China’s Birth Rate Hits Record Low, Intensifying Demographic Concerns

By

-

January 20, 2026

China's birth rate falls to lowest on record — Births in China fell by 1.62 million in 2025, a drop of 17% year-on-year, figures show

A Quieting Nursery: China’s Demographic Crossroads

On a gray morning in a Beijing neighborhood where the scooters have grown fewer and the playground shrinks with the seasons, a toddler’s laughter breaks the silence like an unexpected chord. Yet such sounds are becoming rarer across China—so rare, in fact, that official figures released this year read like a wake-up call for a nation that once engineered its population down and now frets about it falling.

“When I take my son to the park, sometimes we are the only family there,” said Li Mei, 32, a primary-school teacher who lives in an apartment that once housed three generations. “It feels strange—beautiful, in a way—but also like we are walking a path alone.” Her voice flattened slightly when she added, “And the care for my parents—two households—feels like a constant balancing act.”

Numbers that Refuse to Sleep

The National Bureau of Statistics reported a sharp, unsettling drop last year: just 7.92 million births, a crude birth rate of 5.63 per thousand people—the lowest since record keeping began in 1949.

At the same time China recorded 11.31 million deaths, a mortality rate of 8.04 per thousand, producing a net population decline of 3.39 million people and a population contraction of 2.41 per thousand. Births dropped by 1.62 million year-on-year—a 17% plunge that stretches the country’s population fall into a fourth consecutive year.

These are not abstract numbers. Behind them is the lived reality of an ageing society, younger people delaying or forgoing marriage, and a generation that grew up as an only child suddenly responsible for children and four grandparents—the so-called “4-2-1” family structure that has become shorthand for the social strain.

Stories from the Front Lines: Why Couples Hesitate

“We want to travel, save, maybe own a home,” said Zhang Wei, 29, who works in logistics and lives in Chengdu. “But when I think about the cost of nurseries, private tutoring for the gaokao, and the pressure at work, I think, ‘Maybe later.’ Later becomes never.”

His complaint is echoed across cities and provinces. Young people point to a constellation of disincentives: sky-high housing prices in metropolises, intense competition for education, and workplace cultures that reward presenteeism over parenting—summed up in the notorious “996” rhythm: 9 am to 9 pm, six days a week.

Unemployment among young people has also surged. In August, the jobless rate for those aged 16 to 24 reached 18.9%—a staggering figure that turns the prospect of parenthood from a joyful decision into an economic gamble.

Women, Work and the Weight of Choice

For many women, the calculus is particularly fraught. “I’m not against children,” said Sun Xia, 35, who works in tech. “But I see female colleagues sidelined after maternity leave, pay stagnating, promotions slipping away. We’re asked to choose between a career and the family—so many opt for the former.”

That choice is shaped by structural realities: insufficient childcare capacity in urban cores, cultural expectations about mothers’ caregiving roles, and the fear that having children will derail hard-won professional gains. When the state offers a subsidy, it can feel like a bandage on a deep wound.

Policy Turns and Public Pushback

Responding to a decade-long slide in fertility, Beijing has rolled out a patchwork of measures designed to nudge family formation: a nationwide childcare subsidy launched on 1 January offering roughly $500 annually per child under three, waivers for public kindergarten fees, and, controversially, the reinstatement of a 13% value-added tax on contraception, including condoms.

Officials have cast these moves as a pragmatic response to a demographic emergency. “Our policies are aimed at easing the cost burdens on families and supporting balanced population development,” one official told reporters, preferring the anonymity that often accompanies sensitive discourses.

But the response from young people has been cool. “A few hundred dollars helps fill a gas tank, not a daycare slot,” a young mother in Guangzhou said. “We need more than allowances. We need paid parental leave, flexible hours, and jobs that don’t eat your life.”

Is Money Enough?

The sums involved are meaningful but modest against the backdrop of rising living costs. Consider this: childcare subsidies of about $500 per child alleviate day-to-day expenses but do little to alter structural disincentives—like housing markets that favor single-income households, or workplace norms that penalize caregiving.

And while China’s economy grew an official 5% in 2025, that headline masks a weaker domestic demand; exports buoyed growth as household consumption lagged. The World Bank placed China among the top 10 countries with the lowest birth rates in 2023, just after Japan, underscoring that this is not an isolated crisis but part of a broader shift in how modern societies reproduce themselves.

Beyond Borders: The Global Echo of an Ageing Giant

China’s demographic turn matters far beyond its borders. A shrinking labor force can dampen global demand, reshape international supply chains, and influence migration patterns. The United Nations has even suggested that China’s population might fall from around 1.4 billion today to roughly 800 million by 2100—an unfathomable recalibration of human geography if it were to come to pass.

How will an ageing China affect global pensions, capital flows, and the geopolitics of care? What happens to the small towns and industrial regions that once fed booming coastal cities? These are not academic questions but strategic ones, carrying implications for economies and families worldwide.

What Might Help: A Broader Imagination

Policymakers can—and likely will—do more. But to move the needle, measures need to be systemic rather than symbolic. Experts recommend a mix of investments and cultural change:

Expanded, affordable childcare across urban and rural areas so parents can return to work with confidence;
Legal protections and incentives for flexible work and paid parental leave that prevent career penalties for caregivers;
Housing policies that make family formation feasible for middle-income households;
Efforts to normalize men’s participation in caregiving to rebalance domestic labor and career opportunities for women.

“Demography is destiny, but destiny is shaped by policy,” said a demographer at a Beijing university. “If China wants to turn this around, it has to think beyond one-off cash transfers. It needs institutions—schools, workplaces, neighborhoods—that make raising children a shared civic project.”

Lives Between the Lines

Back in the park, Li Mei watches her son chase pigeons. She thinks about the future not in grand national terms, but in smaller, sharper ways: the neighborhood doctor, the nearest kindergarten, the chance her child will have cousins at all.

“We are not just numbers,” she said. “We are families who want meaning, joy, and security. If the country wants more babies, it must make it easier to be a parent without losing yourself.”

So ask yourself: what would it take where you live to make parenthood feel like an invitation rather than a risk? How do we build societies where raising children is supported rather than subsidized only in name? China’s numbers are dramatic, but the questions they surface are universal—and they demand imagination, policy courage, and a willingness to change everyday structures so that future laughter fills the parks once again.

