Thousands Expected to Join ‘Hands Off Greenland’ Demonstrations Nationwide

January 17, 2026

Large crowds expected for 'Hands off Greenland' protests — Greenland residents and political leaders have rejected suggestions by Donald Trump that the Arctic island could become part of the US

When flags fly colder than the wind: Greenlanders march to defend a home

On a late-summer afternoon the sky over Nuuk looked like a watercolor—pale blue washed thin over jagged ice. People gathered anyway, bundled into thick coats, Greenlandic flags snapping bright against the chill. They came not just from the capital but from tiny coastal villages where dogs still outnumber cars, from student flats in Copenhagen, from kitchens where stories of the sea are told at dinner. They came to make one thing unmistakable: Greenland is not something to be bought, bartered or bullied into someone else’s map.

Across Denmark and on the island itself, thousands said they would join marches and rallies organised by Greenlandic groups. Copenhagen, Aarhus, Aalborg, Odense and Nuuk were listed on social media event pages as meeting points. The protests were called by Uagut—a community of Greenlanders in Denmark—alongside groups such as Hands Off Greenland and Inuit, an umbrella association representing various Greenlandic organisations. Their message, crisp and blunt, was printed on handmade placards and chanted in city squares: respect our democracy, respect our right to decide our future.

What lit the fuse

The trigger was a public discussion in Washington that many in Greenland saw as an overreach. Media reports and statements from the White House about the possibility of acquiring Greenland set off alarm bells across the island and in diaspora communities. There was an extra edge to the rhetoric: a warning—”I may put a tariff,” the president said—aimed at countries that might oppose the idea. The comment landed like salt on an open wound.

“It felt like waking up and finding someone had drawn lines over our map,” said a marcher in Nuuk, a retired teacher with a voice like gravel and a scarf embroidered with traditional patterns. “You can’t just talk about sovereignty as if it were a chess piece.”

A diplomatic backdrop

The demonstrations coincided with the visit to Copenhagen of a bipartisan delegation of US politicians—a juxtaposition that organisers said they intended to use to press their case directly. In cities across Denmark, protesters planned stopovers at the US embassy or consulates to hand over petitions and to make sure their voices could not be shrugged off as a fringe protest.

Voices from the march

“We are not a commodity,” said one organiser, Kristian Johansen, speaking to a small press circle before the march began. “We demand respect for our right to self-determination and we demand that other nations respect international law.”

A young woman in a knitted hat who had travelled from Sisimiut with her toddler clutched to her chest said, “My grandfather signed no paper selling this place. This is where our language lives, where our food comes from.”

From Denmark, Uagut’s chairwoman appealed for unity. “When tensions rise and people go into a state of alarm, we risk creating more problems than solutions for ourselves and for each other,” she told reporters. “We appeal to Greenlanders in both Greenland and Denmark to stand together.”

These are not abstract claims. Greenland’s population is small—roughly 57,000 people live on the island—but they are a people with a distinct culture, language and history of governance. Home rule was established decades ago and expanded in 2009, giving Greenlanders control over many internal affairs while the kingdom of Denmark retains responsibility for foreign policy and defence. For many on the island, talk of transferring sovereignty to another country without their consent felt like a step back from hard-won autonomy.

Facts, polls and the broader picture

On social media the numbers swelled: thousands indicated intent to attend across Denmark, and at least 900 people in Greenland signed up for the Nuuk demonstration. Organisers framed the crowds not only as a reaction to rhetoric but as a public reaffirmation of a political principle: that Greenlanders must be the authors of their own destiny.

One poll cited by demonstrators suggested that an overwhelming majority opposed joining the United States. Whatever the precise figure, the sentiment on the island—reinforced in town meetings and living-room conversations—rang clear: people want to shape their future on their own terms.

What underpins the international interest in Greenland is not sentimental. The island sits on resources—minerals, rare earths, potential hydrocarbon reserves—and on a strategic map made more intense by climate change. The Arctic is warming at roughly twice the global average; sea-ice retreat opens shipping lanes and access to previously locked-away prospects. Military planners, economists and climatologists are all watching the region closely.

Greenland’s population: about 57,000
Main industry: fishing (a significant share of exports)
Arctic warming: roughly twice the global average (broad consensus among climate scientists)

Local colour and the human ledger

Walk through Nuuk and you see the contrast in small things: bright corrugated houses clinging to hills, fish drying on racks, youngsters swapping stories in Inuttut (Greenlandic) and Danish. Salt air, diesel, and coffee. A mural of a narwhal on a community centre wall. In the hinterland, dog sleds are still a living memory for many; in the cities, pickup trucks sit beside ancient crafts. These are the textures of place. They are what people worry about losing when big-state conversations are held without their voices at the table.

“They talk about resources and geostrategy like these are board games,” said a fisherman as he rolled a cigarette and watched the marchers stream past. “But every mine, every runway, changes what we eat, where we speak, who our children will be.”

What this moment tells the world

The protests in Copenhagen and Nuuk are more than a local spat. They are a reminder of the frictions that erupt when global power interests brush up against indigenous rights and local democracy. They are part of a larger story about how warming climates redraw strategic maps, how capitalism and sovereignty intersect, and how small communities assert agency in an age of big power posturing.

They also pose questions for readers everywhere: Who has the right to decide the future of a place? How should international disputes be mediated when the people who live on the land are often the last voices heard? And how do we balance the rush for resources with long-term stewardship by communities who depend on the land in visceral, daily ways?

After the march

When the placards were folded and the last speeches made, there was no dramatic treaty to announce, no sudden policy reversal. But there was a reaffirmation: a community reminding itself and the wider world that sovereignty is not a bargaining chip. It is a relationship—between people and their land, between citizens and their institutions—that needs respect.

“We will keep talking, we will keep showing up,” a young organiser from the diaspora said as volunteers passed out tea. “This is not a one-day story. It’s the long work of democracy.”

So what do you think, reader? If a remote place suddenly becomes a spotlight in big-power politics, whose stories should guide the conversation—those who live there, or those who see the land as a strategic prize? The marches in Greenland and Denmark were loud answers. Now the world must listen.

