Jan 24(Jowhar)-Golaha Mustaqbalka Soomaaliyeed oo ay ku mideysan yihiin madaxweynayaasha maamulada Puntland, Jubaland iyo Madasha Samata-bixinta ee Muqdisho ka dhisan ayaa aqbalay gogosha ay fidisay dowladda ee dhaceysa bilowga bisha February, taasoo ka dhaceysa magaalada Muqdisho.
U.S. Rescinds Invitation for Canada to Join Board of Peace
When Davos Frost Met a Political Firestorm: The Strange Rise and Rapid Shrink of Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’
Snow dusted the alpine streets of Davos like a soft editing hand, and the World Economic Forum hummed with the usual blend of caffeine, optimism and guarded power-brokering. Then, in the space of a single day, a gesture meant to signal global leadership turned into a theatrical public spat—one that left diplomats, hotel concierges and baristas trading whispers over espresso about what “peace” really costs in today’s geopolitics.
A bold invitation, a sharper rebuke
It began with an invitation. On paper, it was an offering of prestige: a seat at an initiative being billed as the “Board of Peace,” an assembly President Donald Trump framed as a new mechanism for conflict resolution. But the moment Canada’s leader, Mark Carney, used his Davos platform to denounce the weaponization of economic ties—tariffs held as leverage, trade used as geopolitical cudgel—the board’s brief warmth froze.
“Please let this Letter serve to represent that the Board of Peace is withdrawing its invitation to you,” Mr. Trump posted on his social channel, bluntly rescinding the offer in public view. It was a move equal parts policy and performance art—part Twitter-age diplomacy, part Davos showdown.
In the room where Carney spoke, the reaction was unmistakable: a rare, sustained standing ovation. His message—arguing that countries should not weaponize integration, and that middle powers can band together to resist coercion—struck a chord with delegates who have watched increasingly brittle global rules reshape commerce and security. “We cannot let economic ties become instruments of intimidation,” Carney told the Forum. “Canada will show another way.”
Short, sharp words—and longer echoes
The exchange that followed was personal and pointed. Mr. Trump, in a Davos appearance, reminded listeners that Canada “lives because of the United States,” admonishing Carney to remember American generosity. Carney fired back on home soil: “Canada doesn’t live because of the United States. Canada thrives because we are Canadian.” The lines were short. The implications long.
“This is more than a spat,” said Dr. Aisha Rahman, an international law scholar who has studied alternative multilateral structures. “It’s a test of whether new institutions will reinforce the UN system—or begin to pull at its seams.”
For locals in Davos, the spectacle felt oddly cinematic. “You get used to seeing big people say big things here,” joked Lukas Meier, a waiter at a small café near the congress center. “But this time, everyone kept craning their necks. It was like watching a slow-motion collision.”
What is the Board—and who’s signing the cheque?
Behind the performative headlines lay concrete mechanics. Mr. Trump insisted that permanent members of the Board of Peace would be expected to contribute $1 billion each (roughly €850 million) in seed money. His stated ambition was large: a board capable, he said, of “doing pretty much whatever we want to do,” working in coordination with the United Nations.
The ambition brought scrutiny. The initiative secured a form of endorsement through a UN Security Council resolution tied to a Gaza peace framework, but the U.N. spokesperson later clarified that any U.N. engagement would be circumscribed by that narrow remit.
Already, a partial roster of member states began to emerge: nations like Argentina, Bahrain, Morocco, Pakistan and Turkey signed on. But prominent Western allies—Britain, France and Italy among them—appeared hesitant, declining at least for the moment to participate. The European Union publicly voiced “serious doubts” about parts of the board’s charter, questioning its scope, governance and congruity with the U.N. Charter.
- Permanent-member contribution: $1 billion (~€850 million)
- Initial listed participants: Argentina, Bahrain, Morocco, Pakistan, Turkey
- UN member states: 193 (for context on the scale of global representation)
Why some countries balked
For several European capitals, the problem wasn’t the idea of peace—who could oppose that?—but the architecture. “We can’t join a structure that seeks to mimic or undermine the UN Security Council,” said Helen McEntee, Ireland’s Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, echoing a broader worry that the board’s remit might expand beyond Gaza to areas traditionally governed by the U.N.
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez told reporters after the summit that Spain had “declined” the invitation. “Peace must be pursued without creating parallel institutions that distort international law,” he added.
Those objections hinged on deeper anxieties about legitimacy: who gets to shape post-conflict reconstruction, who decides the rules, and how accountability will be ensured when enormous sums are pooled outside established global institutions.
Middle powers, middle ground—or a new playing field?
Carney’s broader argument—visible in his Davos address and the domestic speech he gave in Quebec—was that middle powers can demonstrate governance alternatives. “Canada can’t solve all the world’s problems, but we can show that another way is possible,” he told a domestic audience, asking his countrymen to look to democratic resilience and inclusive institutions.
His example resonated with a subset of states wary of being caught between great-power demands. For countries that recently diversified trade—Canada’s agreement with China was cited as an example—there’s a growing interest in crafting a foreign policy that neither bows to nor is swallowed by a single superpower’s influence.
“There’s a real, quiet coalition forming among countries that want multilateralism to be more than a slogan,” said Marta Delgado, a geopolitical analyst. “They’re focused on operationalizing cooperation in ways that are transparent and accountable—not ad hoc frameworks priced for the highest bidder.”
Practical questions, human costs
Beyond high-level mechanics, skeptics asked pointed, practical questions: How will funds be spent? Who will be the auditors? What happens to local voices in Gaza if an external board adopts a top-down reconstruction plan? Such worries matter not just to technocrats but to ordinary people whose lives depend on the mechanics of aid and governance.
“We want rebuilding that listens to us,” said Samir, a shop owner in a Gazan neighborhood now reduced to rubble. “Money is important, but who decides what stays and what goes matters even more.”