Fatalities in Spanish train collision rise to 40

By

hanad

-

January 20, 2026

Death toll in Spanish train collision rises to 40 — Members of the Spanish Civil Guard, along with other emergency personnel, work next to one of the trains involved

Nightfall, Sirens and the Iron Tongue of the Tracks

When the sun slid behind the olive-dusted hills of Andalusia and a cold January night settled over the plains near Adamuz, nobody imagined the railway would erupt into catastrophe.

At about 19:45 local time, two high-speed trains—an Iryo service from Málaga bound for Madrid and an Alvia service moving toward Huelva—collided in a remorseless, metallic whisper that became a roar. By morning, at least 40 people were dead, 122 injured and dozens more shaken in a crash that has stunned a country proud of its modern rail arteries.

In the floodlit field where twisted carriages lay on their side like overturned toys, firefighters and volunteers worked through the night. Drone footage and phone videos showed metal mangled into impossible angles; passengers clambering through shattered windows; stretchers winding along a narrow, single-lane access road that threaded the scene like a lifeline. “It looked like a war zone,” said Miguel, a local farmer who walked two kilometers to the scene, his breath hanging in the cold. “We came with blankets and water because the ambulances couldn’t get in fast enough.”

Faces of the Rescue

Those who arrived first described a surreal mix of horror and ordinary heroism. Ana, a young woman still bandaged and limping, told volunteers at a Red Cross center she was pulled from a carriage by other passengers. “One minute we were laughing about the weekend, the next it tipped, then everything went dark,” she said. “There were people you could see were not going to make it. You couldn’t help them.”

Local firefighter Rosa Delgado had soot on her jacket and exhaustion in her voice. “We’ve pulled people from windows, from under seats,” she said. “There were families—children and grandparents—confused and cold. We wrapped them in whatever we had.”

Transport Minister Óscar Puente flew to Córdoba and stood with rescuers and the bereaved. “My gratitude to the emergency teams is enormous,” he said, visibly shaken. “Our priority is the victims, their families, and finding out what happened.” Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez declared three days of national mourning and cancelled his trip to the World Economic Forum in Davos to return home.

What We Know — And What We Don’t

State rail operator Renfe reported about 400 people were aboard the two trains. Emergency services said 48 people remained in hospital, with roughly a dozen in intensive care. Early accounts suggested the Iryo train was traveling at about 110 km/h when it derailed; the Alvia bore down at an estimated 200 km/h. Officials say the impact came roughly 20 seconds after the initial derailment—hardly enough time for an automated system to react.

Renfe’s president Álvaro Fernández Heredia described the circumstances as “strange” and said mechanical failure could be implicated: the Iryo train reportedly lost a wheel, which had not yet been located at first reports. “Human error is practically ruled out,” he told local radio. Investigators from Adif, Spain’s rail infrastructure administrator, and independent accident analysis teams are at the scene. The official inquiry will be painstaking, and that can feel painfully slow for those waiting for answers.

Infrastructure, Investment and Vulnerability

Spain’s high-speed network is a point of national pride: at roughly 3,622 kilometers, it is the largest in Europe and second only to China globally, according to Adif. Yet that network crosses vast empty landscapes—olive groves, scrubland, and long stretches of single-track service roads—making maintenance, security and emergency access challenging.

In recent years the network has suffered from intermittent problems: power outages, signalling glitches and even the theft of copper cables, the last a crime that can paralyze stretches of line and leave passengers stranded. Adif’s records and public complaints show repeated delays and infrastructure incidents on the Madrid–Andalusia corridor. A Reuters review indicated there had been notable service disruptions in the Adamuz area since 2022.

Last May, the stretch of track where the crash occurred was said to have been renovated with a reported investment of €700 million—a fact that underscores the bewilderment many feel now. Iryo said its train had been inspected on 15 January. Yet maintenance, inspections and money are not guarantees against tragedy, and the questions about system-wide resilience loom larger now than ever.

Voices from the Town: A Community Shaken

Adamuz is a small town of whitewashed houses and narrow streets, surrounded by the dry, fragrant landscape of southern Spain. People here know the trains as a pulse of modern life: the possibility of Madrid for a weekend, cities linked by swift steel. Now that pulse falters.

“We all know someone who commutes these lines,” said Elena Martín, owner of the local café. “The trains bring people home on Sunday nights—students, workers, parents. There’s an emptiness this morning.”

Volunteers and neighbours filled the town’s community hall with hot tea and donated clothing. “You see that in Spain—people come together,” Miguel said. “There’s sorrow, but also hands ready to help.”

Wider Questions: Competition, Safety and the Cost of Speed

Spain opened its high-speed network to private competition in 2020 to lower fares and improve service. Iryo, a joint venture involving Italy’s Ferrovie dello Stato, began operations in 2022 and quickly expanded. Alvia services continue under Renfe. The collision forces uncomfortable questions: has the rush to offer competitive services and expand routes outpaced the investments in operational redundancy and emergency access? Are maintenance regimes, inspection cadences and security protocols keeping pace with faster, busier lines?

“Privatization in itself is not the problem,” said Dr. Javier Romero, a transport safety analyst in Madrid. “But whenever you have multiple operators using the same infrastructure, coordination becomes critical. Who is responsible for what in minute-to-minute terms? Those operational seams are where risk often lives.”

Globally, rail networks face similar dilemmas: aging infrastructure, the pressure to decarbonize travel, and the political appetite to show fast results. Spain’s tragedy is a reminder that high-speed travel depends on a complex choreography of human oversight, automation, and steel—any misstep can be lethal.

After the Smoke Clears

For the families who lost loved ones and the survivors who will carry the memory of screams and glass, the questions of administration and policy are not abstract. They are visceral and immediate. How will compensation be handled? Will investigations be transparent? Will the findings translate into meaningful change?

As an entire nation watches, the answers will need to balance speed with care—both on the rails and in public life. For now, streets in towns across Spain are draped in black ribbons, and three days of mourning will be observed. In Adamuz, a community is stitching itself back together with blankets and coffee, with the weary hands of rescuers and the soft words of strangers.

What do you think should be the priority: immediate safety reforms, a broader overhaul of rail governance, or a deeper cultural shift in how we treat the systems that move millions? As you read this, consider the places in your own life where speed outruns safety—and what you would change if you could.

