Ilhan Omar doused with unknown substance while delivering speech

January 28, 2026

Ilhan Omar sprayed by unknown substance during speech — A man is tackled after he sprayed liquid at Ilhan Omar

A Syringe, a Scream, and a City Holding Its Breath

Last night a packed community hall in Minneapolis tilted for a few heart-stopping seconds toward chaos. The air — warm from bodies pressed shoulder to shoulder — smelled faintly of coffee and winter coats. Ilhan Omar, Congresswoman, Somali‑American daughter of refugees, and a lightning rod in American politics, was in mid-sentence when a man in the front row leapt up and sprayed an unknown liquid at her from what looked like a syringe.

Someone behind me shouted. Others froze. Security pushed forward like a delta of hands and jackets. The man was wrestled down and led away by officers from the Minneapolis Police Department; the audience exhaled in a collective, uneven sigh that was part relief, part rage, part disbelief. The congresswoman, shook but unbowed, stepped back to the microphone and finished her remarks. “We are Minnesota strong,” she told the room. “We will stay resilient in the face of whatever they might throw on us.”

What it felt like to be there

As a journalist who’s sat through dozens of town halls, I’ve learned that the most revealing moments are sensory ones: a cough at a tense pause, the sudden silence when a rumor sweeps a crowd. Last night, time snapped; a second stretched out into a small eternity of scrabbling shoes and shouted instructions. People pushed forward to help. One woman near the front, her hijab pinned in a careful knot, said to me afterwards, “I came to ask about healthcare for my mother, not to see someone try to hurt my Congresswoman.” Her eyes were wet but steady.

“I looked down and saw the tube,” said a security guard who helped tackle the man, his voice still shaking. “You don’t expect to be in a classroom and suddenly be in an emergency room. We did what we had to do.”

Context: Why this moment matters

The incident was not an isolated lapse in etiquette. In recent years, elected officials — particularly women of color and immigrants — have seen a spike in threats, harassment, and physical attacks. Across the United States, political rhetoric has become rawer and more personal, and it has bled into how people treat one another in public spaces. When attacks happen in places meant for civic conversation, it is a symptom and a signal: a symptom of polarisation, and a signal about how fragile our public sphere has become.

For Minnesota, the stakes feel particularly close. The state hosts one of the nation’s largest Somali‑American communities, centered in the Cedar‑Riverside neighborhood not far from where last night’s event occurred. For many residents, Omar is not simply a politician — she is a neighbor, a mosque‑goer, an emblem of possibility after decades of displacement. “She’s family,” said Ahmed, who runs a small cafe that doubles as a community bulletin board. “When they attack her, we take it personally.”

The politics behind the moment

Omar has been an outspoken critic of immigration enforcement policies and of statements from national leaders that single out immigrants and refugees. The exchange last night took place just after she called for comprehensive changes to how the Department of Homeland Security approaches enforcement. Her language — blunt, urgent — is the sort that draws applause from supporters and sharp rebuke from opponents. Presidential rhetoric has not helped soothe tensions; it has often amplified them.

Beyond the headlines and the applause lines, the issue touches millions: how nations handle borders and migrants; how communities balance security and compassion; and how rhetoric from the top filters down into everyday behavior. When public speech becomes dehumanizing, the downstream effects are tangible and sometimes dangerous.

Voices from the room: fear, defiance, resolve

After the man was removed, people lingered, reluctant to leave the circle of attention. A retired schoolteacher in the third row, who has lived through Minnesota’s civil rights battles, spoke in a voice that was equal parts exhaustion and determination. “We’ve raised our children here,” she said. “We will not let violence be normalized at a podium.”

A younger attendee, a community organizer who asked to be identified as Sofia, said, “This is what happens when leaders stoke fear — someone hears it louder than reason and decides to act. It could have been worse. It could happen elsewhere. We need to teach people to argue without trying to erase each other.”

Security staff later told me the suspect was taken into custody by Minneapolis police. Officials were still testing the sprayed substance; by the early morning hours there were no reports that the congresswoman had been seriously harmed. Yet the psychological ripple — the feeling that the public square is less safe — will linger for days, perhaps weeks.

What experts say

“Political violence rarely stems from one moment alone,” said Dr. Lena Ortiz, a political sociologist who studies political polarization and civic safety. “It is an outcome of a thousand small escalations — persistent dehumanizing rhetoric, echo chambers online, and a sense among some that extremes are the only way to be heard. Town halls used to be places of civic repair. We need to bring that back intentionally.”

Research supports Ortiz’s warning. Studies of political violence show that when public discourse degrades into demonization of opponents, incidents of harassment and threats rise. In addition, communities with high immigration enforcement activity often report elevated anxiety and distrust toward public institutions — a fact that local leaders in Minneapolis say colors everything from civic participation to school involvement.

Where do we go from here?

There are immediate, practical questions: How should security be managed at public events? What protocols keep both speakers and citizens safe while preserving the openness that democracy requires? But there are deeper questions, too. How do we speak across difference without reducing another person to a caricature? How do we honor the dignity of people whose histories and faces are different from our own?

“Resilience is not only standing back up after something scary happens,” said Omar in the minutes after she returned to the podium. “It is the decision to keep showing up, to keep listening, and to keep arguing for policies that make our community safer and healthier.” Her words landed like a benediction in a town hall meant to be about policy but that became a test of civic courage.

A community’s choice

As you read this from wherever you are — a café in Rome, a living room in Johannesburg, a university dorm in Seoul — ask yourself: what kind of public square do you want to inhabit? One where fear dictates who speaks and who is silenced? Or one where disagreement is heated but humanized? The answers matter. They are not abstract. They shape the air in community halls and the safety of people who step up to lead.

For now, Minneapolis will tend to its bruises and measure its next steps. The Somali cafes will open in the morning, the children will return to school, and the town hall’s chairs will be reset for the next time citizens want to be heard. The image that stays with me is simple: a woman returning to the microphone after being attacked, steadier than the moment deserved. That kind of steadiness is contagious, and in a season that desperately needs it, perhaps it is the most meaningful thing to witness.

