snow and sunlight found themselves running from flames.”

Local cultural details offer human relief amid the statistics: the scent of burning pine is a nightmare against a town whose winter mornings usually smell of raclette and coffee; the old wooden chalets, so treasured for their warmth, are now being scrutinized for their vulnerability to fire.

What this means beyond Crans-Montana

We should not hold this tragedy up as an isolated horror. Less than a year ago, a nightclub fire in North Macedonia claimed dozens of lives. Each such incident becomes part of a chorus demanding safer spaces for public life—places where entertainment and human connection do not carry hidden risks.

Fire safety is technical: sprinkler systems, clearly marked exits, building materials, trained staff and strict enforcement. It is also social: the decisions of a single person to light a candle, the tolerance of a crowd for risky stunts, the assumption that venues have taken every precaution. When those assumptions fray, the consequences can be devastating.

Public health experts note that burns are among the most difficult injuries to treat and identify. “In mass-casualty incidents, identification and family notification can take days or weeks,” said Dr. Laila Kramer, a trauma specialist. “For the survivors, both physical and psychological rehabilitation can last a lifetime.”

Questions to sit with

As readers around the world scroll through headlines, what do we want public spaces to be? How do we balance spontaneity and joy with safety and preparation? Are our local laws and the will to enforce them enough to prevent another night like this?

There are no easy answers. What is clear is that crises like the one in Crans-Montana stretch beyond a single venue or jurisdiction. They ask for cross-border cooperation on emergency response, clearer norms about entertainment safety, and an urgency to care for survivors and bereaved families who are left with a loneliness that no statistic can fully portray.

Simple facts to keep in view

Around 40 people are reported dead and close to 100 injured after a fire at Le Constellation, Crans-Montana.
Authorities deployed ten helicopters and roughly 40 ambulances; victims were taken to hospitals in several Swiss cities.
Investigations are ongoing; officials treat the incident as an accidental fire while examining evidence about a possible pyrotechnic source.
Forensic work and family notifications are underway; the count and nationalities of victims remain subject to official confirmation.

In closing

On the slopes above Crans-Montana, ski lifts keep turning, and the alpenglow is indifferent to human sorrow. Down in the valley, though, the rhythms of a town built on hospitality have been interrupted. People will return to their jobs and to their slopes, but many will carry a new vigilance, a new grief, and a hunger for answers.

For those who lost loved ones, the rest of us can offer nothing but solidarity and attention. For communities around the world, this should be a prompt: to recheck emergency exits, to insist on accountability for public venues, and to remember that a single careless spark can change the course of many lives.

What would you look for the next time you step into a crowded bar, a concert hall, or a festival tent? How can we, as patrons and policymakers, make joy safer?

Ukraine’s Zelensky Rules Out Signing Any ‘Weak’ Peace Deal

hanad

January 1, 2026

Zelensky wants US-Europe-Ukraine meeting in coming days — Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky said the meeting would be 'at the adviser level' (file photo)

On the Edge of “Almost Peace”: Ukraine’s New Year Between Hope and Alarm

In the blue winter light of Kyiv’s New Year Eve, a familiar voice carried across the city and across the world: President Volodymyr Zelensky’s packed, unadorned message about an elusive peace. “The peace agreement is 90% ready. Ten percent remains,” he said, and the line sounded less like arithmetic and more like a hinge — a small space on which the fate of a country might swing.

Hinges are fragile things. They can creak, they can break. They can also, if treated with care, open the heaviest door.

Not all peace is equal

Zelensky’s words were calm but resolute: Ukraine wanted an end to the war, but not at a cost that would unravel the country’s future. “We want peace? Yes. At any cost? No,” he warned. The president insisted that any accord must include credible security guarantees — the kind that deter a would‑be aggressor from striking again — and must not reward Moscow for its invasion.

There is a kind of moral arithmetic at work here. Give up a little now to stop the bloodshed, and what are you left with tomorrow? Give up too much territory and a decade hence you may be fighting for what remains. Zelensky’s refrain captures that tension: a weary nation, deeply exhausted, but not willing to sign away its existence.

Lines on the map — and the 10% that matters

At the heart of the impasse is territory. Russian President Vladimir Putin has pressed for full control of the Donbas — the industrial swath in eastern Ukraine where Moscow-backed separatists have fought since 2014 — as a bargaining chip. Western mediators and Kyiv have insisted that any settlement must ensure Ukraine’s sovereignty and secure borders.

“If we withdraw from Donbas, will Russia stop there?” Zelensky asked rhetorically. His answer was implicit: history, and recent months of escalation, suggests not.