Nobel Committee: The Medal Is Not the Actual Nobel Prize

hanad

January 17, 2026

The medal is not the prize, says Nobel Committee — Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado gave her Nobel Peace Prize medal to Donald Trump

A Medal Made of Gold, a Moment Made of Politics: When a Nobel Crossed an Ocean

On a bright, almost theatrical morning at the White House, a gold disc changed hands and the world watched the choreography of grievance, gratitude and geopolitical theater play out in miniature.

Maria Corina Machado — the Venezuelan opposition leader who, according to the award citation, won the Nobel Peace Prize for “tireless work promoting democratic rights” — placed her medal into the frame of a smiling U.S. president. Photographers snapped; a White House aide beamed. “He deserves it,” Machado announced, a short sentence that landed like a gavel in a room already buzzing with accusation and allegiance.

The image is simple enough: a figure who fled Venezuela by boat not long ago handing over a tiny globe of prestige to a man who has long courted the prize for himself. But the image is also complicated, folded with history, symbolism and a dozen geopolitical ironies.

Oslo’s Calm Clarification

From Oslo came a cooler, more procedural counterpoint. The Nobel Committee — guardians of a prize that once felt sacrosanct and indisputably apolitical — issued a reminder: the laureate is the laureate, regardless of where the medal, diploma or prize money end up. “The medal’s journey does not rewrite the books,” a committee spokeswoman said. “The person named remains the recorded laureate.”

It is an almost legalistic note, but it quietly palpates at a broader question: who owns symbolism when it becomes a political tool?

What Was Given — and What It Means

Machado’s award came with three components: the gold medal itself, a diploma and a monetary prize — historically around 11 million Swedish kronor, roughly one million euros. The Nobel Committee has, in past decades, observed laureates selling, gifting, or donating pieces of their prize without changing the record of who received it. That legal fact is simple. The politics around this morning in Washington are anything but.

“This was not a gift to Donald Trump; it was an appeal to the institution he embodies,” said Lina Herrera, a Venezuelan historian now living in Madrid. “Maria Corina is signaling to the U.S. political machine: recognize and protect our cause. The medal is a megaphone.”

Between Boat Escapes and Backroom Deals

Machado’s journey to Oslo and then to Washington read like a political thriller. After leaving Venezuela by sea, she accepted the prize in Norway. She dedicated it, publicly, to the U.S. president. And yesterday, she handed him the physical symbol of that dedication.

Inside the White House, aides framed the moment as reciprocal. “The president intends to keep the framed medal,” a White House official said to reporters, gesturing at the photograph posted on social channels. “It symbolizes the United States’ support for the Venezuelan people.”

Outside the gilded frames of international diplomacy, Venezuelans watched with a mix of pride, skepticism and exhaustion. More than seven million Venezuelans have left their country in the past decade, fleeing hyperinflation, shortages and political repression. Caracas, once a booming capital fueled by oil billions, is now more often spoken of in numbers: GDP contractions that erased much of a decade’s progress, childhood malnutrition statistics that inflame moral outrage, and the staggering migration toll that has reshaped the geopolitics of the Western Hemisphere.

“We’ve been denied normal life,” said Rosa Delgado, who now runs an arepa stand in Miami’s Little Caracas. “When I see her medal, I feel seen. When I see it given to Trump, I scratch my head. Politics is never clean.”

Voices on the Ground

Not everyone interpreted the scene the same way. In Oslo, a Norwegian political scientist, Dr. Eirik Thomassen, said, “Nobel Prizes have always sat at the intersection of morality and realpolitik. Laureates around the world have used their recognition in myriad ways — to fund causes, to amplify voices, to make statements. What matters is the cause, not the ornament.”

On the other side of the debate, a Venezuelan exile in Madrid, Jorge Ávila, was blunt. “If she’s allying with one foreign leader at the expense of broad-based support, that’s risky,” he said. “Symbols can rally people, yes, but they can also alienate.”

Symbols, Strategy, and the Currency of Legitimacy

Why, you might ask, does a medal matter so much? Because in an era of fractured attention and performative politics, symbols are the currency of legitimacy. A framed Nobel at the White House functions less as a history book entry and more as a billboard. It is a declaration not just of who did what, but who stands with whom.

The transaction also underscores a trend in global politics: the increasing willingness of political actors to convert symbolic capital into strategic partnership. Whether through donations, public endorsements or theatrical handovers, prizes and accolades are being leveraged to reconfigure alliances in a world where traditional diplomacy sometimes feels too slow for the social-media age.

“We are seeing a new politics of performance,” noted Sofia Mendes, a Latin American studies professor at a U.S. university. “Leaders and movements transplant symbols into new settings to claim moral authority. The Nobel, because of its global standing, is high-value currency in this marketplace.”

Questions of Authenticity and Agency

And yet questions remain. Was the medal meant to cement a personal bond, to secure political capital, or to broadcast a plea for intervention? Could the gesture alienate parts of the Venezuelan opposition that are wary of foreign involvement? Could it, conversely, galvanize supporters who see the United States as a necessary counterweight to authoritarianism?

“We’re tired of external saviors and internal sellouts,” said an opposition activist who asked to remain anonymous because of safety concerns. “But we’re also tired of being ignored. It’s a messy calculus.”

After the Photo: What Comes Next?

Pictures, as they say, last longer than promises. The Nobel remains on the record as Machado’s. The medal is in the custody of a president who has long chased the prize himself, and the political winds in Venezuela keep blowing in uncertain directions — alliances shift, interim claims are made, and the oil-rich country’s future is very much an open question.

So where do we go from here? Perhaps the most honest answer is that we do not know. But this episode offers a sharp lesson about our moment: that symbols, like currencies, can be exchanged, invested, or hoarded — and that the stories we tell about those exchanges shape the political imagination.

When you see a medal, what do you see? A bright disk of metal, or a signal flare lighting a contentious path forward? The distinction matters because, as Machado’s journey shows, sometimes the smallest objects carry the heaviest messages.

“Symbols can open doors,” Machado said yesterday as she handed over her medal. “They can also close them.” What doors will open now — and which will close — is a story still being written, on plazas and in parliaments, in living rooms and on the pages of international diplomacy. Will a framed Nobel redraw loyalties or only redraw headlines? Only time will tell.

Joshua resumes training after crash that claimed friends’ lives

hanad

January 17, 2026

Joshua back in gym following crash which killed friends — Anthony Joshua was injured in the fatal crash last month

Back in the Ring of Daily Life: Anthony Joshua’s Quiet, Complicated Return

There are comebacks that roar, and there are comebacks that whisper. On a grey morning in a private gym—no lights, no cameras, only the familiar rhythm of gloves on pads—Anthony Joshua chose the latter.