Freed Irish national from Venezuelan prison returns to Prague

By

hanad

-

January 20, 2026

Irish citizen imprisoned in Venezuela arrives in Prague — Reuters reported that a plane carrying freed Irish, Polish, Romanian, and Czech citizens landed at Prague airport

Night Landing: A Plane, Families, and the Quiet Aftermath of a Political Storm

They came down the jetway under a strip of cold lights, blinking against the damp Prague night as if waking from a long, bad dream.

On the tarmac at Václav Havel Airport, relatives clustered together in coat collars zipped to their chins. There were flowers—simple, homegrown bouquets wrapped in plastic—and the small, stubborn rituals people bring to moments that matter. A woman in her seventies clutched a thermos and a handwritten sign. A teenage boy traced a name on his phone over and over. Cameras clicked. A child asked, softly, “Are they tired?”

They were waiting for passengers who had just returned from a saga that had been playing out across continents: the release and transfer of foreign nationals detained in Venezuela. Among them, Irish, Polish, Romanian, German, Albanian, Ukrainian, Dutch—and a Czech citizen, Jan Darmovzal, who had been held since 2024 on allegations he intended to participate in a plot against then-President Nicolás Maduro. Czech officials have long maintained his detention lacked due process.

Arrival and Relief

By the time the jet rolled to a stop, the airport was awash with the low hum of people trying to reconcile months — in some cases years — of absence and fear with the bright, immediate reality of reunion.

“We kept the window open every night,” said one woman waiting for her brother, wiping her eyes with the back of her hand. “You don’t stop hoping. You just move from day to day.” Her voice was steady but small. Around her, strangers murmured solidarity; a man offered his sandwich as if kinship could be traded in bits.

A spokesperson for the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs, when asked about an Irish citizen on the flight, confirmed the department was aware of the case and had provided consular assistance. Beyond that, governments and families have been careful with details—as if treating the fragile work of repatriation with the same delicacy one might give a small bird still catching its breath.

The Context: Releases After a Dramatic Turn

These departures did not happen in a vacuum. They followed reports that the United States captured Venezuela’s embattled leader, Nicolás Maduro, earlier this year — a development that unleashed a flurry of political promises and diplomatic maneuvers. Venezuelan officials and some international actors said many prisoners would be freed in the wake of the capture; Caracas later announced more than 400 people had been released. Human rights organizations caution the numbers are likely lower.

“What we’re seeing is not simply a transfer of bodies across borders,” said a London-based human rights lawyer who has worked with detainees from Venezuela. “It’s the slow unspooling of political narratives — and the human consequences are profound. Families have been fractured. People have been detained under opaque processes and then thrust back into societies that have moved on without them.”

For Jan Darmovzal, the story had the particular contours of a Cold War-era headline. Detained in 2024 on accusations of conspiring to assassinate Maduro and overthrow the government, Czech authorities said he was imprisoned without charges and denied a fair trial. Foro Penal, a Venezuelan rights group that has tracked political detentions for years, described his detention as politically motivated.

Voices from the Ground

“I spent nights awake, imagining every outcome. It makes you older,” said a woman who identified herself only as a friend of one of the freed passengers. “But when he walked down those stairs, I recognized him and I didn’t recognize him. He was older. The same, but smaller in some way.”

A volunteer working with returning nationals described a scene at the airport where customs officers and diplomats moved with practiced efficiency, shepherding people through paperwork and to reunions. “There were smiles,” she said, “but mostly it felt like a drawing in of breath—a long, careful intake before the work of healing begins.”

Numbers and Doubts

The numerical dimension of this story is messy, and intentionally so. Venezuela’s government has framed the returns as part of a broader clemency and reconciliation effort; Caracas announced more than 400 releases. Independent rights groups, however, say that tally is inflated. Foro Penal and other NGOs have documented cases of wrongful imprisonment across recent years and warn that many detainees remain behind bars.

Whether the transfers represent a genuine opening or a tactical recalibration is a question that will be debated in conference rooms and commentary columns. But the human cost is plain: for every official statistic, there are faces in arrivals halls, small rituals of reconnection and the long shadow of trauma to navigate.

Why This Matters Beyond Prague

What does it mean when foreign nationals get caught in the machinery of another country’s justice system? How do geopolitical maneuvers—raids, captures, negotiations—filter down into the daily lives of ordinary people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

These are not rhetorical quibbles. They speak to larger trends in 21st-century geopolitics: the use of detention as political leverage, the fragility of legal protections when states assert extraordinary powers, and the evolving role of consular diplomacy in protecting citizens abroad. In an interconnected world, a crisis in Caracas can become a family reunion in Prague—or a diplomatic incident in Dublin—overnight.

After the Headlines: The Long Work of Return

Repatriation is discrete, but reintegration is an open-ended task. Returning citizens may need medical care, psychological support, legal help to clear records, and a stable environment to rebuild their lives. Governments often furnish immediate assistance—emergency housing, travel arrangements, consular help. But the quieter forms of recovery are community-based and slow.

“People say ‘welcome home’ as if that solves everything,” a social worker who helps returnees said. “The truth is home can feel unfamiliar. Jobs are different. Friends have moved on. Some people are grateful and relieved; others are haunted. We have to be ready for the full spectrum.”

For those at the airport last night, home arrived with the small, visible signs of relief. Hugs that lasted longer than etiquette would suggest. A small boy who insisted on carrying his father’s bag. Conversations that alternated between laughter and silence. The rest will take time—months, maybe years.

Questions to Carry Forward

As a global audience, how do we hold together the big-picture debates—sovereignty, human rights, international law—with the intimate realities of families and individuals? How should governments respond to claims of politically motivated detentions without slipping into punitive cycles that harm civilians?

These releases are a reminder: at the center of geopolitical chess are human beings, not pawns. And when the game shifts, it’s the lives of ordinary people that get rearranged.

So as you read about flights and figures and statements from capitals, spare a thought for the quiet rebirths in arrivals halls and the long, unglamorous work of repair that will unfold long after the headlines move on.

Sydney surfer mauled by shark — third coastal attack in two days

By

hanad

-

January 19, 2026

Shark mauls surfer in Sydney, third attack in two days — All of Sydney's northern beaches have been closed (File image)

The Morning the Sea Turned Sharp: Sharks, Surfboards and a City on Edge

Sunlight slanted across the gentle curve of Manly’s North Steyne as if nothing dark could disturb the ritual: coffee, the ferry’s chug, wetsuits shivering on the sand, boards tucked under arms. By midday, that ordinary rhythm was fractured by an image people will carry for a long time — a young man dragged from the surf, a crowd doing first aid on the sand, an ambulance wailing down the promenade.