Why this matters to you—and the rest of the world
At its heart, the Davos episode is a microcosm of a larger balancing act playing out on the world stage: the friction between emergent power centers, the stress test of post-war reconstruction, and the question of whether new, private or semi-private institutions can deliver peace without weakening the public, multilateral frameworks that have held global order in place since 1945.
Do we accept new structures that promise speed and decisive funding at the cost of traditional checks and balances? Or do we double down on an imperfect but universal system meant to ensure equal footing for smaller states?
Those are not merely academic questions. They shape whether humanitarian funds reach hospitals, whether rebuilding respects local culture, whether displaced families can return home under fair governance. They shape trust.
As the snow in Davos melted into spring runoff, the spectacle—the rescinded invitation, the standing ovation, the resonant speeches—remained a reminder that geopolitics is equal parts policy and performance. What comes next depends on whether states choose tempers or treaties, theatrics or transparency.
What would you demand of any new global body entrusted with peace—and would you trust money and power concentrated in the hands of a few to deliver it? Think about it the next time headlines promise fast solutions to slow problems.
Deni iyo Madoobe oo aqbalay ka qeyb galka shirka ay iclaamisay dowladda Soomaaliya
Jan 24(Jowhar)-Madaxweynayaasha maamulada Puntland iyo Jubaland ayaa aqbalay ka qaybgalka gogosha wada-hadalka qaran ee mudeysan 1-da Febraayo.
Starmer and Prince Harry jointly denounce Trump’s Afghanistan assertion
When Words Wound: How One Interview Reopened a Nation’s Scars
On a chilly morning in London, floral tributes still bowed under the weight of rain at a small memorial near a brick barracks. Wreaths, letters and dog-eared photographs fluttered against the iron railings, reminders that the long war in Afghanistan is not an abstract chapter in a history book but a ledger of names—457 British service members whose lives were cut short.
So when a headline from across the Atlantic suggested those who fought “stayed a little back,” the reaction in Britain was swift, visceral and deeply personal. It was not merely political pushback; it was a reopening of fresh wounds for families, veterans and communities who carried that conflict home for two decades.
Shockwaves and a Nation’s Reply
Within hours, voices rose from Downing Street to the living rooms of ordinary Britons. The prime minister called the suggestion insulting and hurtful; a former royal who had served on the front line begged for the truth to be spoken with respect. Veterans’ charities, opposition leaders and bereaved relatives joined what felt like a national chorus—reminding the world that this was never a distant, spectator war.
“We were shoulder to shoulder,” said an ex-serviceman, now a community youth mentor in the north of England. “We stood with allies in muddy valleys and on sunburnt airfields. You don’t get to minimize that service with a throwaway line on television.”
Numbers That Never Go Away
Facts matter in moments like this. After the September 11, 2001 attacks, NATO invoked Article 5—the alliance’s mutual defence clause—for the first and only time in its history. The UK committed heavily: more than 150,000 British service personnel served in Afghanistan between 2001 and 2021. Of those, 457 were killed, and official figures say 405 of those deaths were the result of hostile action.
Poland, another ally, lost 43 soldiers. The United States suffered more than 2,400 fatalities. Countries across NATO—Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Denmark and others—saw their young men and women return changed, or not return at all. These are not numbers on a spreadsheet; they are dates circled on calendars, empty chairs at family tables, and gravestones whose names are read aloud at Remembrance services.
Voices from the Heart
At a veterans’ café tucked between a fish-and-chip shop and a barber in a coastal town, people still share stories they can’t talk about at home. “We saved each other’s backs in the heat,” one former corporal told me, stirring his tea as if the motion steadied old nerves. “You can’t belittle that without knowing the smell of diesel at dawn, or the loneliness of radio silence after an ambush.”
A mother who lost her son at 18 described the insult as “an extra wound.” “He was home in a box,” she said quietly. “I miss him in small, ordinary ways. I don’t need someone to tell me his life didn’t matter.”
Prince Harry — who served two frontline tours — echoed that sentiment, urging that sacrifices be spoken of truthfully and with respect. “Allies answered the call,” he said in a public statement, noting that families still live with the consequences of loss and injury. His words landed with particular weight because he, too, is part of that community of service.
Politics, Pride and the Peril of Misstatements
There is more than one thread here: grief, certainly, but also the political theatre of global alliances. NATO’s relevance has been debated, yet its 2001 invocation established a legal and moral unity that saw nations answer a collective call. To suggest otherwise is to blur the contours of history and to risk eroding trust between allies.
A defence analyst in Brussels told me, “One mischaracterisation can ripple through diplomatic relations. Trust is built on shared sacrifice, shared memory. When those memories are questioned, the alliance becomes vulnerable to doubt.”
Across the political spectrum in the UK, condemnation was not confined to one party; it was a rare convergence of voices alarmed about the implications of the remark. The leader of the opposition said it could weaken the NATO alliance; other figures, including some who have historically supported the American president, publicly rebuked the claim.
What This Means for Veterans and Families
Beyond geopolitics lie the human costs: injuries, both visible and invisible, that stretch beyond frontline tours. Thousands returned with life-changing wounds. Many now struggle with mental health, with employment, with relationships. Charities dedicated to veterans warn that public misstatements compound their burden.
“It’s not just about honour,” said a director at a veterans’ support organization. “It’s about having the record set straight so services, compensation and care are directed where they are needed and so the public understands the true cost of conflict.”
- 457 British service members killed in Afghanistan (405 in hostile action)
- More than 150,000 UK personnel deployed 2001–2021
- US fatalities: more than 2,400
- Poland lost 43 soldiers
Memory, Respect, and the Stories We Tell
Walking past the memorial, you notice small tokens left by schoolchildren: a painted rock, a crude poppy cutout. These are deliberate acts of remembrance that keep a different kind of history alive—one that refuses to be simplified by headlines.