The boxing world watched, then paused. A short video posted to Snapchat showed the towering fighter moving through familiar rituals: mitt-work with a trainer who stood off-frame, steady rounds on a stationary bike, measured footwork, the soft exhale after a hard sprint. A caption floated across one clip: “mental strength therapy.” It was simple, human—and it landed like a quiet announcement that life, unbearably, goes on.

The loss that followed a holiday

Joshua, 36, had been in Nigeria on holiday after his recent win in Miami, a trip that was meant to be celebration and connection: family gatherings, old friends, the warmth of homecoming. Instead, a road crash on 29 December left two of his close companions dead—Sina Ghami, who had acted as his strength and conditioning coach, and Latif “Latz” Ayodele, a longtime trainer and confidant.

The details of the crash have been passed along in police statements and somber social-media posts. For Joshua it has become a private catastrophe made public: the crushing, disorienting work of grief layered on the physical demands of a sport that prizes resilience above almost everything else.

Inside the short film of recovery

The Snapchat clips were not a press conference. They were vignettes: Joshua tethering himself to routines that have carried him through Olympic gold and stadium nights—speed, repetition, breath. “Sometimes the hardest work is not about conditioning your body but teaching your heart to move,” read a caption under one frame. It felt like therapy, a way to calibrate strength without the fanfare.

“I saw him—focused, quieter than usual,” said a close friend who has spent summers with Joshua in Lagos and asked not to be named. “He’s not trying to put on a brave face. He’s just doing what he knows: working. But there’s a sadness. You can see it in how he pauses between rounds.”

Names, faces, and the small human rituals

Sina Ghami and Latif Ayodele were not public figures in the way Joshua is, but among those who knew the fighter they were essential. Ghami’s role as a strength and conditioning coach meant he worked in those in-between hours—warming up pads at dawn, driving recovery sessions into the night. Ayodele’s nickname, Latz, was a sign of affection; he had been in gyms long enough to know how to steady a man as he moved through peaks and troughs of public life.

At the roadside memorials that appeared in the weeks after the crash, flowers and rosary beads mixed with the crisp smell of fried plantain and suya—small things that made the scene unmistakably Nigerian. “People came who didn’t know them,” said a neighbor outside the area where some mourners gathered. “They came because when you lose someone close to a hero, it feels like you lose someone from your street.”

What grief looks like for an athlete

The image of a champion circling a punching bag is as old as the sport. But what happens when that circle is broken by grief? Sports psychologists say the process is neither straightforward nor bound by timelines.

“Athletes often feel pressure to ‘return’ quickly—sponsors, fans, schedules all press against the slow, messy work of mourning,” explained Dr. Maya Okoye, a sports psychologist who works with elite athletes on trauma and rehabilitation. “The fact that Joshua is back in the gym is not a sign he’s over it. It’s a way of staying anchored. Still, effective recovery isn’t just physical; it requires time, ritual, and people who let him both grieve and rebuild.”

Public health data reminds us that grief and trauma are global concerns with local inflections. The World Health Organization estimates roughly 1.3 million people die on the world’s roads each year—behind many of those numbers are families, communities, and the ripple effects that reach far beyond a single headline. In countries like Nigeria, where roads can be precarious and emergency response stretched, those statistics are painfully present in town squares and living rooms.

Voices from the margins: local responses

In the neighborhood where the crash occurred, people described a mixture of sorrow and a strange, stoic pragmatism. “We mourn, yes, but we also make space for life to continue,” said Ife, a shopkeeper who sells soft drinks and late-night snacks near the junction. “People came with food, with stories. In Nigeria we say: ‘It is in the hands of God.’ That doesn’t stop the pain, but we surround one another.”

Another mourned the loss of two men who had been quiet pillars for someone whose name filled stadiums. “They were the ones who made the big man comfortable,” said a trainer from a local gym. “They looked after him without wanting to be seen. That’s why their deaths are being felt by so many.”

Industry perspective: a promoter’s patience

From the other side of the Atlantic, Joshua’s promoter has urged patience. “We’ll let him heal,” Eddie Hearn said in a recent statement, expressing belief that Joshua will return to the sport when he is ready. “Boxing will be here. Right now he needs time—time to grieve and time to gather himself.” Whether in press rooms or whispered conversations in a gym, that sentiment has resonated: the future of a public career should not dictate the cadence of private healing.

What follows next—and what we can learn

How do we, as spectators and citizens, measure strength? Is it the ability to step back into the ring immediately, to stare down cameras and competitors? Or is it the quieter ability to allow wounds to mend in public, to accept help, and to slow down?

Joshua’s situation asks that question aloud. For fans, for critics, for people who care about sport as both theater and livelihood, there is a lesson in humility: athletes are archetypes and they are human. Both truths matter.

He may one day stand under the big lights again—swinging, measured, triumphant. Or his return may be more private, a gradual reclaiming of rhythm: morning runs, pad work, laughter in dressing rooms. Either way, the story unfolding now is not just about a fighter getting back to training. It’s about mourning, memory, and the strange alchemy that turns grief into the fuel for a life remade.

What would you do if the script of your life changed overnight? How do we hold space—for public figures and private friends alike—when they are both visible and vulnerable? Take a moment to listen to the sounds of the gym, and imagine the echo of a glove on a pad: small, steady, insistently alive.

Mayor says strikes have slashed Kyiv’s electricity supply by half

hanad

January 17, 2026

Kyiv electricity cut by half after strikes, says mayor — Around half of Ukraine's capital remains in the dark and without heating as temperatures drop below freezing

When the lights go out: Kyiv’s winter under siege

The city felt smaller, a little more fragile, as night fell. Windows that once glowed with the yellow comfort of kettles and televisions now offered only the dim bluish reflections of phone screens. In one ninth-floor apartment on the left bank, a mother pressed a row of stuffed animals into the gap where cold wind streamed through a warped window frame — not toys, but battlefield implements against frost.

“You don’t think about hypothermia until you see it in your children’s chapped cheeks,” said Olena Petrenko, a primary school teacher who lives near Maidan Nezalezhnosti. “We are rationing heat like it’s food.”