It was the third shark-related incident around Sydney in forty-eight hours, officials say — three separate pinch points where the ocean’s power met human presence. One surfer in his 20s suffered severe leg injuries and was flown to hospital in critical condition after an attack at North Steyne Beach in Manly. Earlier, a boy of about 11 had the luck to walk away shaken but unhurt after a shark chewed a large piece out of his board off Dee Why Point. And, hauntingly, a 12-year-old remained in intensive care after being mauled in Sydney Harbour while jumping from a rock with friends.

“We’ve had three frightening events in a very short span,” said a senior marine-area officer who has been coordinating the response. “People pulled each other from the water. Lifesaving crews and bystanders did what had to be done. But the sea can change on a heartbeat.”

A city’s beaches on sudden lockdown

Police closed the northern beaches and placed visible patrols along shorelines as people processed what had happened. Flags that usually mark safe swimming zones were replaced by rows of uniformed officers and the stark yellow-and-black of closing notices.

Local shopkeepers and surf instructors said they understood the need for caution — but they were also grappling with fear for their trade and their way of life.

“It’s heartbreaking to see the kids not in the water,” said Ava, who runs a surf school near Manly Corso. “Surfing is how a lot of us grew up. But when something like this hits, you don’t tell people to go for a swim. You watch mothers holding their toddlers, and you think: how do you explain this to them?”

The rescue, up close

Witnesses described a chaotic and brave scene. “They pulled him up onto the sand and everyone just went into action — people applying pressure, someone shouting for a tourniquet,” said a surfer who was nearby. “The paramedics arrived quickly, but the wound was bad. You never want to see a mate like that.”

Police confirmed that members of the public were the first to administer life-saving care before emergency services arrived. In the harbour incident, officers put the injured boy into a police boat and applied two tourniquets on the way back to shore; he remains in intensive care.

Why now? The science behind the danger

Shark bites are rare, but when they happen they draw a lot of attention. Australia’s database of shark incidents stretches back to 1791 and records more than 1,280 encounters, with over 250 fatalities. What’s changing, scientists say, are the patterns and contexts of those encounters.

“There are several interacting trends,” said a marine ecologist working with coastal communities. “Coastal zones are more crowded — more people in the water means more potential encounters. At the same time, ocean temperatures are shifting migratory routes and altering prey distributions. That increases the chance of sharks and swimmers crossing paths.”

Global sea surface temperatures have risen roughly 1.1°C since pre-industrial times. Warmer waters can nudge species into new areas, and heavy rainfall can push river nutrients and pelican-fishing into harbours, creating murky, brackish conditions that some species like bull sharks favour. Scientists also point to complex changes in fisheries and food webs; some shark populations are declining, while others are stable or expanding in certain regions.

“It’s not a single villain,” the ecologist added. “It’s climate, human behaviour, and the ocean’s own ecology all interacting.”

Local knowledge and high emotion

On the terraces above Manly Beach, conversations veered between sorrow for the injured, anger at what some called “inadequate protection,” and stubborn resolve from surfers who said they would return to the waves.

“You can’t live in fear all the time,” said Tomas, a 34-year-old lifeguard who grew up surfing these breaks. “We teach respect for the ocean. I’m worried, yes. But I also know the sea gives us a lot. The answer isn’t to demonise sharks — it’s to invest in smart safety.”

That phrase — smart safety — came up again and again: drones for aerial spotting, more frequent water-quality testing, public education campaigns about avoiding swimming after heavy rain, and new research deployments to better understand seasonal shark movements.

Possible safety measures being discussed:
Increased drone and helicopter patrols
Smart drumlines and non-lethal tracking devices
Community alerts and better signage
Expanded research funding for shark movement studies

How communities cope — and what this means globally

For coastal communities worldwide, this is not a parochial problem. From South Africa to California, Recife to Reunion Island, people are negotiating similar tensions: the need to protect swimmers and surfers, to protect marine life, and to adapt to rapid environmental change.

“We can’t pretend the ocean is a static thing,” said a conservation scientist who has worked on shark mitigation programs. “What we need are local solutions rooted in science and community values. Culling, for example, is extremely controversial, both ethically and ecologically. Non-lethal approaches have promise, but they require commitment and money.”

Public policy tends to lurch from reaction to reaction after high-profile incidents. Yet long-term planning — from improved coastal design to better emergency response training — can reduce harm and preserve the wildness of the sea that so many people prize.

What can beachgoers do?

Experts suggest a few commonsense steps to reduce risk: avoid swimming alone, don’t enter the water after heavy rain or at dusk and dawn when sharks may feed closer to shore, heed signage and lifeguard warnings, and give marine animals space. Communities can demand better monitoring and rapid alert systems.

But beyond tactics and technology lies a deeper question: how do we live alongside powerful, unpredictable nature? Do we re-engineer coastlines into sanitized zones, or do we learn to coexist with greater humility and preparedness?

There are no easy answers. The next time you stand on a Sydney beach and look at the horizon, think of the tangled forces at play: climate change, human curiosity, the ancient rhythms of predators and prey. Ask yourself: what kind of coastline do we want? What balance between safety and wildness is worth fighting for?

For now, the beaches remain quiet, ambulances and signs a reminder of mortality and resilience. People light candles in beachside cafes, surfers sit a little closer to shorelines on their boards, and families hug a little tighter at the day’s end. The sea goes on, impartial and immense, and the city will keep searching for ways to share it more safely.

Trump Plans $1 Billion Fee for Membership on Proposed Peace Board

By

hanad

-

January 19, 2026

Trump to charge $1bn for 'peace board' membership — Donald Trump would be the chairman of the peace board

The Billion-Dollar Seat: When Peace Has a Price Tag

Imagine a mahogany table, polished to a mirror sheen, its edges lined with flags and names of nations. Above it hangs a plaque: “Board of Peace.” The catch? To keep your chair you must hand over $1 billion.

It sounds like a fable, the sort of satire that belongs in late-night sketches. But in recent weeks a draft charter leaked from Washington has forced that very piece of surreal fiction into the daylight: an international body, convened by the U.S. president, that reportedly invites world leaders to sit on a new “Board of Peace”—for a three-year term, unless they pay a hefty one-time sum to extend their stay.