UN Agency Confirms Delivery of School Supplies to Gaza

hanad

January 28, 2026

School materials enter Gaza, UN agency says — Trucks carrying aid enters Gaza through the border crossing in Rafah, Egypt

When a Pencil Becomes a Promise: School Kits Reach Gaza After Years of Blockade

There is a small, wooden cube on the concrete floor of a makeshift classroom in Khan Younis that catches the light like a tiny beacon. A boy — no older than nine — rolls it between his palms, then tucks it under his arm and grins. For him, that cube, along with a sharpened pencil and a narrow exercise book, is not just a toy or a tool; it is a fragile signal that life might, slowly, edge toward something resembling normalcy.

After nearly two-and-a-half years of aid items being stuck at checkpoints and in bureaucratic limbo, UNICEF says it has finally succeeded in getting thousands of educational kits into Gaza. The shipment includes pencils, exercise books, “school-in-a-carton” kits, and recreational wooden toys — the sort of basic things most children around the world take for granted. James Elder, UNICEF’s spokesperson, told reporters: “We have started to see real change: thousands of recreational kits and hundreds of school-in-a-carton kits have come in. We’ve got approval for another 2,500 school kits in the coming week.”

Not just stationary — but dignity

To understand why these modest packages matter, you must imagine learning in the dark. Many of Gaza’s children have been schooling in tents without reliable lighting, in buildings that are damaged or destroyed, or not at all. Teachers scrawl on scraps of paper by battery-powered lamps. Classrooms are improvised under tarpaulins, in community halls, or in narrow alleyways where children squeeze together like beads on a string.

“I used to teach from memory and whatever paper I could salvage,” says Fatima, a primary school teacher who asked that only her first name be used. “We would share a single pencil among five children. We worked by day as best we could, and studied by night with the glow of phones. These kits — they are a small thing, but they are a message to our children that someone remembers them.”

The kits arriving now include items that are mundane in most classrooms, but transformative here: pencils with erasers, ruled notebooks, counting cubes, and basic recreational materials designed to support learning and play. UNICEF plans to scale up education programming to reach roughly half of school-age children in Gaza — about 336,000 children — most of whom will be taught in tents or temporary learning spaces because 97% of schools sustained some level of damage, according to a UN satellite assessment in July.

Faces in the statistics

Statistics here read like a ledger of grief. The Hamas-led attack in October 2023 killed 1,200 Israelis, according to Israeli tallies. Gaza’s health authorities report that Israel’s assault killed some 71,000 Palestinians. UNICEF has cited official data that more than 20,000 children were reported killed in the conflict, including 110 since an October 10 ceasefire last year.

Numbers are necessary. They help humanitarian organisations plan, donors allocate funds, and governments weigh responses. But they are also blunt instruments: they can’t describe the curled fingers of a child gripping a pencil for the first time in years, the eyes of a mother relieved by a handful of exercise books, or the hush that falls over a tent when children recite a poem together for the first time since displacement.

Logistics, red tape, and politics

The route from an aid warehouse to a child’s hand in Gaza is rarely simple.

Entry approvals: Aid consignments were frequently delayed or blocked by authorities citing security concerns. UNICEF and other agencies say school supplies were among items restricted.
Physical destruction: With most school infrastructure damaged, learning spaces now occupy tents, community centres, and the remains of buildings.
Operating geography: UNICEF reports most learning spaces will be concentrated in central and southern Gaza; the north remains hard to access after intense fighting and heavy damage.

Israeli authorities have said militant groups embedded in civilian areas, including schools, making the delivery and protection of civilians during conflict complex and fraught. “We cannot accept the militarisation of schools,” an Israeli official told a local press briefing last year. At the same time, aid agencies argue that children and teachers should be shielded from politics and given the supplies they need to learn and heal.

Voices from the ground

“The first thing my daughter did when she saw the new notebook was to trace the lines with her finger,” says Ahmed, a father of three in a displacement camp near Rafah. “She said, ‘Now I can write again.’ For us, it’s more than a notebook. It’s hope.”

Health workers in Gaza warn that malnutrition, limited access to clean water, and interrupted health services are undermining children’s ability to learn. “Even when you have the materials, a child who is hungry or sick cannot concentrate,” says Dr. Leila Mansour, a pediatrician volunteering at a clinic. “Education and health are inseparable in emergencies.”

Education as protection

There is growing global recognition that education in emergencies is not a luxury; it’s a form of protection. Schools provide structure, a sense of normalcy, psychosocial support, and practical skills that keep children safer from exploitation, child labour, and recruitment into armed groups. UNICEF’s efforts in Gaza are part of a broader international push to embed learning spaces in humanitarian responses.

“We’re not just handing out paper and pencils,” James Elder said. “We are helping children to heal, to reconnect to their futures.”

What this moment asks of the world

As those simple school kits circulate from hands to hands across Gaza, they expose a larger set of questions for the global community. How do we ensure consistent access to humanitarian supplies in conflict zones? How do we protect children’s rights to education and to safety amid protracted crises? And perhaps most pertinently: what does rebuilding a generation look like after the disruption of childhood?

These small deliveries will not erase loss, nor will they rebuild the schools that stood as community pillars. But they are a start — an acknowledgement by the world that children belong at the center of recovery efforts. They also ask something of the reader: to consider what it means to support learning where the stakes are not just grades and exams but survival, dignity, and the fragile scaffolding of hope.

So the next time you sharpen a pencil, pause. Imagine, briefly, that in a tent in Gaza a child is doing the same — and feel the weight of that ordinary, defiant act. What would you give to see a classroom return to life? And what more would you ask your leaders to do so that no child is left to learn in the dark?

Russian airstrikes kill two people in Kyiv region, officials say

hanad

January 28, 2026

Russian strikes kill 2 in Kyiv region - authorities — Previous Russian strikes had already killed at least 12 people across Ukraine [file image]

Morning Frost and the Sound of Impact: A Small Town’s Loss Near Kyiv

The sun rose on a thin crust of frost, the kind that makes breath hang steady in the air and lends an ordinary morning a brittle clarity. In Bilogorodska, a community on the outskirts of Kyiv, that clarity was broken not by birdsong but by the blast of shells and the ragged, distant echo of jets.