So how do we talk about war in a way that honours truth without turning grief into political ammunition? Perhaps it starts with listening. With learning the names and the faces behind the figures. With asking difficult questions about strategy and policy—but doing so in a way that preserves the dignity of those who served.
As readers around the world scroll past the latest outrage, consider the families who cannot scroll past. Consider the soldier who taught maths in a village school in Helmand, or the medic whose calm saved a life in Kandahar. Their stories are complex, and they deserve complexity in return.
Questions to Carry Forward
Are we willing to let a single sentence reshape public understanding of a two-decade sacrifice? How do democracies hold leaders to account for statements that have diplomatic consequences? And, most crucially, how do we centre the voices of those who actually lived these wars when debating their legacy?
Words matter. They can comfort and they can wound. In the wake of a comment that hurt so many, what follows should be a reckoning—not a hurried rebound into partisan sparring, but a deliberate, collective effort to remember accurately, to support the bereaved, and to learn from the past so that future service does not go unacknowledged or misunderstood.
When you next see headlines about alliances and leaders, will you pause and ask whose stories are being told—and whose are being left out?
Rescue efforts officially suspended after devastating New Zealand landslide
When Quiet Holidays Turned to Mud: A Night at Mount Maunganui That No One Will Forget
The sun had barely cracked the horizon over Mount Maunganui when the town woke to an image that would haunt it for weeks: caravans and campervans half-swallowed by a slick, brown wall of earth; the tidy lines of a holiday park turned into a chaos of twisted metal, bedding, bicycles, and toothbrushes poking out of the mud.
For two days, local volunteers and emergency crews worked through wet, cold hours, driven by the hope that someone — anyone — might still be pulled alive from the debris. That hope has now evaporated. Police say the operation has shifted from frantic search-and-rescue to the grim, meticulous task of recovering bodies after a landslide levelled part of a popular campsite in Mount Maunganui, on New Zealand’s North Island.
The Scene
The holiday park sits close to the water, a low-key cluster of sites and amenities that usually bustle in summer. It is a place of mini-golf and barbeques, of families dragging surfboards out to the beach and teenagers camped with friends. This week it was a staging ground for grief.
Rescue crews — police search teams, fire and emergency responders, volunteers and heavy machinery operators — navigated fields of mud that could swallow a boot in seconds. Authorities warned repeatedly about unstable ground and pockets of saturated earth, the kind that turns rescuers from saviours into casualties if they are not careful. “Safety comes first,” a senior operations officer told the press, “we cannot risk lives for a recovery that could put more people in harm’s way.”
Lives Lost, Families Waiting
At least six people were reported buried when a mountain of dirt and debris tumbled onto the campsite during heavy rain. Among them, officials said, was a 15-year-old — an image that made the town’s vigils feel even more fragile. For days, people gathered at community centres and on the beach, lighting candles, hugging, and singing quietly. “We kept hoping, against reason, that someone would knock on the caravan door,” one neighbour said, voice thick. “We still keep checking our phones for a miracle.”
Police have warned the public and media that the recovery could take several days. “When you’re working in metres of shifting mud, locating a body is not like locating an object,” a police spokesperson explained. “It’s painstaking. It’s heartbreaking. You have to do it right.” Officials also stressed the complexity of the scene — the mud had filled confined spaces such as shower blocks and undercarriages of vans, making mechanical extrication slow and delicate.
Leadership, Consolation, and Questions
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon offered condolences from Wellington and pledged support for the families and the community. He acknowledged the wrenching reality that rescue efforts had been halted and that the operation was now concentrating on recovery. “Every New Zealander is grieving with the families who have lost loved ones,” he said in a public statement.
Yet the tragedy has also prompted difficult questions. Neighbours and relatives told reporters they had heard warnings of a possible landslip earlier in the day, and some are asking why there was no wider evacuation. “We heard a rumble on the phone alert, then the rain got heavier,” said one camper who spent the night at a nearby site. “Why weren’t people moved? That’s what we want to know.” Authorities have said they are investigating the timeline of warnings and responses, while also stressing that sudden slope failures can happen with little to no visible forewarning in extreme weather.
Why Landslides Happen Here — and Why They’re Growing Riskier
New Zealand’s jagged landscapes and steep coastal slopes are beautiful — and, in times of heavy rain, treacherous. Geologists point to three converging factors that make areas like Mount Maunganui vulnerable: topography, soil saturation from intense rainfall, and human use of the land. The southern hemisphere’s oceans and atmospheric changes have pushed more extreme rainfall events into regions that historically saw them less frequently.
“When soil becomes saturated, it behaves like a liquid,” explained Dr. Hana Raukura, a landslide specialist at a regional university. “A slope that’s been stable for decades can come loose after sustained, intense downpours. Add a caravan park built in the run-out path, and the consequence can be catastrophic.”
Climate scientists are not pulling punches: as the atmosphere warms, it holds more moisture, and models show an increase in heavy precipitation events in many parts of New Zealand. This does not mean every wet day becomes deadly, but it does mean that communities must reckon with greater frequency — and with emergency systems that are tested more often.
Community Response: Vigils, Volunteers, and Quiet Resilience
The past 48 hours have produced a steady stream of small, human moments that stitch a community back together. Fishermen offered boats for searches and family members. Local cafes delivered free hot drinks to rescue teams. A nearby marae opened its doors as a support centre, serving warm meals and offering space for people to cry without being watched.
“We’ve sheltered each other through storms before,” said a Māori elder who helped coordinate relief efforts. “You come with a blanket, a meal, a hangi if you can. That’s what our people do. But this — this goes deep.”
A neighbor, who asked only to be identified as Marie, described going to the site at dawn with a thermos and a blanket. “There were vans we used to wave to every summer,” she murmured. “Now they’re half-buried. The kids who used to ride their bikes past are standing very still. It’s like the town took a breath and forgot how to let it out.”