This is Kyiv in mid-January: a capital that needs roughly 1,700 megawatts to keep its hospitals running, subways ventilated, boilers heated and millions from freezing. That figure — the electricity required to sustain a city of about 3.6 million people — is not an abstract model. It is the tally the mayor’s office has used to measure what is, in their words, the toughest energy emergency since the Russian invasion began nearly four years ago.

What happened

In a new wave of missile and drone strikes across Ukraine, critical parts of the country’s energy system were sabotaged. Repair teams — some sent by Kyiv’s international partners, some improvised from local brigades — have been running around the clock. Thousands of homes in Kyiv and frontline regions, including Dnipropetrovsk, Kharkiv and Odesa, were plunged into darkness. Authorities say a strike last week disrupted heating for around 6,000 apartment buildings; about 100 buildings remain without warmth.

“We are fighting a war of seconds,” sighed Vitali Klitschko, the mayor of Kyiv, during an interview in his office. “For the first time in our history, a city in such severe frosts has found most of its residents without heating and with a huge shortage of electricity.”

That shortage has translated into blunt, practical measures. Streetlights were dimmed to just 20% of normal intensity. Schools in the capital were ordered to close from January 19 until February 1 because classrooms cannot be heated reliably. Generators — the humming, hot-hearted machines of emergency life — have become currency, and the international community has rushed them to Ukraine.

The human toll

The statistics are sharp and clinical; the reality is ragged and cold. At night, temperatures around Kyiv have dipped to roughly -18°C. Hypothermia, frostbite and respiratory illnesses spike when heating falters and power is intermittent. Water supplies have been disrupted when pumping stations lose electricity. Hospitals strain to keep critical care devices online. A newborn in a neonatal unit, a dialysis patient, a school canteen that keeps warm soup flowing — all of them are vulnerable when the grid goes dark.

“Children and families are in constant survival mode,” Munir Mammadzade, UNICEF’s country representative in Ukraine, told reporters in Geneva. “People are trying to stay safe from strikes on high-rise buildings while temperatures plunge. We are racing to restore water and heating where we can.”

Jaime Wah, deputy head of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies’ Kyiv delegation, added a stark human note: “It’s unbearable to live in apartments with no heating or electricity. Families are resorting to consider leaving the city.”

In some apartment blocks, neighbours huddle in a single warm room. In a high-rise on the left bank, two grandmothers and four children rotate between a rarely used electric kettle and a portable heater donated by a charity. “We sit close together and tell stories,” said Mykola, 68, who worked in the metro system for decades. “It keeps us warm in more ways than one.”

Supplies and limits

Kyiv’s energy precariousness is being managed on two ticking clocks. One is the availability of fuel: Ukraine’s energy minister has said the country has more than 20 days of reserves — a stretch that buys time but not certainty. The other is the availability of equipment and funding. Pre-positioned stockpiles of sleeping kits, generators and repair materials are running low because needs have ballooned and financing is strained.

UN agencies have sent high-capacity generators to hospitals and some schools, humanitarian groups report, but they warn that these are stopgaps. Repair crews need spare parts, transformers and protective equipment. The worry is blunt: without secure supplies and additional funding, more people will be pushed into danger by a long, freezing winter.

Politics, aid and the quest for a longer peace

Amid the chill and the blackouts, Kyiv’s political leaders have been shuttling between war rooms and international summits. President Volodymyr Zelensky’s team is en route to the United States for talks on security guarantees and a post-war recovery package, hoping to clinch documents on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos. Kyiv estimates that reconstruction will cost on the order of $800 billion — a jaw-dropping figure that would reshape conversations about European security and geopolitics for decades.

There are also tense diplomatic manoeuvres under way. Washington has pushed for a peace framework that it would then present to Moscow; Kyiv and many European partners insist a viable deal must ensure Ukraine cannot be attacked again. “Each strike against our energy infrastructure shows Russia’s real intentions,” Mr Zelensky said this week, arguing that recent attacks undercut any notion Moscow wants a negotiated peace.

Inside that debate are immediate operational needs. Mr Zelensky appealed for more air-defence munitions to protect the power grid and civilian infrastructure. “Some air-defence systems were left without missiles before a new aid package arrived,” he said. “We need to fight for these packages with everything we have — it is literally a matter of lives.”

What this means beyond Ukraine

When a capital’s lights go out, it is not only a local catastrophe. It is also a global signal: modern warfare increasingly targets the infrastructure that sustains daily life — not only military installations, but power plants, pumping stations and the arteries of civic life. That trend poses a profound humanitarian problem and a policy challenge for donors, insurers and governments worldwide.

How should cities build resilience when their utilities become targets? How do international law and humanitarian aid evolve when winter becomes another weapon? How do ordinary citizens — teachers, gas station attendants, grandparents — continue to live fully when the rules of peacetime are suspended?

These are not theoretical questions. They are the ones facing families in Kyiv right now as they swivel between cold and emergency warmth, news of diplomatic progress and the boom of distant strikes.

On the street

Outside, the city still hums in a skeletal way. A children’s playground in Lviv stands cordoned off after a falling drone. A bakery in Podil keeps its oven burning for those who come seeking hot bread and conversation. Volunteers organize routes to ferry generators across town. A patrol of electricians, bundled in reflective jackets, trudges toward a power substation with spare transformers on a flatbed truck.

“We are tired and cold,” said Hanna Kovalenko, a volunteer coordinator who has turned her living room into a distribution hub for heaters. “But we also know how to share. When the lights come back, it won’t be because of one person. It will be because a thousand small acts of care kept people alive.”

What you can do — and what policymakers must consider

Support humanitarian agencies: UNICEF, the Red Cross and local charities are on the ground supplying generators, blankets and medical supplies.
Push for investments in hardened infrastructure: insulated power lines, decentralized microgrids and protected pumping stations reduce single points of failure.
Demand clearer diplomatic mechanisms: long-term security guarantees must be part of any recovery plan, otherwise reconstruction becomes recurring emergency relief.

When you scroll past footage of Kyiv’s darkened skyline, remember these details: the newborn in neonatal care, the teacher with stuffed animals in the window, the repair crew who have not slept. They are not statistics. They are the ledger of a winter that will test how the world protects civilian life in an age when war reaches deep into the systems we take for granted.

What would you do if the heat went out? How would you keep your neighbours safe? Kyiv’s winter asks these moral and practical questions of us all.