Local officials later reported two people dead and several more wounded after strikes hit the area overnight. For the neighbors who gathered on the snow-lined street outside a low-rise apartment block, grief looked like a woman with a scarf pulled tight across her face and a man looping a coat around himself as if to hold on to warmth in more than one sense.

“We were asleep. I heard the windows rattle and thought a truck hit something,” said Olena, 47, a schoolteacher who stood quietly by a neighbor’s door. “Then we smelled smoke and saw the glow. You learn to move quickly. You don’t think about life or death—only about where the children are.” Her voice steadied and then cracked. “Two of our people are gone. That is not a number. That is a mother and a neighbour.”

A Wider Night of Violence

Across Ukraine, the same night brought more anguish. Authorities said at least a dozen people lost their lives in strikes that hit multiple regions, and among the dead were passengers on a train that Ukrainian officials say was struck by a drone. The images circulating afterward—of scorched railcars and charred debris—forced a new round of questions about the cost of war at the busiest arteries of civilian life.

President Volodymyr Zelensky described the bombardment as a direct blow to diplomatic momentum, calling on Western partners to intensify pressure on Moscow. “Peace cannot be negotiated when people are being killed as the talks take place,” he said in a televised appeal. For many Ukrainians, each strike feels like a repudiation of any hope that diplomatic channels will protect ordinary life.

Winter Makes Everything More Dangerous

We are now in the season when the daily arithmetic of survival grows more painful. Freezing temperatures amplify the stakes of any outage: loss of power means no heating, no hot water, no safe place for families to gather. In the last few days, strikes have left thousands without electricity in regions already vulnerable to cold. Aid workers say they are racing to distribute generators, blankets and portable stoves, but distribution is slow in places where roads are damaged and supplies scarce.

“Winter turns shortages into emergencies,” said Kateryna Ivanenko, a coordinator for a Kyiv-based humanitarian NGO. “People die from exposure, not only from bombs. When the grid goes down, hospitals switch to backup systems that can only run for so long. Our job is to keep those systems alive and to find shelter for the elderly.”

Voices from the Ground

Not all the voices in Bilogorodska were of despair. There was fury, practical resolve and—surprisingly—humor that felt defiant more than flippant. A young volunteer named Mykola, who spent the night ferrying people to a makeshift clinic, laughed briefly when asked how he slept. “You make tea in the middle of the night and hope that tomorrow the world will be less mad,” he said. “We patch what we can. We carry each other.”

At the clinic, a retired paramedic who refused to give his name described the scramble to treat shrapnel wounds and hypothermia simultaneously. “You have to think like a machine: temperature, bleeding, breathing. But you can’t forget to hold a hand. That is the hardest part—reminding people that they are not alone.”

Diplomacy and Destruction: Talks in the UAE

These attacks came in the wake of diplomatic encounters in the United Arab Emirates, where Russian and Ukrainian delegations met in talks brokered by the United States. The meetings were cautious, the language measured. Yet for the families in Bilogorodska and the passengers on the train, meetings in faraway hotel rooms offer little consolation when violence scratches at the door.

“Diplomacy has to be matched by deterrence,” said Dr. Marta Radev, a conflict analyst with a think tank in Warsaw. “What we are seeing is a classic mismatch: negotiators talk about steps forward while tactical operations continue to inflict civilian harm. That undermines both trust and the practical mechanics of reaching an agreement.”

What the Numbers Tell Us

Since February 2022, the war has displaced millions and exacted a heavy toll on civilian infrastructure—factories, hospitals, schools and power stations have been repeatedly damaged. Humanitarian agencies warn that winter amplifies risks: every power outage, every targeted piece of logistics infrastructure, affects access to food, medicine and safe heating. Exact casualty figures fluctuate and are often contested; what remains indisputable is that the human cost is concentrated among ordinary people who must navigate survival amid political calculations.

Beyond Headlines: The Everyday Consequences

This is not a story that fits neatly into a scroll of headlines. It is a slow, layered erosion of ordinary routines. The cafe on the main street that once opened at 7 a.m. now opens at noon when volunteers have had time to check pipes and electrical lines. Children still go to school where possible, clutching thermoses of tea, but their laughter sounds different—hushed and careful. Farmers report missing harvest windows when they cannot get machinery fueled because supply chains are interrupted.

“We are not soldiers,” said one farmer, Ilya, wiping frost off his cap. “We are people making bread, paying for schoolbooks. War turned everything into a calculation I never learned.”

Small Acts, Big Meaning

In Bilogorodska, neighbors have begun a tradition of leaving a small bowl of porridge at the clinic door for those waiting through the night. It is a ritual of sustenance and solidarity. It is also, in its own modest way, an assertion of humanity against the logic of destruction.

Immediate needs: warmth, shelter, medical care.
Short-term priorities: restoring power, clearing roads, supplying fuel for generators.
Long-term work: rebuilding infrastructure and restoring trust between communities fractured by violence.

What Can the World Do?

As you read this, ask yourself: how do distant policy debates translate into the small acts that keep people alive? Humanitarian organizations need steady funding, clear access corridors and political cover to work safely. Diplomacy needs leverage—sanctions, incentives, security guarantees—that translate into real changes on the ground, not just headlines.

“We must insist that talks mean something for people,” said Dr. Radev. “That requires a combination of pressure and protective measures for civilians. Otherwise, we are simply negotiating while the bombs fall.”

Closing: A Night Remembered

When the night finally receded and the frost began to glisten, the town of Bilogorodska gathered names. They said them aloud so that the people who had died would not be reduced to statistics. They are more than the news cycle’s casualties. They were parents, co-workers, bakers, teachers. Their loss ripples through kitchens and classrooms.

One of the neighbors lit a candle and placed it on a windowsill, its tiny flame barely warding off the chill. “We don’t know what the next day will bring,” she said. “But we will be here. We must be. That is all we can promise.”

Is that enough? It cannot be. But it is a start—a reminder that amid geopolitics and grand strategy, the clearest imperative remains the protection of human life. What will you do with that knowledge?