What Comes Next?
In practical terms, the weeks ahead will bring recovery, counselling, and investigations. Police have warned the area will remain cordoned off while crews locate and retrieve remains and evidence. Families whose relatives are unaccounted for face waiting periods that can feel endless; counsellors and social workers are being deployed to help.
Longer term, local planners and national agencies will need to revisit how holiday parks and other vulnerable sites are sited, how warnings are issued, and how fast evacuations can be carried out in the face of rapidly changing weather. The horrific loss here will become part of that conversation.
And for the rest of us, watching from afar, there’s an invitation to reflect. How would we act if our weekend refuge became a disaster zone? How prepared are our own towns for the sudden fury of nature? Are we listening to scientists, and to neighbours, or do we hope that nothing will happen because it didn’t happen before?
Remembering the Human Face of Disaster
In the days after, people will tell stories about who those caravans belonged to — the family who always played guitar at dusk, the teens who made a campfire that smelled like marshmallows, the couple who brought an old radio and danced to it. Those small recollections are a kind of memorial: ordinary details that accumulate into a portrait of a place suddenly altered.
For now, Mount Maunganui holds its breath. The beaches will still see surfers. The mountain — Mauao — will bathe in sunlight and not know why people are speaking softly by its base. But the town has been changed, stitched with grief and generosity. It will echo with lessons about warning systems, land use, and climate change. And most urgently, it will hold the memory of those who did not return home.
What would you take with you if the ground under your feet gave way? How fast could you make a decision? In a warming world, these are no longer just questions for faraway places — they are the kinds of questions every community may be called to answer.
Wind and Solar Surpass Fossil Fuels in EU Electricity Supply
A Quiet Revolution: When Wind and Sun Overtook Coal and Gas
On a crisp morning near Zaragoza, Spain, the air smelled of baked earth and new wiring. Rows of solar panels lay like a blue river across a field, and a faint hum from distant turbines threaded the valley. It’s the sort of scene you might not notice unless you were looking for change—and yet, quietly, that change swept across Europe last year.
For the first time, wind and solar together generated more of the European Union’s electricity than fossil fuels. Renewables produced some 30% of EU power in 2025, edging ahead of coal, gas and the occasional oil-fired plant, which supplied roughly 29%. It’s a headline number, to be sure, but it’s also a story about technology, weather, politics and people learning—sometimes painfully—how to stitch a new power system together.
Numbers That Tell a Story
The jump didn’t arrive out of nowhere. Solar capacity leapt by about 19% in a single year, driving much of the record output. Gas-fired generation rose 8% as a stopgap when droughts shrank hydropower yields, and renewables plus nuclear ended the year supplying about 71% of the EU’s electricity mix.
There are bright local victories: solar supplied more than one-fifth of electricity in countries like Hungary, Spain and the Netherlands. Coal’s slice of the pie fell to a historic low of around 9.2%, with once-dominant consumers such as Germany and Poland recording all-time lows in coal-fired generation.
Those are the tallies you can put on a chart. But behind each percentage point there are homes warmed by different fuels, factories changing their rhythms, distribution lines overloaded at odd hours, and communities negotiating the future of their landscapes.
Voices from the Ground
“We put panels on our roof to cut costs and feel a bit more in control,” said Ana, who runs a small tapas bar in Seville. “Last summer, the electric bill dropped. But when the grid told us to switch off during midday because of overload, that saved us money but also felt strange—like paying to watch electricity go unused.”
From the wind-swept flats of the Netherlands, a turbine technician named Bram shared a similar mix of pride and frustration. “We can generate so much on good days, but sometimes the network can’t handle it. You see the blades spinning, you know the power is there, but it’s not getting to where it’s needed. That’s maddening.”
An analyst at a Brussels energy think-tank observed: “This milestone is an achievement of policy, entrepreneurship and falling technology costs. But it’s not the end of a journey. Grid bottlenecks and policy reversals can slow progress if they aren’t addressed quickly.”
Politics, Partnerships and Pushback
The EU’s energy transformation has long been threaded with politics. Governments have pushed back at times—concerns about industry competitiveness, regional employment, and energy sovereignty have translated into watered-down CO2 measures and heated negotiations in Brussels.
Pressure from member states such as Germany and the Czech Republic prompted a softening of certain emissions-reduction rules last year, highlighting the delicate balance between ambition and political reality. Meanwhile, a new supply-side dynamic entered the conversation—a large agreement to increase energy purchases from the United States has prompted debate about whether Europe can truly accelerate its weaning from oil and gas imports.
“Strategic alliances are part of any modern energy policy,” said a policy adviser in Brussels. “But we must keep sight of long-term decarbonization goals. Importing more fossil-based energy in the short term can complicate that path.”
Weather, Drought and the Limits of Hydropower
Climate-driven weather patterns added another twist. Drought last year cut into hydropower output across southern Europe, forcing an uptick in gas-fired generation to cover the shortfall. It’s a reminder that renewables are not a monolith: wind, solar and hydro all respond differently to the whims of the atmosphere.
“Hydropower is brilliant when the rains come,” said a hydrologist in Portugal. “But we can’t schedule our energy future on the assumption that historical rainfall will persist. Diversifying our renewables is essential—but so is building resilience into the grid.”
Grid Strain: The New Bottleneck
Here’s the irony: renewable energy has never been cheaper to produce in many parts of Europe, but underinvestment in the power grid has forced operators to curtail wind and solar at times of high output. That wasted potential—cheap electricity unplugged to protect the network—translates into higher costs for consumers and industry.
Ember, the energy think-tank behind the data, warned that price spikes last year lined up with peaks in gas use, and urged governments to invest in transmission infrastructure and battery storage to stabilize prices and make the system more flexible.