Machado Says Venezuela Begins Transition to Democracy Process

hanad

January 17, 2026

Venezuela starting 'transition to democracy' - Machado — Maria Corina Machado insisted she will be elected Venezuelan president 'when the right time comes' despite the US sidelining her after overthrowing Nicolas Maduro

A medal in the Oval Office, a country in the balance

The photograph will haunt anyone who follows Venezuela’s long, bitter saga: a woman with a Nobel Peace Prize in her hands, a gleam of defiance in her eyes, standing inside the Oval Office. It is an image that feels both intimate and seismic — intimate because of the personal courage and exile that trail Maria Corina Machado, seismic because of what it suggests about the tectonic shifts now shaking Venezuela and the region.

“We are definitely now into the first steps of a true transition to democracy,” Machado told reporters in Washington after the meeting, her words carrying the blunt certainty she has long cultivated. “Everyone should have the right to vote as soon as possible in free and fair elections.”

Her claim, and the symbolism of a Nobel medal placed before the U.S. president, is the most recent chapter in a story that has confused allies and enemies alike: a nation battered by authoritarianism, an opposition fractured and dispersed, and two foreign capitals — Caracas and Washington — attempting, in different ways, to reshape the outcome.

Washington’s shifting line

In Washington, the picture is not clean. After a dramatic January operation in which U.S. forces captured Nicolás Maduro and his wife, the political landscape of Venezuela shifted overnight. The U.S. initially made clear statements against Maduro’s rule. But inside the White House, the calculus has been more mercurial than many expected.

President Trump has publicly signaled support for Delcy Rodríguez — Maduro’s former vice-president — as an interim leader, at least for the near term. The explanation is pragmatic and blunt: Washington wants stability and, crucially, access to Venezuela’s enormous oil resources. The U.S. State Department has insisted any interim administration must cooperate on anti-narcotics work and open doors to international investment.

Maduro’s detention in New York and Rodríguez’s delivery of the state of the nation speech from Caracas have deepened the sense of a country governed in shards. Rodríguez, who spoke from the parliamentary lectern, pushed back against what she cast as U.S. pressure: “We know they are very powerful… we are not afraid to confront them diplomatically, through political dialogue,” she said. “If I visit Washington, I will do so with my head held high, walking, not on my knees.”

The intelligence handshake

Adding to the complexity, the director of U.S. intelligence paid a rare visit to Rodríguez. According to U.S. officials, the meeting was meant to send a clear signal: the United States expects cooperation on security and intelligence, especially to prevent Venezuela from becoming a haven for narcotics networks or other adversarial actors.

It’s a transactional approach, a Washington view that places stability and security above a quicker transfer of electoral legitimacy. That pragmatism has alienated some opposition figures, who see it as a betrayal of the democratic moment Machado believes her country is finally entering.

Voices from both sides of the divide

On the streets of Washington, Machado’s supporters cheered as if every march and whispered meeting of the past decade had finally arrived at a hinge point.

“She carried our story into that room,” said José Alvarez, a Venezuelan teacher who fled Caracas five years ago. “For us, she is proof that we can still be seen. That our pain matters.”

But not all Venezuelans abroad shared that certainty. “I want free, fair elections, yes,” said Ana Morales, who runs a small bakery in Queens and left Venezuela in 2018. “But I am scared of foreign hands picking the leader for us. Democracy isn’t a trophy to be handed over.”

Back in Caracas, reactions ranged from anger to weary skepticism. A street vendor near La Candelaria, who asked to be identified only as Luis, spat on the ground when the news broke that Washington had made overtures to Rodríguez. “They think oil can buy our hearts,” he said. “We are not merchandise.”

Experts weigh in

“This is a classic case of the tension between legitimacy and stability,” said an analyst who studies Latin American transitions. “External actors can create openings, but they also risk imposing solutions that won’t hold once foreign attention turns elsewhere.”

Those words matter because the stakes are enormous. Venezuela’s humanitarian collapse is not an abstract number in a policy brief — it is millions of lives on the move. According to UN agencies and migration monitors, roughly 7 million Venezuelans have left the country in the last decade, seeking refuge and work across the hemisphere. The economy, once fueled by oil, has contracted dramatically: output, public services and social safety nets have deteriorated, and the nation’s crude production never recovered from years of mismanagement and sanctions.

Venezuela holds roughly 300 billion barrels of proven oil reserves — among the largest in the world.
Yet production in recent years has fallen to a fraction of its former peak, leaving the population impoverished even as resource wealth lies underground.
Migration and displacement have created large Venezuelan diasporas in Colombia, the United States, Spain and beyond.

Democracy, or something else?

Machado insists that elections are non-negotiable. “I believe I will be elected when the right time comes as president of Venezuela, the first woman president,” she declared on U.S. television. “I want to serve my country where I am more useful. I got a mandate, and I have that mandate.”

And then there is the surreal exchange of symbols: Machado presented her Nobel medal in Washington, calling it not a personal honor but “on behalf of the people of Venezuela.” The Norwegian Nobel Committee, however, has strict rules about transfer and ownership of awards, a bureaucratic detail that undercuts the poetic theater of the gesture.

Ask yourself: what does democracy mean when its contours are drawn as much by foreign policy as by ballots? When an opposition leader flirts with international patrons? When a people’s hopes are entangled with global energy markets? The questions are uncomfortable because the answers are messy.

What comes next?

There are no easy roadmaps. Transitional governments can stitch together rapid stability — as Washington seems to prefer. Or they can prepare the slow, brittle work of restoring institutions and legitimacy through elections and reconciliation. Both paths come with risks.

“The danger is that short-term fixes become long-term compromises,” warned an independent Latin America scholar. “True democratic transition requires trust-building at home. External endorsement can help, but it cannot substitute for a credible, inclusive political process.”

For those who fled Venezuela and those who still stand in its plazas, the scene in Washington will feel consequential. For the rest of the world, it is a prompt: we are watching not just a political wobble in a single country, but a test case of how 21st-century power — oil, exile, armed intervention, global media and Nobel laurels — can collide with the fragile machinery of self-rule.

So where do you stand? Do you think democracy can be rebuilt from the outside in, or must it come from the messy, patient work of people inside the country? Tell me what you believe — because Venezuela’s future will be written not only in Washington or Caracas, but in the choices ordinary people make on the ground.