France enacts law barring social media access for under-15s

hanad

January 28, 2026

Australia social media ban for under 16s to take effect — Ten of the biggest social media platforms will be required to block Australians aged under 16 or be fined

A New Childhood: France’s Push to Keep Kids Off Social Media

On a gray morning in a Parisian lycée, the air smelled of rain and croissants, and the schoolyard hummed with the familiar soundtrack of adolescent life: laughter, the clack of trainers, the distant click of a scooter. But tucked into that ordinary scene is a debate that now has the full weight of state law behind it — a debate about screens, algorithms, and the shape of childhood itself.

France’s lower house of parliament has just voted through a bill to ban social media use for children under 15, a move President Emmanuel Macron hailed as “a major step” to protect the emotional lives of young people. The measure — now headed to the Senate — also reinforces a longstanding prohibition on mobile phones in middle schools and would extend restrictions in high schools. Lawmakers hope the new rules will take effect with the 2026 school year for new accounts, with platforms given until the end of that year to close out existing underage accounts.

What’s in the bill?

At its core, the legislation forbids minors under 15 from accessing commercial social networking services. It makes exemptions for online encyclopedias and educational platforms. Supporters say an effective age-verification system will need to be put in place — a technical hurdle not resolved at the national level, though work is underway across Europe.

Ban access to commercial social platforms for under-15s.
Ban mobile phones in certain schools (building on the 2018 ban for collèges — ages 11–15).
Platforms would have a transition period to deactivate non-compliant accounts.

Former prime minister Gabriel Attal, speaking for the governing Renaissance party, framed the move as about more than screen time. “Social media platforms will no longer be able to colonize the minds of our children,” he said in the wake of the vote. “This is about autonomy, health, and civic resilience.”

Voices from the schoolyard

Walk into almost any classroom in France and you’ll find that the question of whether social media is toxic or merely unavoidable is no abstraction. “I’m relieved,” says Marie Dupont, a mother of two in Lyon who watches her 13-year-old scroll in the evenings. “There are nights when I write ‘no phone’ on a post-it and it still comes back to me — this feels like an extra hand.”

Not everyone shares Marie’s relief. “It’s unfair,” says Karim, a 16-year-old lycée student in Marseille who asked for only his first name. “Social media is how we organise group work, how we joke with friends. If you remove it for everyone until 15, you also remove a piece of our social life.”

Teachers, too, are divided. “Enforcement will be the real test,” says Isabelle Laurent, a history teacher in Bordeaux. “In one sense, the classroom has never been more precious — free from the constant pinging. But if the policy becomes a paper tiger, kids will be pushed to other places where there is no guidance.”

Why now? The data and the worry lines

The move in Paris follows a pattern in liberal democracies wrestling with the rapid spread of social media. Australia was the first country to set a national minimum age, requiring major platforms to block users under 16 — a law that forced platforms to block more than a million accounts and carry the threat of multimillion-dollar fines. France’s public health agency ANSES has warned of several detrimental effects of platforms like TikTok, Snapchat, and Instagram on adolescents, particularly girls, citing increased exposure to cyberbullying, violent content, and pressures that can exacerbate body-image concerns.

Globally, the World Health Organization estimates that between 10% and 20% of adolescents experience mental health conditions, and social media is one factor among many that researchers point to when trying to explain recent trends. Yet causality is complex: screen time intersects with sleep disruption, socioeconomic stress, family dynamics, and pre-existing vulnerabilities.

Implementation: technical, legal, and ethical knots

Proponents admit the law will hinge on age verification — a notoriously thorny technical challenge that brings privacy questions front and center. How do you confirm a user’s age without creating massive databases of teen identity data? Should companies require ID checks, rely on AI, or accept parental attestations? Each option creates its own risks.

“Age-gating must not become a surveillance mechanism,” argues Céline Moreau, a digital rights lawyer. “If verification is done sloppily, you could end up collecting sensitive data about minors or forcing them into opaque verification flows that create new harms.”

Others are skeptical of the law’s paternalism. Arnaud Saint-Martin of La France Insoumise called the approach “an overly simplistic response” that treats children as passive consumers rather than as citizens to be educated. Nine child protection associations urged lawmakers to focus on holding platforms accountable instead of banning children outright.

Global ripples

France isn’t acting in isolation. Regulators worldwide are experimenting with age limits, content transparency, and heavy fines for noncompliance. Tech companies argue that nation-by-nation rules create a logistical nightmare, while parents and child advocates counter that the business models of many platforms actively monetize attention and not the well-being of young users.

“This law is part of a wider push to rebalance power between transnational tech firms and democratic states,” says Dr. Antoine Pelletier, a sociologist who studies youth and media. “It’s as much about digital sovereignty as it is about mental health.”

So what could change for families?

If the law becomes final, some everyday scenes may feel different. School corridors might be quieter. Family evenings might be less interrupted by glowing screens. But change will be uneven. Staff shortages, loopholes, and tech-savvy teens will all shape the lived reality.

Practical questions remain. Will parents have to verify their children’s ages with documents? How will children who depend on messaging for caregiving arrangements or for safety be accommodated? What about teenagers who use platforms to access support networks or to organise political engagement?

Where do we go from here?

The vote in the National Assembly is a vivid reminder that the digital lives of children are public policy, not just private choices. It forces us to ask uncomfortable questions: What kind of childhood do we want to defend? Who gets to decide the boundaries between protection and autonomy? And can societies design digital spaces that respect both safety and freedom?

As the bill moves to the Senate, the conversation will deepen — and not just in Parisian chambers. It will surface in kitchen tables, in teacher break rooms, in legal clinics and in the start-up corridors of tech firms. Whatever your view, the issue is personal: it touches how we raise children, how we teach responsibility, and how we treat the next generation as members of a digital public.

Are we ready to legislate childhood in the age of algorithms? That’s the question France is asking the world — and the answer may reshape more than playground rules. It may shape the very contours of growing up in the 21st century.