What does that look like in practice? Imagine new high-voltage lines crossing regions, community batteries absorbing midday solar and releasing it at dinner time, and better cross-border trading so surplus in one country can help a neighbor in need.
So What Comes Next?
If the last year was a tipping point, the next few will test Europe’s political will and engineering imagination. The EU has ambitious climate targets—anchored around a long-term aim of climate neutrality by mid-century and nearer-term greenhouse gas reductions—and those goals will require not only more renewables but smarter networks, storage, and policy stability.
There’s also a social dimension. New green industries can bring jobs, but transitions are messy. Coal communities in Poland and Germany face difficult choices, while rural areas host expansive solar or wind projects, sometimes amid local opposition. The human side of the energy transition—training, fair compensation, and inclusive planning—will shape acceptance and success.
“We need to bring workers and communities into the conversation, not just talk about megawatts,” said a union representative in Silesia. “Otherwise, resentment grows and politics hardens.”
Lessons for the World
Europe’s milestone is not just a regional story. It’s a template and a cautionary tale for nations everywhere: rapid deployment of wind and solar can upend fossil dominance faster than many expected, but without investments in grids, storage, and social policies, the benefits can be uneven.
- Renewables (wind & solar): ~30% of EU electricity in 2025
- Fossil fuels (coal, gas, oil): ~29%
- Solar capacity growth: ~19% year-on-year
- Gas-fired generation rise: ~8% to cover hydropower shortfalls
- Renewables + nuclear share: ~71% of EU electricity
- Coal share: ~9.2% (record low)
These figures show momentum, but they also show fragility—an electrical system caught between old infrastructure and new ambitions.
Questions to Carry Home
As you read these numbers and imagine the sun-drenched panels and creaking turbines, consider this: what kind of energy future do you want for your town? Does your country prioritize clean power at any cost, or balance short-term imports and jobs with long-term decarbonization? And how do we ensure that the benefits of clean electricity—cheaper bills, cleaner air, new skills—reach everyone?
The EU’s recent achievement is both a cause for celebration and a call to action. It proves that a low-carbon grid is possible. Now the harder work begins: building the invisible muscles—the high-voltage lines, batteries, policy frameworks and social contracts—that will let Europe, and the world, run on wind and sun without tripping over the seams.
U.S. school officials say ICE took a Minnesota boy into custody
A Little Boy, a Spider‑Man Backpack, and a Neighborhood Held Breath
On a cold Minneapolis morning, a five‑year‑old named Liam stood on a driveway with his blue hat pulled low and a Spider‑Man backpack bumping his small shoulders, watching masked officers move through the yard where he’d just been dropped off from preschool.
“He looked like any kid getting home from class — backpack, snack in his hand, clueless about the way the adults around him were about to change everything,” a neighbor later said. “One moment there’s ordinary, the next moment there’s a black SUV and officers who might as well have appeared out of a movie.”
That scene, recounted by school officials and neighbors, became the sharpest image in a tense week for Columbia Heights, a Minneapolis suburb where the rhythm of school drop‑offs and coffee shop conversations was interrupted by federal immigration enforcement activity.
What Happened — Two Stories, One Child
According to the school district and the family’s lawyer, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents detained at least four students this week, including two 17‑year‑olds, a 10‑year‑old and Liam. The boy and his father, who the family’s attorney says were in the United States as asylum applicants, were placed in family detention in Dilley, Texas — a facility familiar to immigration advocates for housing mothers and children.
But as the story spread, the narrative split. Vice President JD Vance — visiting Minneapolis amid rising tensions — pushed back on the initial headlines. Speaking at a press conference, he said the officers had been pursuing Liam’s father, who fled, and that the child was taken only after the father ran away.
“I was stunned when I first heard it,” Vance said. “I’m a father myself. But when you look at the facts, agents chased a man who ran. They aren’t supposed to leave a small child in the street.”
Department of Homeland Security officials offered their own version, stating that Liam’s father, identified as Adrian Alexander Conejo Arias, was in the country illegally. The family’s lawyer, Marc Prokosch, disputes that and says the family was awaiting an immigration hearing.
Conflicting accounts don’t make the child less real
Wherever the truth settles in the paperwork and the court dockets, the human scene was undeniable: adults — school officials, neighbors, even a city council member — offered to take custody of the child and were reportedly denied by agents.
“Our job is to keep kids safe,” said Zena Stenvik, superintendent of the Columbia Heights Public School District. “We are authorized to care for a student in the absence of a parent. But to have armed officers circling school buses, moving through parking lots, taking children — that’s a trauma you can’t easily mend.”
Community Reaction: Fear, Anger, and a New Normal
“The sense of safety in our community is shaken,” Mary Granlund, chair of the school board, told reporters. “Our hearts are shattered. Children should be in school with their classmates, not being put into the back of an SUV and driven away.”
Rachel James, a Columbia Heights city council member who witnessed Liam’s frozen expression as officers led him to the car, said, “He wasn’t crying; he was paralyzed. That look will stay with me.”
For families who have walked these streets for years, or months, the appearance of heavily armed federal teams has been a psychological blow as much as a practical one. Across Minneapolis, the announcement that roughly 3,000 federal enforcement personnel were being deployed — a number cited by officials in the area — has turned neighborhoods that once felt routine into places of vigil and whisper.
“People are drawing curtains earlier,” one local parent said. “Parents are checking with each other: ‘Did you see any vans? Are your kids safe?’ That’s not how communities should feel.”
Legal and Political Ripples
What unfolded in front yards ties into a larger, national debate about immigration enforcement tactics and the use of family detention. Dilley’s family residential center in Texas has been used intermittently for years to hold families while their cases proceed, and advocates say it churns through people who are seeking refuge.