The proposal reportedly began as a mechanism to oversee reconstruction in Gaza, a place where the scars of conflict are visible in flattened buildings, damaged hospitals and markets rebuilt from rubble. But the charter’s language—broad, aspirational, and deliberately vague—quickly signaled ambitions far beyond one devastated strip of territory.

Who Gets an Invitation?

The draft list of invitees reads like a geopolitical mosaic: presidents, prime ministers, bankers-turned-advisors, and high-profile intermediaries. Names widely mentioned in coverage include leaders from Russia and Hungary, and a roster of prominent Western and non-Western actors—former prime ministers, senators, and special envoys. The inclusion of such a disparate mix has raised eyebrows, and not just because of the fee.

“This is pay-to-play diplomacy,” said a former U.N. diplomat who asked not to be named. “If the goal is to restore trust and governance in places like Gaza, you don’t buy legitimacy by auctioning seats at the table.”

How It Would Work

According to the charter’s draft, member states would serve three-year terms as full voting members—unless, within the first year, they contributed more than $1 billion in cash, at which point the three-year limit would not apply. The chairman—named in the draft as the convening leader—would have wide latitude: inviting members, vetoing removals, and even choosing a successor should he step down.

Structurally, the proposal imagines multiple layers: a main board, a Palestinian technical committee tasked with governance in Gaza, and an executive board described in the charter as a more advisory body. Critics say the design concentrates power in ways that mirror—but do not replicate—the U.N. system.

Reactions from Capitals

Not everyone greeted the idea with enthusiasm. France reiterated its allegiance to the U.N. charter, noting that any project “extending beyond the situation in Gaza” must be consistent with established multilateral norms. Ireland’s foreign minister said Dublin was “examining the details” and cautioned against creating a parallel structure to the U.N. Security Council—a body already tasked with maintaining international peace and security.

“We cannot have another structure that mirrors that, where one country essentially has most of the power in it,” Ireland’s foreign minister said on a national radio program, capturing a widespread concern in smaller states: that large powers could engineer alternative governance fora that sideline global consensus.

Voices from the Ground

In Gaza, where the charter reportedly meant to start its work, reactions are pragmatic and pointed. Gaza is home to more than two million people, many of whom have experienced repeated cycles of displacement and deprivation. Local aid workers and civil society leaders speak not of prestige but of rubble, of water systems gone, and of hospitals operating beyond capacity.

“People here don’t care who sits on what board in Washington,” said a Gaza-based humanitarian coordinator. “We care if electricity keeps running, if children can go to school, if hospitals have medicine. If money is used to buy influence rather than rebuild homes, that is a betrayal.”

A Palestinian community organizer added, “Reconstruction must be led by those who will live here afterwards. Expert technocrats, not headline-seeking politicians, should decide zoning, electricity, and water. Otherwise you’ll rebuild a city for the cameras, not for its people.”

The Big Questions: Legitimacy, Power, and Monetized Diplomacy

At its heart, this proposal asks a fundamental question: who gets to define peace? Is it the community living on the frontline? The international civil service? Or the biggest checkbook?

Multilateralism—based on the idea that sovereign states, working together through agreed rules, can manage global problems—has been frayed for some time. Trust in international institutions has been tested by wars, pandemics, and climate shocks. In that context, a proposal that allows a single state to invite and dismiss members, and which ties longer membership to a billionaire-level payment, reads to some as a new model of “selective multilateralism.”

“Paying your way into governance decisions risks delegitimizing outcomes,” said an international law scholar. “Peace isn’t a commodity to be purchased; it’s a public good that requires buy-in from those affected.” She warned that decisions made by a narrow, self-selected group could prompt new grievances instead of durable stability.

Practical Pushback

Some invited countries—claimed to include Russia and Belarus—have privately welcomed the outreach, seeing it as a chance to reassert influence.
Other governments, including France, opted for caution, reaffirming their commitment to the U.N. charter and established security frameworks.
Israel reportedly objected to the composition of a proposed Gaza executive board that included political figures from neighboring states.

Why This Matters to You

Whether you follow geopolitics closely or only glimpse headlines, this story touches a broader trend: the privatization of diplomatic influence. As the international system strains, wealth and clout increasingly shape who speaks and whose voice is amplified. That has implications for everything from post-conflict reconstruction to refugee returns, to the long-term health of institutions meant to safeguard civilians.

Ask yourself: do you want global decisions—about who governs, who rebuilds, and what rights are protected—made in open, rule-bound institutions, or at a table where the most generous financier gets the most power?

What’s Next

For now, the charter remains a draft and the invitations a subject of debate. Capitals continue to “examine the proposal,” as one European official put it with weary candor. Behind the scenes, diplomats will weigh strategic interests, domestic politics, and the optics of appearing to buy peace.

Meanwhile, on the dusty streets and in the clinics of Gaza, the tally is painfully simple: people need food, shelter and safety. That will not be solved by a plaque on a mahogany table. It will be solved by practical, sustained investment—guided by those who live with the consequences, not only those who can afford the seat.

So what would you prefer: a system that invites everyone to the table, or one where the price of a chair decides the agenda? The future of peace may well depend on the answer.

Inside the EU’s anti-coercion ‘bazooka’: what it is and how it works

By

hanad

-

January 19, 2026

What is the EU's anti-coercion 'bazooka'? — The so-called 'bazooka' is intended to deter economic coercion against the EU

A New Kind of Standoff: When Tariffs Meet Diplomacy

On a crisp morning in Brussels, beneath the glass facades where the European Union’s policy machinery hums, conversations that usually center on subsidies and standards took on a different tone: alarm edged with a fierce, almost personal dignity.

It began as a flurry of headlines — a U.S. president publicly threatening steep tariffs against a clutch of European nations unless Greenland, a vast Arctic territory, were handed over to American control. For many in the corridors of power here, it felt less like the choreography of trade negotiations and more like a diplomatic provocation: a test of how a rules-based world copes when coercion becomes the instrument of statecraft.

“We’re not used to being spoken to like this by our closest partners,” said a senior trade official at the European Commission, who asked not to be named. “It’s not just economics. It’s about sovereignty, trust, and the precedent it sets.”