Russian strike triggers Kharkiv power outage; 23 wounded in Odesa

hanad

January 27, 2026

Russian attack cuts power in Kharkiv, 23 wounded in Odesa — Rescue operations at an apartment building in Kharkiv on 24 January - the city has been the target of frequent attacks by Russia

Night Without Light: Kharkiv and Odesa Bear the Cold Bite of War

When the lights went out in Kharkiv on a wind-bitten winter night, it felt at once mundane and monstrous — a blackout that could be expected after a storm, yet born of missiles and drones. Streetlamps blinked off. Apartment blocks, with their Soviet-era facades and warm, lived-in balconies, became silhouettes. Hospitals clicked over to generators. Residents bundled in layers, passing thermoses and candles between neighbors while the city’s power crews, brimming with a stubborn calm, scrambled to assess damage under the constant hum of air raid alerts.

“Our energy system came under attack and there was quite serious damage. All crews are at work to eliminate all the negative consequences quickly,” Regional Governor Oleh Syniehubov said in a message posted to Telegram, adding bluntly: “About 80% of the city of Kharkiv and Kharkiv region is without electricity.”

The night’s tally: drones, damage, displacement

Ukrainian air force reports said 165 drones were launched towards Ukrainian territory overnight — and that air defence units had neutralised 135 of them. Even with a high interception rate, the strike left a trail: two people injured in Kharkiv, two schools damaged, and large swathes of energy infrastructure crippled just as sub-zero temperatures began to bite.

Some images on social channels showed whole neighborhoods plunged into darkness, firelight and emergency beacons glinting against frost. In Kharkiv — a city about 30km from the Russian border and Ukraine’s second-largest urban center before the war — the psychological effect of a long, cold night without heat or light was as consequential as the physical destruction.

Odesa struck: port city on edge

Farther south along the Black Sea, Odesa woke to smoke and sirens. The head of the city’s military administration, Serhiy Lysak, described the operation on Telegram as a “massive” drone attack. Regional governor Oleh Kiper reported 23 people wounded, nine of whom — including two children and a pregnant woman — were hospitalised. He warned that people could still be trapped under rubble.

Dozens of residential buildings sustained damage; a kindergarten, a high school and a church were among the civilian sites hit. Fires burned in several parts of the city. For Odesa, a place famous for its steps overlooking the sea, lively markets, and the eclectic creak of maritime life, the strike was both a human tragedy and a strategic reminder: the Black Sea coast remains a frontline in another kind of battle, one over logistics, commerce and the movement of goods.

Beyond the headlines: scenes from the streets

“We have no heat and my baby is shivering. We wrapped blankets around him and went to the stairwell where there was some light from a neighbor’s battery lamp,” said Marina, a kindergarten teacher in Kharkiv, speaking quietly between calls to friends and calls to the school. “You learn to make do, but it does not feel normal. Children ask why the sky is falling.”

In a hospital corridor, a nurse named Serhiy wiped his hands on a towel and said, “We are running on emergency power. The ventilators and incubators are fine for now, but every minute the generators run is a minute we are praying they don’t fail. Outside, volunteers are bringing hot soup to staff and patients. That is how we get through.”

On the outskirts of Odesa, an electrician with a regional utility crew, wrapped in a luminous vest and a wool cap, spoke over the crackle of radios: “We are patching, rerouting, and hopes are pinned on the main lines holding. The drones take out the substations, and then everything else follows. We work as fast as we can. People need heat, especially now.”

Why attack energy?

Targeting power and heating systems in winter is a grimly strategic move with immediate humanitarian consequences. “Striking energy infrastructure during months of extreme cold is an attempt to erode civilian morale and to strain emergency services,” said Dr. Olena Markov, an energy security analyst based in Kyiv. “Even when a high percentage of drones are intercepted, the ones that hit can create cascading failures — substations damaged, control centers disrupted, and long repair times under fire.”

There is a wider pattern. Since 2022, missile and drone strikes have repeatedly focused on electricity grids, water systems, and other civilian infrastructure, stretching a nation’s capacity to repair and to protect the most vulnerable. The winter element amplifies every risk: hospitals rely on steady energy for life-saving equipment; older apartment buildings depend on city heating; water pumping stations need electricity to prevent supply interruptions.

Ripples across regions

It was not only Kharkiv and Odesa. Officials reported damage to energy infrastructure in Mykolaiv region, where a woman was injured. Even western Ukraine — in the Lviv region that borders Poland and the NATO alliance — saw an infrastructure facility struck, a reminder that no region feels entirely insulated from the conflict’s reach.

165 drones were reported launched in the overnight strikes.
135 drones were intercepted by Ukrainian defences (about 82%).
Kharkiv: approximately 80% of the city and region without electricity after the attack.
Odesa: 23 wounded, at least nine hospitalised; multiple civilian sites damaged.

Questions to sit with

What does it mean to wage a modern war when the tools of life — warmth, light, water — are also targets? When cities lose power, the calculus of survival changes overnight. Elderly residents, children, and those with chronic conditions face heightened peril. Schools and cultural institutions bear scars that outlast physical repairs.

And yet, amid the rubble and smoke, there is a recurrent and stubborn humanity: neighbors sharing food, volunteers shuttling fuel, technicians working long shifts, and municipal teams trying to weld the city back together while sirens still wail.

Looking ahead

Repair crews will work around the clock, officials say. Air defenses will continue trying to intercept incoming attacks. Diplomats and humanitarian agencies will count and catalog the damage and urge restraint. For the people of Kharkiv, Odesa, Mykolaiv and Lviv, the immediate questions are practical and pressing: when will the heat return? Which schools will reopen? Who will cover the costs for homes and businesses?

There are no easy answers. But there is a clear, wider lesson for the world watching: modern conflict increasingly targets the sinews of daily life. It is a reminder that security now encompasses not just borders and battlegrounds but power grids, supply chains, and the quiet infrastructure that makes community life possible.

As you read this, imagine a city where a single drone strike can dim a hundred thousand lives. What responsibilities do we, as a global community, share for protecting civilians — and for ensuring that when the lights go out, there is a plan to get them back on?

Kharkiv and Odesa, on this cold night, answer with the dim glow of candles, the hum of generators, and the tireless work of people who refuse to let darkness win.