Negotiations are never only about lines on a map. They are about the future shape of European security: will a continent scarred by a territorial war accept new norms of conquest? Will a successful deal anchor Ukraine to a Western security architecture, or will it leave a vacuum filled by the next crisis?

Smoke, screens, and a diplomatic tug-of-war

The diplomatic atmosphere has been thick with competing narratives. Shortly after Zelensky’s Florida meeting with US President Donald Trump — part of a renewed US push to broker talks — Moscow released footage it said showed a downed drone near Putin’s residence in the Novgorod region, alleging a Ukrainian attack. Kyiv called the claim a fabrication intended to sabotage progress.

European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas branded the claim “a deliberate distraction,” accusing Moscow of trying to derail “real progress towards peace by Ukraine and its Western partners.” The episode looked, to many analysts, like a play from a centuries-old playbook: muddy the waters, change the subject, rally domestic audiences.

“Information operations have become an instrument of war,” said Dr. Elena Kovalenko, a security analyst at the Center for European Security Studies. “Bombs arrive on the ground, and narratives are launched in the air. Both are meant to change behavior — and both can be devastating.”

Between a drone and a line of shells

While diplomats traded claims, the ground told another story. Overnight strikes hit Odesa, wounding six people, including three children: an eight-year-old, a 14-year-old, and a seven-month-old. Local authorities reported damage to residential areas and energy infrastructure. Elsewhere, Russian drones struck in the Dnipropetrovsk region; Belgorod and Tuapse in Russia reported injuries and damaged industrial equipment.

A shopkeeper in Odesa, who asked to be identified only as Olena, described the surreal syllables of life amid strikes: “You learn to sleep with your phone within reach. You learn the difference between a false alarm and a sound you cannot ignore. We want peace. We are tired. But we are not defeated.”

It is a striking image — shopfronts closed against the wind, a stroller left by a doorway, a city that measures holidays in the cadence of air-raid sirens.

What the 10% could mean — locally and globally

That remaining 10% is not merely legal text or a diplomatic compromise. It carries real-world consequences: who controls which towns, whether international peacekeepers will be allowed in, what guarantees will be written into treaties, and what mechanisms will be there to hold violators to account. It is about refugees and reconstruction, about pipelines and ports, about the contours of European security for decades to come.

Consider the human scale. Millions of Ukrainians have been displaced since February 2022; international agencies estimate that tens of thousands of civilians have died and military casualties on both sides number in the tens of thousands as well. The economic cost is in the hundreds of billions of dollars and counting. Rebuilding will take more than money — it will take trust, institutional capacity, and a regional order that can enforce agreements.

“A durable peace requires more than signatures,” said James Alder, a veteran diplomat who has worked on conflict resolution in Eastern Europe. “It requires monitoring, a neutral presence, and incentives that make violation costly. Without that scaffolding, any treaty is at risk.”

Choices for a weary people

As Zelensky’s message implied, the Ukrainian question is also a moral one. Is survival defined as the mere continuation of life, or the preservation of the institutions, language, and culture that make a nation? Is a quiet border worth a compromised future?

These are not academic musings for Ukrainians queuing at bakeries in winter markets. They are urgent choices made under pressure, with families, cities, and livelihoods in the balance. And they carry lessons for the wider world about how peace is pursued and at what price.

What can the international community do?

Insist on enforceable guarantees: monitoring missions, multilateral sanctions triggers, and the presence of credible peacekeepers where needed.
Support reconstruction with transparent funds tied to governance and anti-corruption safeguards.
Keep diplomatic channels open — even when mediators are accused of bias — because the alternative is often escalation.

These are not silver bullets, but they are practical steps that can narrow the gap between “almost peace” and a lasting settlement.

Where do we go from here?

As the calendar turns, the world watches a fragile calculus: 90% ready, 10% that will determine the fate of Ukraine and, to a degree, the balance of power in Europe. The stakes are enormous. The choices, even more so.

Will the remaining 10% be bridged by courage, clarity, and genuine guarantees? Or will it be exploited, delayed, or obscured by theatrics and propaganda?

As a journalist walking past playgrounds where swings creak in empty air, talking to people who mark time in the cadence of headlines, I find myself asking: What kind of peace do we want? One that silences guns but leaves the reasons for war unaddressed? Or one that reckons with justice, with security, and with the dignity of those who have lived through the last three brutal years?

One president says “not at any cost.” The rest of us — world leaders, neighbors, and ordinary citizens — must decide whether to help turn that 90% into something more than a promise on a New Year’s address. The hinge is small. The door it opens will shape lives for generations.

12 3...198 Page 1 of 198