What Brussels Has in Its Arsenal

Brussels, in turn, has a tool of its own — one crafted explicitly to push back against economic pressure from outside the bloc. Officially born in 2023 after a spate of worrying episodes, the anti-coercion instrument (ACI) sits on paper like a compact with teeth: an authorization for the EU to impose targeted trade and investment countermeasures when a third country uses — or threatens to use — commercial levers to influence the sovereign choices of member states.

The instrument has become known in some quarters as a “bazooka” or, more colorfully, an “economic nuclear option.” Those metaphors capture its symbolic weight: it’s less about detonating markets and more about signalling that coercion will not go unchallenged.

How it actually works

Here’s the machinery in plain language. Both the European Commission and individual member states can request activation of the ACI. From there, a checklist of thresholds and timelines kicks in:

At least 55% of EU member states must vote in favour, representing at least 65% of the bloc’s population.
The Commission can spend up to four months investigating allegations of coercive measures.
Member states then have eight to ten weeks to back any proposed response.
If approved, the Commission can design measures, which could be brought into force within about six months — though Brussels calls the timeframe indicative rather than rigid.

Behind those abstract intervals lies real power: the EU’s single market of roughly 450 million consumers. The ACI allows for import and export restrictions, limits on access to public procurement, and other calibrated actions that can target not only goods but services — a particular leverage point given the United States’ longstanding services surplus with the EU.

Why This Moment Matters

To understand the urgency, you have to picture the map. Greenland — icy, sparsely populated, strategically poised at the gateway to the Arctic — matters less for GDP than for geopolitics. Its potential for mineral wealth, shipping routes as ice recedes, and military positioning has made it a focus for major powers. But what’s at stake in Brussels isn’t Greenland alone. It’s whether the pillars of global commerce can withstand the pressure of diplomatic coercion.

“If an ally can attempt to use tariffs to extract territory, what’s to stop that tactic from spreading?” asked Dr. Lina Ortega, a geopolitical economist at the University of Amsterdam. “We’re talking about a shift from trade policy to power projection.”

France’s head office has publicly mulled countermeasures; voices in the European Parliament have urged activation. The leader of the Renew group in Brussels, Valérie Hayer, captured the tenor of the moment bluntly: “The anti-coercion instrument is our economic nuclear weapon,” she said, invoking the language of last-resort deterrence. The phrase spread quickly through parliamentary corridors and social feeds alike.

Faces and Voices: What People on the Ground Are Saying

In Nuuk, the capital of Greenland, fishermen folding nets by neon-painted shacks paused when asked about the spectacle on TV. “We’ve been here for generations,” said Aqqalu, a fishing boat captain. “People come and talk, governments make deals, but you don’t just treat a place like a chess piece.”

In Copenhagen, a café just behind the Danish parliament bustled with locals nervously refreshing news apps. “Denmark has always had a special bond with Greenland,” said Sofie Nielsen, a social worker. “We don’t want barbeque diplomacy — deals made like buying a house.”

And in Brussels, a procurement lawyer who has advised member states on public tenders leaned back and smiled ruefully. “If this goes to its logical end, targeted limits on US firms’ access to European procurement could be very disruptive,” she said. “Think of contracts worth billions — this is leverage that concretely matters.”

Origins and Precedents

The instrument’s creation traces back to a distinct episode: when Lithuania accused China of effectively blocking its exports after Vilnius allowed a Taiwanese representative office to open in 2021. That case crystallized a new fear: economic dependencies being weaponized to bend democratic decisions.

“Vilnius felt the weight of coercion,” recalled Tomas Vaitkus, who led a civil-society trade group in Lithuania. “The ACI was a message: we will not let trade be used to erase our democratic choice.”

What Could Be Targeted?

If the EU does move, it has several levers at its disposal. Possible targets often mentioned in policy circles include:

Restrictions on certain imports or exports
Limits on access to the EU’s public procurement market for specific foreign firms
Targeted measures against service sectors where the U.S. enjoys surpluses

Among those in the crosshairs could be large American technology companies — not because Brussels wants to “punish” them per se, but because tech plays an outsized role in services trade and public contracts. “You pull on one thread — procurement restrictions — and you can create significant negotiation space,” explained Dr. Ortega.

Questions Worth Asking

What happens to alliances when economic instruments replace quietly whispered diplomacy? How will smaller member states feel in a bloc-wide decision to confront an ally that is also a major trading partner? And perhaps most pressingly: will the activation of such instruments harden global divisions rather than resolve them?

The ACI is not a magic wand. Its activation requires political consensus across a diverse union and a patient timeline measured in months. Yet even opening the investigation stage sends a message — a red line drawn in a newer, economic language.

Looking Ahead

Walk the streets of Brussels and you’ll hear exasperation, strategic calculation, and a deep desire not to burn bridges. “We need to defend our values and our members,” said the Commission official, softly. “But we also need to keep working with partners on climate, security, migration — on things that matter. This is about setting rules, not making enemies.”

For citizens paying attention, the spectacle should raise a larger question: are we prepared for a world where trade becomes the blunt instrument of diplomacy? As the EU debates the use of its anti-coercion tool, the answer may shape not just who pays tariffs, but how nations treat one another when stakes are high and the rules are fragile.

So, what would you do if the instruments of commerce became the instruments of pressure? Would you prefer firm countermeasures to defend sovereignty — or softer diplomacy, risking precedent? The choices Europe makes now could be the blueprint for the next decade of international relations.

Prince Harry Decries Newspaper’s Conduct as ‘Deeply Troubling’

By

hanad

-

January 19, 2026

Prince Harry says paper's actions 'deeply troubling' — Prince Harry waves as he arrived at the High Court in London

A courtroom, a king’s son, and a decades-long shadow over Britain’s tabloids

The morning air outside London’s High Court carried that peculiar mix of damp fog and cigarette smoke that clings to the Strand — a milieu where gossip and gravitas have collided for generations. Black cabs threaded past with patient precision; a few tourists craned their necks to read the gilded letters above the entrance. Inside, beneath the vaulted ceilings, the hum of the city seemed to shrink to the hush of legalese and the soft scratch of pens.

Among those watching the proceedings was Prince Harry. He sat, or followed on a screen, on a case that reads like the modern British establishment’s trial by media: a group of public figures — from Elton John and his husband David Furnish to campaigner Doreen Lawrence, politician Simon Hughes and actresses Sadie Frost and Elizabeth Hurley — accusing Associated Newspapers Limited, publisher of the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday, of what they call “systematic and sustained” unlawful information-gathering.