Minnesota officials have moved to challenge the scope of the sweeps in court. The state has sought a temporary restraining order that, if granted, would pause the operation; a hearing was set for Monday. Meanwhile, community groups organized watch patrols, filling neighborhoods with whistles and phone calls meant to warn residents of approaching enforcement operations.
“This is about policy and practice,” said an immigration attorney who has worked on family‑detention cases. “When enforcement becomes theatrical — armored cars, masked officers in neighborhoods — it amplifies fear. That can chill people with legitimate claims, and it can tear at the social fabric of places where immigrant communities have made lives.”
Why this matters beyond one driveway
Ask yourself: what is the purpose of enforcing immigration law if the methods leave families in panic? How do we balance public safety and humane treatment? These aren’t theoretical questions. They echo across the United States wherever enforcement actions touch everyday life — at bus stops, at work, at school.
Children bear costs that are measurable and not. Studies have shown that traumatic encounters with armed authorities can produce symptoms of anxiety and post‑traumatic stress in children. Even without a formal diagnosis, a child who watched his father taken at gunpoint is carrying that memory to school, to the playground, to every corner where safety once felt natural.
Voices From the Ground
- “I’ve lived here 20 years,” said one neighbor, who asked not to be named. “It’s the first time I’ve seen neighbors stand at windows with phones in hand, waiting like that. That’s how you know something has changed.”
- “We will do everything to get them back,” attorney Marc Prokosch said. “This family deserves due process and protection, not a spectacle.”
- “We can and should secure borders,” another resident offered. “But children are not bargaining chips. There’s a way to do enforcement that doesn’t terrorize neighborhoods.”
A Larger Picture: Enforcement, Politics, and Humanity
What happened in Columbia Heights is part of a trend: the federal government has increasingly leaned on tactical, visible operations to deter migration and to arrest those it deems removable. For policymakers, these tactics signal resolve. For communities, they often signal danger.
So as Minnesotans prepare to watch a court hearing and as a family waits in a detention facility hundreds of miles away, the real question persists: how will a nation reconcile its laws with the humane treatment of families and children? And what kind of precedent will this set for neighborhoods across the globe where migrants raise children who learn in two languages and have two kinds of national attachments?
If you were in that neighborhood that morning, what would you have done? Would you intervene, call a lawyer, raise an alarm? These are hard questions with no simple answers — but they are worth asking because they cut to the core of who we are as communities.
For now, Columbia Heights will try to stitch itself back together. Parents will take extra comfort in school drop‑off circles. Officials will trade statements and lawyers will file motions. And a little boy with a Spider‑Man backpack will carry another kind of memory to class, one that adults may try to explain but never fully repair.
Powerful winter storm could trigger devastating conditions across the U.S.
The Cold That Came Knocking: A Nation on Edge
When the sky cracked open and the first ice glaze appeared on a Rochester lamppost, people in this part of the country reached for extra sweaters and, for many, a hint of old dread. Forecasters had warned for days: a sprawling winter system born off the California coast was on a slow, deliberate march east, threatening a hazardous cocktail of freezing rain, heavy snow and bone-deep cold that could touch 160 million Americans. By the time the mid-Atlantic and Northeast felt its teeth, life felt less like it was paused and more like it had been rearranged.
There’s something almost cinematic about a storm that announces itself across three time zones. Plows began humming in small towns, grocery store lines lengthened, and emergency rooms started making contingency plans. Airports stuttered: FlightAware tallied more than 1,500 cancellations ahead of the weekend. Commuters canceled meetings. Parents checked on elderly neighbors. On social media, photos of cars rimed in ice and interstate rest stops swamped with weary truckers circulated like a modern-day cautionary tale.
On the Ground: Voices From the Storm
“The roads looked like glass by dawn,” said Maria Delgado, who runs a bakery in upstate New York. “We had a delivery truck skid right in front of the shop. I told my staff, ‘We’ll be ready for customers, but only if it’s safe to get here.’”
In a Houston suburb, the mood was different but no less urgent. “Five years ago we froze,” said Jamal Carter, a high school teacher who remembers the 2021 grid collapse that left millions in the dark. “There’s a bone-deep worry this time. But there’s also a lot more trucks, more crews. People have learned, even if learning came the hard way.”
Utility workers and state emergency managers—who spoke on the record under their titles—described a shuffle of resources: tree crews staged for limb removal, mutual aid agreements mobilized, spare transformers trucked into staging yards. “We have teams ready to move at a moment’s notice,” said one regional utility operations manager. “The priority is keeping critical facilities—hospitals, shelters—powered first.”
Texas: Memories of a Broken Grid
The southern state that once became a cautionary tale for winter preparedness has been speaking loudly about its fixes. “There is no expectation of widespread power loss,” a state official told reporters, pointing to investments, legislative changes and new winterization mandates for generators and pipelines. Yet even as officials expressed confidence, the memory of widespread outages in 2021 lingered like frost on a window: an image many Texans still carry with them.
“We’ve insulated pipes, we’ve got backup heaters,” said Sonia Alvarez, who lives outside Austin. “But my neighbor still packs up his car with blankets and a small cooler—just in case. You don’t shake that kind of fear overnight.”
New York and the Northeast: Bracing for Bitter Cold
In New York State, authorities were blunt. Officials urged residents to limit time outdoors—“five or six minutes could be dangerous,” one emergency coordinator warned—because hypothermia and frostbite can creep in faster than most expect. Shelters were placed on alert, plow routes prioritized, and thousands of utility workers stood ready.
“Hypothermia isn’t just for the extremes,” said a county public health nurse. “We’ve seen folks who thought shoveling a driveway was harmless, and the next thing you know they’re in trouble. That’s why we’re asking neighbors to check on each other.”