Slovakia and Hungary to launch legal challenge against EU’s Russian gas ban

hanad

January 27, 2026

Slovakia and Hungary to sue EU over Russian gas ban — The EU says a ban on all imports of Russian gas will come into force before the end of 2027

When Pipelines Become Courtrooms: Slovakia, Hungary and the EU’s Russian Gas Breakup

On a chilly morning in Bratislava, cameras clustered like gulls outside the government’s glass façade as Prime Minister Robert Fico stepped out, jaw set, with a stack of papers under his arm and a simple, uncompromising message: “We are filing a lawsuit.” The words landed not as mere political theatre but as the opening move in a legal and geopolitical duel that now stretches from Central European town squares to the marble halls of Brussels and Luxembourg.

Across the Danube in Budapest, Viktor Orbán — seeking re-election in April — answered with his own vow to take the European Union to court. His anxiety is both local and personal: Hungary’s signature campaign promise of capped household energy prices is on the line, and the ban on Russian gas imports threatens to undercut that promise the way late frost can flatten a spring orchard.

What Changed — and Why It Matters

The EU has moved to phase out all Russian natural gas imports before the end of 2027, a decision reached by a mechanism that required only a qualified majority of member states. That procedural detail is the sharp edge of the dispute: Slovakia and Hungary, two landlocked countries with long-standing commercial and energy ties to Moscow, were outvoted and now accuse Brussels of bypassing the unanimous consent normally expected for sanctions.

“It’s not just about pipelines,” said Jana Kovács, an energy analyst in Bratislava. “It’s about jobs, industry, heating our homes — and for many people it’s about dignity. You can’t tear away a lifeline overnight and expect nobody to bleed.”

Before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Moscow supplied roughly two-fifths of the European Union’s gas needs. That dependence plunged many EU capitals into frantic re-mapping of supply routes: more LNG terminals, new pipelines from Norway, Azerbaijan and North Africa, and long-term contracts that suddenly looked expensive but necessary. Yet even with new supply pathways, the raw fact remains: some countries, especially in Central and Eastern Europe, could not pivot overnight.

The Domestic Politics of an Energy Shock

Viktor Orbán has framed the ban as an existential attack on his government’s policy of keeping utility bills low. “There can be no compromise on this,” he wrote on social media, characterizing the EU move as a direct threat to “utility price reduction” — a phrase that has become shorthand in Hungary for economic stability and electoral survival.

Fico’s rhetoric is sharper, bordering on the conspiratorial: he accused EU policy-makers of allowing “ideology and hatred towards Russia” to dictate energy policy, a line that resonates with voters who still remember bitter winters and cascading factory shutdowns from early supply squeezes.

Meanwhile, factory managers in Slovakia and Hungary are doing arithmetic late into the night: steel mills, chemical plants and food processors run on steady, affordable gas. Breaks in supply ripple quickly into layoffs and lost exports. “We can run on hope for only so long,” said one plant manager near Komárno. “Contracts need certainty.”

Legal Paths and Practical Realities

Both Bratislava and Budapest have announced they will challenge the EU decision in the Court of Justice of the European Union. They cannot file a single joint complaint, the prime ministers acknowledge, but they intend to synchronize legal arguments and timings.

At the heart of the case will be a debate over procedure and substance. Hungary will argue — as officials have already suggested — that the gas ban is “essentially” a sanction. Sanctions, it insists, require unanimous approval under EU treaties. Brussels insists that its mechanism, built to modernize the Union’s energy posture and accelerate the transition away from Russian fuel, falls under ordinary regulatory competence and was legitimately adopted by a qualified majority.

Legal scholars say the case is complex and could take months, possibly years, to resolve. “This is a collision of law and geopolitics,” said Maria De Luca, a professor of EU law in Milan. “Even if Hungary or Slovakia win on procedural grounds, the practical implementation of an EU-wide phase-out will already be well advanced. Courts can rule, but pipelines obey physics and contracts.”

What Are the Alternatives?

Behind the headlines are the nitty-gritty options national governments must consider. Can gas be rerouted via interconnectors? Can industry switch to electricity or biomass fast enough? Is more LNG the answer — and who will pay for the terminals and regasification?

Increase imports from Norway and Algeria — possible but limited by pipeline capacity and long-term contracts.
Ramp up renewable power and electrify heating and industry — a climate-friendly move, but expensive and time-consuming.
Invest in domestic storage and reverse-flow capabilities — useful as a stop-gap but not a silver bullet.
Accept temporary peaking supplies and higher prices — politically painful, but a realistic short-term concession.

Each option brings trade-offs: cost vs. speed, sovereignty vs. solidarity, and short-term pain vs. long-term resilience.

Voices from the Street

At a market in Bratislava, an elderly woman in a wool coat sipped tea and shrugged when asked about the looming legal battle. “I don’t care for the speeches,” she said. “If I have to choose between politics and warmth in my flat, I’ll choose warmth.”

A university student, eyes bright with indignation and hope, offered a different perspective. “This is our chance to stop being dependent on autocrats who weaponize energy,” she said. “Yes, costs will rise, but aren’t we building a more sovereign Europe?”

In a small Hungarian town where gas boilers still glow in winter, a baker fretted over energy bills that eat into margins. “If my oven stops, I can’t feed people or pay wages,” he said. “Courts can argue—people need bread.”

Beyond Borders: A Story of Transition, Trust and the Future of Europe

What happens next will test more than legal doctrines. It will test the EU’s ability to manage a shared transition when member states feel the costs unevenly distributed. It will test political leaders who must explain to pensions and paychecks why a continent should take short-term pain for geopolitical independence and climate goals.

The dispute also illuminates a larger tension pulsing through Europe: how to reconcile national democratic pressures with collective, long-term strategy. When a region’s energy arteries run through a foreign capital, geopolitics becomes a local matter—literally an issue of heating and feeding families.

So ask yourself: should a bloc of 27 countries be able to impose an energy pivot on two reluctant members for the sake of a broader strategic aim? Or should unanimity be the rule when livelihoods hang in the balance? There are no tidy answers.

Final Thoughts

As Brussels prepares for legal briefs and diplomats quietly lobby for compromise, ordinary people will keep their thermostats set at what they can afford. The courts will take their time. The pipelines will hum or sputter based on contracts and geopolitics. And in cafes and parliaments across Europe, the conversation that began with gas will expand into questions of identity, strategy and solidarity.