Scenes from the court

The atmosphere in the courtroom was taut but oddly intimate. Reporters swapped notes in the pews, a legal clerk adjusted his robe, and a small knot of supporters murmured as lawyers paced the dock. A framed portrait of a stern-faced judge presided over it all, removed somehow from the nervous human drama unfolding below.

“You could feel the weight in the room,” said one court attendant, a retired paralegal who asked not to be named. “There was a kind of slow burn of recognition — people remembering that this isn’t just celebrity squabbling. It’s about whether your private life can be turned into a product.”

What they say went wrong

The claimants accuse ANL of deploying a catalogue of invasive tactics over nearly three decades: hiring private investigators to plant listening devices in cars, “blagging” — which means misrepresenting identities to extract private information — accessing medical records, intercepting voicemail messages and even listening to live landline calls.

In Prince Harry’s case, his barrister laid out that 14 articles, published between 2001 and 2013, grew from unlawfully obtained information. He described the experience as profoundly destabilising: paranoia, distrust within family ties, and the chilling sense that “every move, thought or feeling was being tracked” for commercial gain.

“It’s not just curiosity — it’s industry,” another observer inside the court said. “When you hear the word ‘sources’ being used almost as a cloak, you realise the scale: not random breaches, but a routine.”

The arguments: denials, denials and denials

ANL has fired back forcefully. In written submissions, their lawyers argued that many of these stories were fed by a “leaky” social circle — friends, aides or even palace spokespeople — and that some claimants had discussed their private lives publicly. They also say the lawsuits are too late in many instances, seeking to strike them out on the basis of statutory time limits.

“The defendant’s stance is clear: editorial teams are capable of sourcing stories lawfully and have witnesses who can explain how articles were produced,” one of ANL’s counsel told the court. “They say the inferential case of phone hacking and phone tapping is disproved.”

But the claimants’ legal team describes a different picture: internal documents they say show editorial sign-off and commissioning of unlawfully obtained material — a pattern rather than a few rogue investigators. Their case survived a 2023 attempt by ANL to have claims dismissed as “time-barred,” and it now proceeds to a trial expected to last nine weeks.

Faces and voices behind the headlines

This is not only a row between lawyers. Outside the courtroom, locals lined up to watch the spectacle and offer their two pennies’ worth.

“If newspapers turn your life into a monthly column without your say-so, that’s a problem,” said Maria Fernandes, a café owner across the street, stirring her tea. “We all expect privacy when it matters — at funerals, at doctors’ offices. Why should anyone be exempt?”

A privacy campaigner who works with victims of press intrusion summed up the human toll. “People tell us they feel hunted. One client described the sound of a voicemail being accessed like a second betrayal — once by the person who called, and once by the industry that sold the call for a headline.”

Even for those who didn’t grow up under tabloid headlines, the story taps into a global unease: what happens when the machinery of media monetisation meets private life in the digital age? In a world where our phones, emails and medical records are all potentially valuable currency, a news scoop can be worth tens of thousands of pounds; the question the court faces is whether some of those coins were gained by theft.

Statistical and legal context

The allegations span roughly from 1993 to 2018, according to court filings.
Prince Harry’s complaint references 14 specific articles between 2001 and 2013.
Previous litigation by Harry led to damages of £140,600 awarded against Mirror Group Newspapers in 2023; he also settled with News Group Newspapers earlier.
The current trial is expected to last nine weeks and names dozens of journalists and editors in the pleadings.

Why this matters beyond the celebrities

At stake is more than the reputation of a newspaper. This trial touches on the balance between press freedom and personal privacy, the ethics of investigative journalism, and the systems that allow — or restrain — commercial appetites for scoops. Around the world, courts are wrestling with the same questions: what constitutes legitimate public interest? When does the public’s right to know slide into voyeurism? And how should the law evolve in a landscape where the value of information can be immediate and vast?

“We’re not against journalism,” a privacy-law academic told me. “We’re against journalism built on deception. Scrutinising power is essential. But the tools used for that purpose should not be the tools used to exploit vulnerability.”

There’s also a cultural angle. British tabloids long cultivated the idea that they gave voice to ‘ordinary’ people’s interest in royalty and celebrities. But that same shorthand — of sensationalism, front-page scoops and anonymised “sources” — has been criticised for eroding norms and for commodifying personal pain. The trial forces a public reckoning: do we want our media to be fierce watchdogs of power, or market-driven predators that pit profit against privacy?

Questions for the reader

As you read this, ask yourself: where do you draw the line between legitimate journalism and intrusion? Would you accept a news outlet paying for personal details about someone you love? And finally, how should democratic societies regulate press behaviour without muzzling legitimate reporting?

Whatever the legal outcome, the trial is already a mirror. It shows a country — and a media ecosystem — wrestling with its own reflection, wondering which parts it wants to keep and which it must change. For the claimants, it has been decades of bruising. For the press, it is a test of how it will balance audacity with accountability. And for the rest of us, it’s a reminder that privacy, once felt to be a given, may need guarding anew.

The case continues. The gavel will fall, and the headlines will follow. But the conversations it stirs might last far longer than the nine weeks of the trial — in parlours, in law schools, in newsroom meetings, and in the quiet of our own phones.

Safiirka Midowga Yurub oo Garoowe u joogta la kulanka madaxweyne Deni

By

aden

-

January 19, 2026

Jan 19(Jowhar)-Danjiraha Midowga Yurub ee Soomaaliya, Francesca Di Mauro, oo ay weheliyaan diblumaasiyiin kale, ayaa maanta soo gaaray magaalada Garoowe, halkaas oo ay kulamo rasmi ah kula yeelanayaan Madaxweynaha Puntland, Siciid Cabdullaahi Deni.

Continue

Trump Says Global Security Hinges on U.S. Controlling Greenland

By

hanad

-

January 19, 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

Why a Vast, Icy Island Keeps Superpowers Dreaming — and Why That Matters to You

On a blustery morning in Nuuk, the capital’s seaside slope is a patchwork of brightly painted houses, fishing boats tied like beads along the quay, and the faint hum of a community that has always negotiated the edge of the world. A woman in a thick anorak cuts a piece of dried fish, hands it to a child, and glances at her phone. “They talk about buying our home like it’s real estate,” she says, shrugging into her scarf. “But this place is people and language and history.”