Why This Storm Feels Different
At the heart of the system was a stretched polar vortex—an armored ring of frigid, low-pressure air that usually sits tightly above the Arctic. When it elongates, it lets a sluice of polar air pour south. The result: intense cold, sustained winds and the kind of icy rain that clings to branches and power lines, weighing them down until they snap.
“What matters here is the duration and the mix,” explained Dr. Leila Hassan, a climate scientist who studies atmospheric dynamics. “Freezing rain can cause catastrophic ice accumulation quickly because liquid water releases heat as it freezes on contact; when that happens over a broad region, you’re looking at prolonged outages and widespread damage to trees and infrastructure.”
Scientists caution there’s no simple headline for climate’s role. “We’re seeing more frequent disruptions of polar circulation,” Dr. Hassan added. “There’s evidence suggesting climate change may increase the odds of these events by altering jet stream patterns, but natural oscillations still play a big role. It’s complicated—fraught even—but worth taking seriously.”
What Communities Are Doing
Across towns and cities, the response blended official logistics with neighborly pragmatism. Warming centers opened in church basements. Volunteer groups handed out heat packs and batteries at transit hubs. Municipalities deployed sanders and salt trucks along the busiest corridors, and hospitals reviewed generator supplies.
- Local governments urged everyone to prepare basic kits: water, nonperishable food, a battery-powered radio, blankets, and charged power banks.
- Transport officials advised avoiding travel unless essential; schools pre-emptively shut down in many districts.
- Volunteers worked in shelters, making sure pets were welcome and medication needs were accounted for.
“This is when community ties matter most,” said Reverend Thomas Ng of a Buffalo-area church hosting a warming center. “We’ve got folding cots, coffee and a volunteer to watch the stove. Sometimes the small comforts keep people going.”
Numbers, Risks, and the Bigger Picture
Here are the facts that underscore why this storm is a national story: roughly 160 million people were expected to feel some impact; more than 1,500 flights were canceled before the storm landed; at least 14 states declared states of emergency; parts of the Upper Midwest reported wind chills as low as -55°F (-48°C). The National Weather Service warned of “catastrophic ice accumulation” and the possibility of long-duration outages and dangerous travel conditions.
These events also force us to ask larger questions: How resilient are our grids, roads, and social safety nets against extremes? What does it mean when once-sudden anomalies become recurring challenges? And how do we balance immediate emergency responses with long-term investments in infrastructure and climate adaptation?
Practical Steps and Final Thoughts
If you’re reading this and the storm is heading your way, here’s a quick checklist that could make a difference:
- Keep phones charged and car fuel tanks topped up.
- Have a basic emergency kit: water, food, blankets, medication, flashlight, batteries.
- Check on neighbors, especially older adults and people with limited mobility.
- Avoid unnecessary travel; ice is deceptive and deadly.
Storms that stretch across a continent are equal parts spectacle and test. They show us the drama of nature and the seams in our systems—both human and mechanical. They can bring out the best in communities: strangers handing out scarves, utility crews working through the night, shelters offering warmth and coffee. They also remind us of the hard work ahead: building infrastructure that endures, communities that are prepared, and policies that reckon with a planet that’s not as predictable as it once seemed.
So as you zip a coat against the wind and watch the first flurries begin to settle, ask yourself: how would you fare if the lights went out tonight? Who in your neighborhood would you check on? Sometimes, the most meaningful preparations are not what we buy at stores but the connections we keep—and the small, diligent acts of care that keep us all a little warmer.
Russia demands control of Ukraine’s Donbas as UAE talks begin
A hush in the desert: diplomats, doubts and the stubborn question of land
In the glass-and-marble calm of Abu Dhabi, beneath a sky that seemed indifferent to history’s urgencies, an unusual quartet of delegations converged. For the first time in nearly four years of war, Ukrainian and Russian representatives sat at the same table — not shadowed by intermediaries but facing a U.S.-brokered framework that promises, and threatens, so much.
It was the kind of diplomatic moment that television loves: suited figures arriving in motorcades, terse press statements, a clutch of aides with folders that might contain maps, timelines or ultimatums. Yet behind the choreography lay the blunt, immovable issue that has obstructed every ceasefire, derailed every draft and hardened hearts across two nations: territory.
Why Donbas still divides everything
Ask anyone paying attention and they will tell you the same thing in different words — conversations about security guarantees, weapons withdrawal, or economic aid all come to rest at the edge of a map. Who holds which towns and who decides the fate of people living under occupation are the questions that refuse to be sidestepped.
“Territory is not a bargaining chip for us,” Volodymyr Zelensky told reporters before boarding the flight to Abu Dhabi, stressing that any settlement would need to ensure Ukraine’s ability to deter future aggression. “War doesn’t end if borders are ambiguous.”
From the Russian side the message was equally blunt, if not more maximalist. Kremlin sources — speaking to journalists in Moscow — reiterated that Kyiv’s forces would need to withdraw from parts of eastern Ukraine known collectively as the Donbas. “This is a very important condition,” a Kremlin aide said in press remarks that emphasized their red line.
What’s at stake on the ground
The Donbas is not an abstraction. It is a region of ruined factories, small towns with scarred façades, and people who have lived for months and years under the whiplash of shifting lines of control. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, areas of eastern Ukraine have been occupied, contested and militarized — a patchwork that complicates any neat political solution.
Put simply: to concede territory is to concede the lives and futures of those who live there, and neither side can make that concession without risking political implosion at home. Kyiv fears that ceding ground would reward force and invite further assaults. Moscow has framed territorial control as the proof of victory.
Faces behind the headlines: voices from cities and villages
In a Kyiv neighborhood still smelling faintly of last winter’s smoke, Olena, a retired schoolteacher, pushed a wool scarf into place and said, “If we sign away my village, do we sign away my brother? My neighbors? What promise will keep them safe?”