Trump threatens tariffs against nations opposing his Greenland purchase plans

hanad

January 16, 2026

Trump threatens tariffs on those opposing Greenland plans — Greenlandic leaders have been universal in their opposition to Donald Trump's plans for the territory

The Island No One Thought Could Be Bought

Imagine waking to the scent of diesel and coffee in Nuuk, catching sight of a black government van rolling away from the parliament building, and hearing — on a crackling radio, or more likely on a streaming feed — that a distant leader is once again talking about buying your homeland. That was the surreal beat-feed in mid-morning Copenhagen and across the iced bays of Greenland: talk of tariffs, threats, and territorial ambitions that read like a plot from an alternate-history novel.

“It feels like watching a drama where the characters forget we’re not extras,” said Einar Olsen, a 41-year-old ferry captain who runs supplies between Greenland’s scattered settlements. “This is our home. You don’t buy my grandmother’s stories.”

Tariffs, Threats, and a Strange Real Estate Pitch

At the White House, the suggestion was blunt and transactional: if allies don’t back an effort to bring Greenland under U.S. control, tariffs could be used as leverage. “I may put a tariff on countries if they don’t go along with Greenland, because we need Greenland for national security,” the president said, tying trade policy to an island half a world away.

It was not the first time this episode played out. The idea of purchasing Greenland is odd in modern diplomacy yet not unprecedented: in 1946 the United States explored buying Greenland from Denmark. Today the stakes are different — minerals, new shipping lanes as the Arctic warms, and strategic military locations like Thule, a U.S. base that has long made Greenland a geopolitical interest.

How people on the ground see it

“We don’t lease our identity to the highest bidder,” said Aqqaluk Kaasik, a Greenlandic teacher sipping strong tea in Nuuk’s art café. “You can talk about mineral wealth, you can talk about bases, but you cannot buy centuries.”

Greenland’s population is tiny by global standards — roughly 56,000 people — spread across an island the size of Western Europe. Yet small doesn’t mean insignificant. The island is mineral-rich, with estimates suggesting vast deposits of rare earth elements and other strategic ores increasingly valuable to clean-energy and defense technologies.

Congress Intervenes — and Europe Responds

Within days, a bipartisan delegation of U.S. lawmakers boarded planes for Copenhagen. In an act of what politicians called solidarity, Democrats and Republicans stood with Danish and Greenlandic officials, making clear that an outright acquisition would face major political headwinds at home. “We are showing bipartisan solidarity with the people of this country and with Greenland,” said Senator Dick Durbin. “The statements being made by the president do not reflect what the American people feel.”

The visit coincided with a European military reconnaissance mission. Small contingents from the UK, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Finland flew and sailed north to Greenlandic waters — a symbolic riposte: Europe would not sit idly by if sovereignty was threatened.

“We are sending a signal,” France’s defense leadership said, describing the deployments as exercises to protect sovereignty, not to provoke Washington. Yet the choreography on the ice — a quiet fleet, a reconnaissance plane tracing the fjords — felt like modern diplomacy at its most theatrical.

The human rhythm of resistance

In Nuuk, ordinary life continued with a stubborn normality. Children in bright parkas chased gulls along the wharf while elders sat on benches polishing sealskin boots. But there was energy, too: meetings, leaflets, and talk of mass demonstrations planned in cities from Nuuk to Copenhagen to Aarhus.

“We’ll shout, we’ll sing,” said Inga Motzfeldt, a community organizer, her hands warm against the cold. “Not because we’re anti-American — many Greenlanders have friends in the States — but because this is about self-determination.”

Politics, Law, and the Limits of Power

On both sides of the aisle in Washington, the response was immediate and complicated. Some Republicans privately fretted that a presidential drive to annex a territory could overreach presidential authority and run headlong into Congress’ constitutional war powers. Democrats, too, denounced the rhetoric as undermining NATO and playing into the narratives of geopolitical rivals like Russia and China.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll showed what many predicted: only 17% of Americans supported the idea of acquiring Greenland. Majorities across party lines opposed using military force to annex the island. “Saner heads will prevail,” said Senator Jeanne Shaheen, whose family history included service in Greenland, arguing that institutions and law would check presidential impulses.

Legal experts remind us that modern annexation is not a boardroom transaction. Under international law, sovereignty cannot be bought from one state in ways that ignore the wishes of the people who live there—and democratic checks at home make unilateral moves fraught and unlikely.

Geopolitics, Minerals, and the Melting Arctic

Why the fuss? Climate change has redrawn strategic maps. Melting ice opens new shipping lanes and access to minerals — rare earths needed for batteries, wind turbines, and electric vehicles — and that prospect has sparked a rush of interest from states big and small.

Greenland’s land area: about 2.16 million km²
Population: roughly 56,000 people
Strategic asset: Thule Air Base, a U.S. installation in northwest Greenland

“Countries are recalibrating their northern strategies,” explained Dr. Laila Sørensen, an Arctic policy researcher. “It’s about resources, yes, but fundamentally it’s about control of new maritime routes and military positioning. Greenland sits at the hinge of the North Atlantic and Arctic — that’s why it keeps appearing in headlines.”

What This Moment Tells Us

This episode — midnight tweets, threats of tariffs, planes over icy fjords, lawmakers rushing abroad — is a microcosm of broader tensions: an age where climate change unlocks new geographies of wealth; where small communities find themselves bargaining chips in great-power chess; and where the rules of statehood are tested by the pace of change.

But the human element remains stubbornly central. For Greenlanders, this isn’t about geopolitics in the abstract. It’s about language, land, history, and the right to chart their own future. “We will not be a footnote,” said a 28-year-old nurse in Sisimiut, refusing to be erased by headlines. “We will be the authors of our destiny.”

Where Do We Go From Here?

Will tariffs, threats, or theatrics alter the arc of sovereignty? Probably not. Will the Arctic become ever more crowded with interest, investment, and tension? Almost certainly. The drama that briefly shook Nuuk and Copenhagen should force a question on all of us: how do we craft rules to protect small communities as global forces — economic, climatic, strategic — sweep across them?

As you read this, paused in a cafe or scrolling through your phone, ask yourself: when the earth’s maps change, who gets to redraw the lines? Who speaks for the people who live where the ice is melting first? These are not only Greenland’s questions; they are ours.