In the end, the case of Slovakia and Hungary versus the EU over Russian gas is not just legal trivia. It is a story about how democracies manage transitions, who gets to decide the risks, and what sacrifices are fair when the future demands change. How would you balance immediate comfort against long-term security? That is the question Europe is now asking—and it may ask it of us all.

Spain to grant legal status to 500,000 undocumented migrants

hanad

January 27, 2026

Spain to regularise 500,000 undocumented migrants — Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said Spain needs migration to fill workforce gaps and counteract an ageing population

A New Dawn for Half a Million Lives: Spain’s Bold Move on Undocumented Migration

On a crisp morning in Madrid, the aroma of fresh coffee and frying churros mingled with an electric sense of possibility. Shopkeepers greeted each other in the Plaza Mayor with the casual warmth of people who share streets, stories and, increasingly, uncertainty about who belongs where.

This week Spain’s left-wing government reached for an answer that many other European capitals have resisted: a decree to regularise roughly 500,000 undocumented migrants — a sweeping gesture of inclusion that will let people work, live openly and access the protections of the state.

“We are strengthening a migration model based on human rights, integration, coexistence, and compatible with economic growth and social cohesion,” said Migration Minister Elma Saiz, framing the decision as more than administrative paperwork. “Beneficiaries will be able to work in any sector, in any part of the country.”

What the decree actually does

The government’s plan is precise in its conditions and generous in its intent. It will be available to people who:

have been living in Spain for at least five months,
filed for international protection before 31 December 2025, and
have a clean criminal record.

Children already present in Spain will be included under their parents’ applications. Officials expect the application window to open in April and run through the end of June. Because the measure is being enacted by decree, it will bypass the full parliamentary approval process — a tactical choice by a Socialist-led coalition that does not hold a majority in Congress.

Numbers that reshape neighbourhoods and economies

Spain’s economy and demography are inseparable from migration. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has repeatedly argued — and government figures underscore — that migration has been a central engine of recent growth. “Migration accounted for 80% of Spain’s dynamic economic growth in the last six years,” the prime minister has said, a statistic the government uses to justify opening legal channels.

Official labour-market data released alongside the announcement drives the point home: of the 76,200 new jobs added in the last quarter of the year, 52,500 were filled by foreigners — contributing to Spain’s lowest jobless figure since 2008. At the same time, independent research paints a fuller picture: at the beginning of January 2025, Funcas estimated some 840,000 undocumented people were living in Spain, a population drawn largely from Latin America but also from sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere.

More than seven million foreigners now live in Spain out of a total population of roughly 49.4 million, underlining how migration has become woven into the daily life of towns from Valencia to Vigo, from the tiny canaries of the archipelago to the bustling streets of Barcelona.

Voices from the streets: hope, relief, skepticism

At a bustling cleaning cooperative in the south of Madrid, a woman known to colleagues as Mariana — short, tireless, with a laugh that softens the room — folds shirts with hands that have known both fear and perseverance. “If they give me papers, I can finally plan for my daughter’s future,” she said, pausing as a colleague delivered a paper cup of café con leche. “No more hiding when the inspector comes. No more sending money back through secret routes.”

An immigration lawyer in Barcelona, who asked not to be named because his office is swamped with clients, said: “This is a lifeline for people who have been contributing without recognition. But the devil is in the detail. How the government processes half a million cases in a few months will determine if this is meaningful reform or bureaucratic theatre.”

Religious groups and social organisations hailed the decree too. Spain’s Catholic Church called it “an act of social justice and recognition,” framing the move as aligned with long-standing pastoral outreach to migrants and refugees.

A chorus of opposition

Not everyone is cheering. Conservative and far-right parties slammed the plan, warning it could incentivise more irregular migration and strain public services. Alberto Núñez Feijóo, leader of the Popular Party, wrote on X: “In Socialist Spain, illegality is rewarded,” and promised sweeping changes to migration policy if his party regains power. His critique reflects a broader European trend in which far-right rhetoric has pushed many governments toward tighter controls.

“Our hospitals, schools and neighbourhoods are already stretched,” one local councillor in a small coastal town told me. “You can’t make complex fiscal and social systems fit new people overnight.” These anxieties are not trivial; they point to the real logistical challenges of rapid regularisation and integration.

Why Spain is taking a different path

This decree is as much about economics and demography as it is about compassion. Spain’s population is aging; fertility rates have fallen across much of Europe, and the ratio of workers to retirees is shrinking. The government argues that legalising undocumented workers will stabilise pension systems, reduce exploitation, and integrate people who already keep restaurants open, fields harvested and eldercare functioning.

Spain is also a frontline for irregular migration. The Canary Islands have been a route for thousands escaping poverty and conflict, especially from sub-Saharan Africa. Irregular crossings place human lives at risk and challenge border control policies — and governments have responded in contrasting ways. Spain’s choice to regularise stands out in an EU landscape where many states have tightened entry rules under political pressure.

Questions worth asking

As readers around the world look at this story, consider: what does it mean when a country chooses legality over exclusion? Is regularisation a pragmatic correction to reality, or a political gamble? Can a state fix decades of informal labour, fractured families and clandestine economies through a single administrative act?

Integration will take time. Access to language classes, recognition of professional qualifications, and local housing markets will determine whether regularisation translates into secure livelihoods. But there is a moral calculus at play too — a question of whether modern democracies can reconcile borders with the dignity of the people who cross them.

What comes next

The paperwork will begin in April. For half a million people — and for entire neighbourhoods — those forms may be the hinge between a life in the shadows and a life in the light.

“We just want to contribute,” Mariana said as she tucked a stray hair behind her ear. “We are not a problem. We are a part of the country.”

Spain’s experiment will be watched closely by policymakers across Europe. Will it ease labour shortages, fortify social cohesion and make public services more resilient — or will it inflame political divisions and logistical headaches? Time and implementation will tell. For now, a nation has chosen inclusion; the rest of us should watch, learn, and ask how our own communities welcome the people who make them thrive.