That blunt image — of Washington politicians eyeing a remote island as a strategic prize — returned this week when former President Donald Trump insisted, in stark terms, that “the world is not secure unless the United States has Greenland.” For anyone who follows geopolitics, it was familiar rhetoric: blunt, provocative, and designed to rip the conversation away from nuance and into headlines. But beneath the sound bites lies a knot of geography, climate change, indigenous sovereignty, and global power politics that matters far beyond Greenland itself.

A reminder of 2019, and a new echo in 2026

Those who remember 2019 recall the audacious episode: the U.S. president publicly musing about buying Greenland from Denmark. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen of Denmark called the idea “absurd,” and the plan collapsed amid bemusement and anger. Yet the episode never really vanished. It resurfaced this week as politicians and commentators replayed older arguments with fresh urgency: Who controls the Arctic? Who has rights to its resources? And how does melting ice redraw the map of strategic advantage?

“It’s not just nostalgia for a headline,” a senior diplomat in Copenhagen told me off the record. “This is a strategic conversation disguised as an attention-grab. The Arctic is opening. New shipping lanes, new mineral claims, new military considerations — it’s all accelerating.”

Facts that anchor the drama

To understand why a roughly 2.16 million square kilometer island punches above its weight, here’s what matters:

Greenland’s landmass: about 2.16 million km² — larger than India or Argentina, though more than 80% is covered by the Greenland Ice Sheet.
Population: roughly 56,000 people, concentrated along the ice-free coastline in towns like Nuuk, Sisimiut, and Ilulissat.
Political status: an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, with control over many domestic affairs but with defense and foreign affairs historically handled by Copenhagen.
Military footprint: the U.S. operates Thule Air Base (Pituffik) in northwest Greenland, a Cold War relic that now plays into missile warning and space-domain awareness.

Those bare facts are the soil beneath the rhetoric. But facts alone do not capture the lived reality of a place where the calendar follows the rhythm of the sea and the ice.

Local color and local voices

Walk any dock in Greenland and you hear a chorus: Norwegian-influenced Danish, Kalaallisut (Greenlandic), and a cosmopolitan mix of European and North American accents. You taste the sea in meals of halibut and king crab and see centuries of adaptation in sled lines, seal-processing sheds, and songs sung in small community halls.

“We have been asked the same question for centuries — who will decide our fate?” a community elder in Sisimiut told me, fingers tracing the worn knot of a dock rope. “It is one thing for distant capitals to debate maps. It is another thing entirely to decide if our mining lands will be opened for foreign companies, or if our culture will be traded like a coin.”

For many Greenlanders, the discussion is not abstract. Proposals to expand mining, especially projects targeting rare earth elements and uranium-bearing deposits (such as the controversial Kvanefjeld site), have split communities. Some see economic opportunity; others fear environmental damage and a loss of cultural autonomy.

Geopolitics on ice: why Greenland matters to world powers

There are several overlapping reasons Greenland is suddenly not just a dot on any map:

Strategic location. Greenland sits astride the shortest transatlantic routes between North America and Europe, and has long offered high ground for surveillance and defense.
Resources. Melting ice reveals new geological prospects — oil, gas, rare earth minerals — that are essential for modern technologies and green-energy transitions.
Climate dynamics. The Greenland Ice Sheet is one of the largest contributors to global sea-level rise as it loses mass. How Greenland manages its environment affects coastal cities worldwide.
Great-power competition. The Arctic is no longer a quiet neighborhood. NATO members, Russia, China, and the U.S. all have strategic reasons to be active in the region.

“If you want to talk about global security in the 21st century, you cannot ignore the Arctic,” a policy analyst in Oslo said. “From satellite control to undersea cables to shipping lanes — it’s all interconnected.”

What the rhetoric hides

When a leader says “the world is not secure unless we have X,” the clause obscures a smaller, sharper fact: sovereignty is not a commodity. For Greenlanders, sovereignty is not merely the right to be counted in global equations but the right to decide how development happens. The autonomy granted by Denmark in 2009 gave Greenlanders more control over domestic affairs — but foreign pressure remains a daily reality.

Consider the human scale: a young nurse in Ilulissat told me about friends who left town for university in Denmark and didn’t return, lured by jobs and education. “We watch our children drift to the south,” she said. “We need opportunities here. But opportunities that make room for our language, for our elders, for the sea.”

Questions for the reader — and for leaders

What do we mean by “security” in a warming world? Is it primarily military dominance, or is it the resilience of communities, ecosystems, and food systems? How should wealthy nations balance strategic interest with respect for indigenous rights and democratic self-determination?

These are not hypothetical queries. They are decisions that touch neighborhoods as remote as Upernavik and as urban as New York. The choices made in capital corridors cascade into the lives of fishermen, shepherds, and students in Greenland.

Paths forward — and the stakes

There are no easy answers, but there are approaches that can reduce friction and raise shared benefit:

Center Greenlandic voices in decisions about land use and foreign investment; meaningful consent matters.
Invest in local education, health, and infrastructure tied directly to community priorities rather than extractive projects dictated by outside firms.
Increase transparency about military activities and ensure they do not undermine civilian life or environmental protections.
Coordinate internationally on Arctic protection regimes that balance economic needs and ecological limits.

“We need partnership rather than purchase orders,” a Greenland-based environmental campaigner told me. “Security isn’t achieved by owning land; it’s achieved by ensuring communities can thrive in place.”

Why the story matters beyond headlines

Talk of territorial acquisition may feel like a relic of 19th-century diplomacy, but the underlying currents are unmistakably modern: strategic competition fused with climate urgency and the struggle of indigenous peoples to control their futures. When a former U.S. president asserts that global safety depends on possessing Greenland, it forces a question: Are we defining security narrowly enough?

As the summer sun slides across the fjords and the ice continues its slow, undeniable retreat, Greenland will remain at the crossroads of many global dilemmas. The island’s fate is not a spectacle to be bought or a toy for television debates. It is the living story of a people and a landscape that, for better or worse, will shape the safety and seas of us all.

Mareykanka oo sheegay in 3,000 oo qof ay ku qabteen howlgallka Minnesota

By

aden

-

January 19, 2026

Jan 19(Jowhar)-Wasaarada Difaaca Maraykanka ayaa xaqiijisay in 3kun oo qof ay ku soo xidheen howlgallka ka socda gobalka Minnesota.

Continue