Machado Claims She ‘Presented’ Her Nobel Medal to Donald Trump

hanad

January 16, 2026

Machado says she 'presented' her Nobel medal to Trump — US President Donald Trump met Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado in the Oval Office

A Medal, a Meeting, and the Muffled Drums of a Hemisphere in Flux

It was a small, shining object that managed, for a few brisk minutes, to encapsulate a continent’s tangled hopes and grievances: a round, gilt medal stamped with laurels and a portrait, held up like a relic at the heart of a diplomatic theatre.

Maria Corina Machado, the Venezuelan opposition firebrand, walked out into the grey air of Washington with that medal in her hand — and with a story to tell. “I presented the president of the United States the medal of the Nobel Peace Prize,” she told reporters in a brisk, almost ceremonial voice. Around her, cameras clicked, aides murmured, and the Capitol’s stone facades watched like an indifferent jury.

She described the gesture in lofty, history-haunted terms, invoking the long, winding friendships and debts between the Americas: “It felt like giving back a token to an heir of Washington,” she said, drawing a symbolic line from Lafayette’s gift to Simón Bolívar two centuries ago to this moment on American soil.

Whether the medal stayed with the president is another matter — an absurd, almost comic-footnote question in a meeting whose implications are anything but simple. The Norwegian Nobel Committee later reminded the world of a dry but important fact: a Nobel Peace Prize can travel between pockets and hands, but the title belongs to the laureate forever. “A medal can change owners,” the committee posted, “but the title of a Nobel Peace Prize laureate cannot.”

Staged For Influence, Felt for Real

What unfolded in Washington was part spectacle, part strategic shuffle. Ms. Machado — long a thorn in Caracas — had been invited to see the man to whom she had once been dismissed by name. She left speaking of a “great” meeting and of a gesture meant to reward what she framed as a commitment to Venezuelan liberty.

Inside the halls of power, however, signals moved in different directions. That same administration, seeking leverage over one of the hemisphere’s most geopolitically significant resources, has publicly warmed to another figure: Delcy Rodríguez, whom U.S. officials described as a “interim president” in recent statements. “The president likes what he’s seeing,” National Security spokespeople said, stopping short of pinning a calendar onto promised elections.

In a world where control of energy translates to control of influence, Venezuela looms large. The oil-rich nation still boasts some of the largest proven crude reserves on the planet — estimates often put them in the range of 300 billion barrels — and for decades petroleum has been the linchpin of its economy, accounting historically for the lion’s share of exports and foreign currency earnings.

Black Gold and a New Kind of Occupation

The past week has underscored how far the fight over Venezuela’s future is from being merely rhetorical. U.S. forces seized a sixth tanker — the Veronica — in a pre-dawn operation that, according to military footage circulated online, involved Marines rappelling onto a vessel’s deck. No shots were fired; the seizure was described as “without incident.”

Alongside these maritime interdictions, a first U.S.-brokered sale of Venezuelan oil — reportedly worth around $500 million — has closed. “We’re not just blocking, we’re rerouting markets,” said one Western oil analyst on background. “Who controls the flow of Venezuelan crude controls a lot of leverage in the region.”

For many Venezuelans, the spectacle of foreign forces and tanker seizures has triggered a mix of fear, anger, and weary resignation. “My brother worked on a tanker out of La Guaira,” said Elena, a 42-year-old vendor who sells arepas from a battered cart in eastern Caracas. “We just want the phones to ring, for people to work. These fights make us pay.”

History, Memory, and the Currency of Symbols

Ms. Machado’s invocation of Bolívar and Lafayette is more than rhetorical flourish. Latin America lives on a palimpsest of memory: independence-era iconography, a long-running narrative of North–South entanglement, and the visceral symbolism of gifts and medals. In a region where monuments are still routinely polished and contested, giving a medal is meant to say something that treaties and sanctions often fail to convey.

“Symbols can both inflame and soothe,” observed Dr. Ana Gutiérrez, a political historian at a university in Bogotá. “But in a crisis of legitimacy — when multiple claimants declare themselves ‘the’ government — gestures become a type of currency.”

That currency is not only symbolic. Sanctions, maritime blockades, and the selling or seizure of oil come with immediate, measurable consequences. Venezuelan migrants — more than seven million by some estimates, according to data from the UN refugee agency and the International Organization for Migration — have fled economic collapse and political repression over the last decade. Remittances and dwindling imports affect even the smallest households, from the arepa cart to the municipal hospital.

Lives Between Headlines

Back in Washington, Machado’s arrivals were greeted by a small band of jubilant supporters who waved flags and chanted outside the White House. “We felt heard,” said José, who traveled from Miami, his voice thick with emotion. “For years the world turned away. Today, someone listened.”

Across the hemisphere, reactions have been more heterogeneous. In Havana, the state broadcaster ran a sombre segment acknowledging the deaths of 32 soldiers reported killed in the operation that toppled Nicolás Maduro — a ceremony attended by Cuban revolutionary figures and framed as a martyrdom in state media. The casualties and cross-border reverberations are reminders that these geopolitical maneuvers are not contained within diplomatic communiqués; they reverberate through families and neighborhoods.

Questions, Risks, and the Road Ahead

So what do we make of a Nobel medal presented on the White House lawn? Of tankers taken in the Caribbean? Of a global superpower leaning toward a provisional leader in Caracas?

On one hand, the scenes are about realpolitik and leverage. Access to oil pipelines and shipping lanes matters. On the other, they are about narratives — who gets to be called a liberator, who is labeled interim, and whose suffering is counted. “Power asks not just for control but for stories that justify control,” Dr. Gutiérrez said.

And there are pragmatic risks. Military seizures in international waters, or the repurposing of oil flows, can spike prices, disrupt supply chains, and deepen humanitarian woes at home. They also set precedents about how external powers intervene when governments fall, falter, or are transformed.

As readers, perhaps we should ask ourselves: what is the currency we value more — a medal that travels between hands, or the longer, quieter work of building institutions that keep people fed, healthy, and free to choose? Are we moved by symbols because they move us toward action, or because they let us feel like we’ve acted when we really haven’t?

Whether this particular medal ends up in a display case, a private drawer, or a museum, it will not stop the hard arithmetic of governance, oil markets, or migration. It may, however, harden narratives. And in the hemisphere’s towns and plazas, where lives are measured in the rising price of bread and the distance a family must travel to find work, the consequences of those narratives will be felt in ways that no medal, however famous, can fully express.