China vows to safeguard United Nations as cornerstone of world order

hanad

January 27, 2026

China aims to 'uphold' UN as core of international system — Chinese President Xi Jinping is hosting Finland's Prime Minister Petteri Orpo this week

In the Great Hall, a Quiet Plea for the UN—and the World Watches

Under the gilded dome of Beijing’s Great Hall of the People, where history and ceremony rub shoulders with power, President Xi Jinping folded a familiar argument into a diplomatic embrace: China, he said, wants the United Nations to remain at the heart of the international system.

“China is willing to work with Finland to firmly uphold the international system with the United Nations at its core,” state media reported Xi telling Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo during a meeting that felt both stately and strategic. The words were smooth, practiced—an appeal to the language of global order at a moment when that order feels, to many, worryingly frayed.

Why Those Words Matter Now

That public nod to multilateralism did not occur in a vacuum. This month’s unveiling of an American initiative dubbed the “Board of Peace” has set capitals on edge and spurred an unmistakable rip of diplomatic activity. Washington’s plan—portrayed by some as an attempt to create a rival mechanism to the United Nations—has left many allies recalibrating their approach to Beijing.

And so here was Finland’s leader, a northerner who remembers the thin Arctic light and the long history of careful balancing between East and West, seated across from the man who has increasingly defined China’s posture on the global stage. Orpo’s four-day visit to Beijing forms part of a pattern: a procession of Western delegations—French and Canadian envoys in recent weeks, and Britain’s leader expected to arrive soon—who are testing how to engage a Beijing that is both indispensable and controversial.

Conversations on Cooperation—and Contention

“We came to talk about cooperation, but we also came to listen,” Prime Minister Orpo said in remarks after their talks, according to the Finnish readout. He spoke of “international issues” and “bilateral cooperation,” words that sound modest but carry the weight of trade agreements, arctic security, and climate commitments.

On the streets of Beijing, the visit was a small, almost human counterpoint to the statecraft in the hall. A tea vendor near Tiananmen shrugged when asked what he made of the talks. “They promise many things,” he said. “We only understand the things that affect our pockets and our children.” For people in Beijing’s hutongs and Helsinki’s neighborhoods alike, diplomacy is often a distant spectacle; its consequences are not.

Fault Lines: Ukraine, Russia, and the Arctic

But beneath the formal pronouncements lie real disagreements. Finland, which only recently completed its NATO accession in 2023, has been blunt about its security anxieties. Finnish Defence Minister Antti Hakkanen told reporters in November that China’s economic ties to Moscow have been “massively” supporting Russia’s war effort—a charge Beijing rejects, insisting it takes a neutral stance and refuses to condemn Moscow’s invasion.

Across Europe and North America, politicians and analysts fret over the emerging geopolitical geometry of the Arctic. Melting ice has turned a region once sealed by cold into a new theater for shipping lanes, resources, and strategic influence. “We must protect the Arctic not only from a warming climate but from a dangerous competition for footprint and infrastructure,” said a senior NATO official in Brussels, asking not to be named. Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte and other European leaders have urged collective approaches to secure northern countries, implicitly naming both Moscow and Beijing as actors whose presence must be watched.

Trade, Influence, and the Question of Neutrality

China and Russia have deepening trade ties that, in recent years, reached record levels. Beijing insists its engagement is transactional and not an endorsement of Moscow’s military choices. “Our partnership is based on trade and mutual interest,” said a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson during a press briefing. “We do not support actions that violate international law, and we promote dialogue.”

Yet the optics of commerce—energy shipments, technology exchanges, and diplomatic cover—have complicated Beijing’s insistence on neutrality. For Finland, which shares a long border with Russia and a history of strategic caution, those connections are not an abstract policy; they are proximate and immediate.

Global Repercussions: Multilateralism Under Pressure

What does this all mean beyond capitals and headlines? At its simplest, we are watching a test of multilateralism. The United Nations has 193 member states, a vast and imperfect convening power. Calls for a UN-centered system echo across speeches and briefings because many diplomats worry about the fragmentation of global governance into competing clubs, coalitions, and informally aligned blocs.

“When large powers start opting out of existing frameworks or proposing parallel ones, it raises the cost of cooperation for everyone,” said an international relations scholar based in London. “Smaller countries find themselves squeezed: do they hedge their bets, pick a side, or double down on institutions that, however flawed, at least offer predictability?”

Local Color: Helsinki to Beijing, Saunas to Silk Road Echoes

If you’ve never been to Finland in February, imagine streets powdered with snow, the northern sun low and amber, and saunas glowing like promises in nearly every home. These are not incidental details: Finnish culture and geography shape its foreign policy. A small country with a long border to a larger, unpredictable neighbor, Finland’s diplomacy is practical—and sometimes blunt.

In Beijing, agents of commerce and culture note a different tempo: high-speed trains, megacity skylines, and an urban appetite for new markets. Both societies watch the same global chessboard from different angles.

Questions for the Reader

What kind of world do you want to live in? One of tightly stitched, universally applied rules, or one of flexible, interest-driven arrangements? And who should guard that order—the United Nations, a new American-led consortium, or a shifting mix of regional alliances?

These are not purely academic questions. They shape whether humanitarian crises are resolved through coordinated channels, whether economic sanctions hold, and whether smaller states can find refuge in predictable rules rather than the whims of great powers.

Where Do We Go From Here?

For now, Xi and Orpo returned to their capitals with diplomatic routines observed and commitments—broad, conditional—recorded. The larger drama, however, plays out over months and years: in Arctic ports that may see more ships, in trade patterns that entangle economies, and in international institutions whose credibility depends on the good faith of their leaders.

“No country can or should be excluded from the global conversation,” another diplomat told me over coffee. “But conversation must be anchored in trust—or at least in rules everyone respects.”

Return to your daily life and pause: watch for the next visit, the next joint statement, the next policy paper. International order does not arrive fully formed; it is built, eroded, and rebuilt by choices—public and private, large and small. The Great Hall’s chandeliers may glitter tonight, but the future of multilateralism will be decided in countless quieter rooms where trade, security, and values meet.

Key fact: The United Nations has 193 member states.
Key context: Finland joined NATO in 2023, reshaping its security posture.
Key tension: China’s trade with Russia has increased in recent years, complicating European security concerns.

1...383940...267 Page 39 of 267