European Forces Land in Greenland Preparing for Joint Military Exercises

hanad

January 16, 2026

European troops arrive in Greenland ahead of exercises — A Danish Air Force Lockheed C-130J Super Hercules arrived at Nuuk international airport in Greenland this morning

Midnight at Nuuk Airport: A Cold Welcome for Hot Politics

The plane from Copenhagen touched down under a pale Arctic sky and disgorged a small, deliberate procession of soldiers into the chill. They moved past electronic billboards advertising Greenlandic smoked fish and a poster of a local drum dancer, their uniforms a strange, foreign cadence against the soft hum of Inuit conversation.

“You feel it in the air,” said an elderly hunter named Aqqaluk, leaning against a snow-dusted fence as buses arrived to take the newcomers to temporary quarters. “This is our home. We watch boats and weather, not flags arriving like tourists.”

That low-key scene in Nuuk—quiet, seasonally lit, stubbornly ordinary—belies a far larger drama. For weeks, Denmark and Greenland have been racing to reassure friends, push back on a rhetorical claim from Washington, and make a statement about sovereignty that is as much cultural as it is strategic.

Why Greenland Suddenly Feels Like the Center of the World

It helps to remember some basic facts: Greenland is vast—about 2.16 million square kilometers, mostly ice—and tiny in people, home to roughly 56,000 people concentrated along a long, rugged coast. The island has been an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark since the Self-Government Act of 2009, but its geological underbelly—minerals, rare earths, potential shipping lanes carved by climate change—has made it a prize in a new kind of geopolitical chess.

“This is not romantic adventurism,” said Dr. Helena Sørensen, an Arctic security expert. “When the ice retreats, the world’s supply chains and power dynamics change. That’s why states take Greenland seriously.”

The spark for the latest tension was blunt: a presidential remark from Washington reiterating what some diplomats call an “ambition” to gain more control over Greenland in the name of security. Whether framed as purchase talk or a broader assertion of interest, it sent ripples through capitals in Copenhagen, Paris, Berlin and beyond.

Allies in, Tension Up

Rather than respond to rhetoric with rhetoric, Denmark and Greenland quietly called allies home. Within days, small teams from France, Germany, Sweden and Norway were en route. A reconnaissance contingent from Germany—around 13 personnel—stopped first in Copenhagen before heading north with Danish colleagues. France said it had placed a first group of around 15 mountain specialists, and Sweden and Norway each dispatched a handful of officers. One British officer joined reconnaissance efforts and the Dutch signalled willingness to send staff.

“We’re not building an invasion force,” said Commander Emil Larsson, a Swedish liaison. “We’re showing up to exercise and to say that the Arctic security architecture is collective.”

Greenland area: ~2.16 million km²
Population: ~56,000 (2023 estimate)
Autonomy under Denmark: Self-Government Act, 2009
Initial European deployments: small reconnaissance and specialist teams (Germany ~13, France ~15, Sweden 3, Norway 2, UK 1)

What They’re Practicing—and Why

Officials say the exercises are focused on surveillance, search-and-rescue, and joint logistics in a harsh environment rather than conventional combat. Yet the symbolism is sharp. In the words of Marc Jacobsen, a defense analyst in Copenhagen, “There are two messages: deterrence, and competence. Show you can defend your territory, and show you are taking surveillance seriously.”

In Nuuk’s cafés, residents sip coffee and debate the optics. “I’ve seen NATO banners at our festivals before,” joked Sara, a teacher, “but not soldiers at our airport. It’s odd. I worry about what big men argue about in big rooms where we’re not invited.”

Diplomacy That Avoided the Spotlight—but Not the Tough Questions

A meeting in Washington between US, Danish and Greenlandic officials aimed to dial down theatrics. It produced a practical step: a working group to address shared concerns, from military posture to economic ties. Yet there was no quick patch to the deeper disagreement.

“We are in fundamental disagreement,” said Denmark’s prime minister in a sharp, yet conciliatory tone. “This is serious. We will continue our efforts to prevent any scenario where Greenland’s status is undermined.”

Greenland’s leaders were resolute. “This island has its voice,” said Greenland’s foreign minister in a video statement. “We do not want to be traded or governed by force. Our path is with Denmark and with NATO, and we choose dignity over panic.”

Voices from the Edge: Local Color and Concern

Out on the water in Sisimiut, where fishing remains a backbone of daily life, captains track the horizon more closely now. “We look for seals and storms,” said boat-owner Jens, hands rough from nets. “We shouldn’t have to watch for flags.”

Older Greenlanders, who grew up with dog sleds and the rhythm of seasons, speak of history in quiet tones. “Colonial maps felt like ink on skin,” said an elder who asked to be identified only as Nivi. “We have had rulers. Today we have to remind them: our land, our rules.”

Big Powers, Bigger Questions

Russia dismissed Western warnings of its Arctic ambitions as exaggerated, calling talk of a Moscow-Beijing axis in Greenland “hysteria.” Meanwhile, European leaders pointedly framed their deployments as a reminder that NATO’s fabric is a two-way street.

What’s at stake is bigger than any single island. The Greenland episode gestures toward broader issues: how democratic alliances manage competition, how Indigenous voices shape resource policy, and whether international institutions can prevent security dilemmas from becoming skirmishes.

Food for Thought

If a sparsely populated, ice-covered island can lay bare fractures in global order, what does that say about other contested spaces—undersea cables, polar routes, even the moon? How do we protect fragile communities from becoming bargaining chips in geopolitical contests?

The answers will not arrive in a single communique or a handful of reconnaissance missions. They will emerge, slowly, in working groups, in legal claims, in the steady, often invisible work of diplomacy and local resilience.

A Quiet Resolve

Back in Nuuk, the buses unloaded. Soldiers moved through the town with measured care, passersby watching with a mix of curiosity and weary resolve. Greenlanders are not naïve about their value on a world map—yet neither do they accept being reduced to it.

“We know what it is to adapt,” Aqqaluk said, watching the sunset ignite the ice with copper. “We will adapt again. But don’t pretend you can buy what cannot be sold: our lives, our land, our voice.”

Will the diplomatic working group calm the seas, or will it merely stall a larger conversation about Arctic sovereignty and global competition? The island keeps its own calendar, and it will demand to be heard. Are we listening?

12 3...216 Page 1 of 216