Over in the Donbas, in a town whose name feels like a wound when uttered in Ukrainian households, a market vendor named Serhiy spoke quietly about exile and choice. “People want their roofs, their graves, their shops,” he said. “We have lived through sieges. We want no more marching orders from outsiders.”
These are the ordinary moral calculations that rarely make it into diplomatic briefs: a grandmother’s decision to return or not, a father’s worry about enlistment in a future conscript army, a teenager’s education interrupted for years. Negotiations that do not reckon with this human arithmetic will, history suggests, be brittle.
The American angle: a broker with clout and controversy
The United States, under the initiative pushed by political actors in Washington, has sought to nudge both capitals toward settlement. A small, highly visible delegation — including figures close to the U.S. president — flew into Moscow for late-night discussions and then headed to Abu Dhabi for the trilateral meeting.
“We are not here to impose a solution but to create one that holds,” a U.S. envoy told reporters. “That requires hard trade-offs and real guarantees, not slogans.” Whether the parties will accept those trade-offs is another matter.
Is this the right place for peace?
Abu Dhabi is an intentionally neutral-looking venue: luxurious hotels, tight security, a sense that time can be bought. But the desert setting cannot iron out the deep asymmetries between a nation fighting for survival and an aggressor that still wields greater firepower and strategic depth.
So what does “neutral” mean when one side controls land and lines and a significant portion of the combat power? This is a question analysts keep returning to.
Numbers that matter — and what they tell us
To understand the stakes, look at the labels beneath the headlines. As of mid-2024, millions of Ukrainians had been uprooted: millions across borders in Europe and millions displaced within their own country, according to UN and Ukrainian government estimates. Casualties — military and civilian — have reached into the tens of thousands. And the material toll? Critical infrastructure damaged across the east and south, with energy systems repeatedly targeted, plunging entire neighborhoods into cold during bitter winters.
In recent days, Russian strikes left many in Kyiv without heat or power. The city’s mayor reported that almost 2,000 apartment blocks were still struggling to bring warmth back to millions of residents in sub-zero conditions — figures that turned abstract strategy into frozen, shivering human need.
Is a deal possible — and at what price?
There are reasons for both skepticism and guarded hope. On one hand, diplomatic activity has accelerated, and negotiators are now, crucially, sitting in the same room. On the other, the gulf over territory is not simply negotiable ink on a paper: it is a crucible of national identity, memory and security. “Any agreement that papered over this without durable verification and enforcement would be dangerous,” said Dr. Marta Kovalenko, an international relations scholar. “Both sides need credible safeguards, and third-party verification is essential.”
What would those safeguards look like? International peacekeepers, phased withdrawals, referendums under neutral supervision — each carries its own logistical and political traps. Who would provide the guarantees? Who would police them? These follow-up questions are already making negotiators’ hairline fractures visible.
Looking beyond the map: why you should care
Wars redraw more than borders; they redraw global politics, economy and conscience. Energy markets wobble with every infrastructure strike. Refugee flows reshape cities across Europe. The rules of international order — norms about territorial sovereignty and the costs of aggression — are on trial.
And for the people living through this, the questions are painfully local. Will children return to school without bomb drills? Will pension payments arrive? Will families be able to keep the graves of loved ones accessible? These are the small metrics by which any “victory” will be judged.
What to watch next
- Whether the Abu Dhabi talks issue a concrete framework for verification and timelines.
- How both sides handle the question of referendums, resettlement and return of displaced people.
- Whether external guarantors can be summoned — and trusted — to enforce any agreement.
Final thoughts: hope, caution, and the texture of compromise
There is no clean exit from a war like this. Compromise will be messy; compromise will hurt. Yet sitting across from your adversary and speaking openly is a step that cannot be undone. “If peace is to come,” said one veteran diplomat who has spent decades in negotiation rooms, “it will be because someone learned how to translate pain into protection.”
So what do you think? Is it possible to design a deal that respects borders and protects people — or are we asking diplomacy to do the impossible? The answer will unfold in negotiations, in the cold nights of Kyiv, in the marketplaces of the Donbas, and in the minds of leaders who must choose between glory and the quiet, difficult work of ending a war.
New Zealand landslides claim at least two lives; others unaccounted for
Night of Mud and Metal: A Town Wakes to Loss
When the rain finally stopped in the early hours, Mount Maunganui looked like a place that had been quietly erased and rewritten by a force half-earth, half-water. In one sweep of brown, a slope let go—tons of volcanic soil and rock hurtling down into a family home and a nearby campsite, crushing a shower block, tossing caravans like matchboxes, and filling a heated pool with mud and wreckage.
By morning the harbourside city of Tauranga — a sunny stretch on New Zealand’s North Island that usually smells of sunscreen, salt, and summer barbecues — was wrapped in emergency tape and the low-thrum of diggers. Rescuers had already pulled two bodies from the ruined house; officials said others were unaccounted for, and a young girl was among those missing. “Police are working to support their loved ones at this incredibly difficult time,” a spokesperson said, the words thin against the roar of machinery and the quiet, knotting grief of families across the road.
Voices Beneath the Mud
People who were there describe a surreal, terrifying sequence: the mountain gave, the ground shuddered, and then a wave of dirt slammed into the campsite. “The whole room started shaking,” recalled Dion Siluch, a Canadian tourist who had been getting a massage at the Mount Hot Pools. He walked out and found a caravan floating in the pool. “It took me a while to realise that the mountain had collapsed and had pushed everything into the pool,” he said. His voice carried both the confusion of someone who had just seen the world tilt and the brittle steadiness of someone who expected answers.
Other witnesses spoke of frantic digging, of hands clawing at wet earth, and of voices—human cries—that cut through the chaos. “I could just hear people screaming,” said hiker Mark Tangney, who ran from the track to help. “We were on the roof of the toilet block with tools trying to take the roof off because we could hear people shouting: ‘Help us, get us out!’” For a while, those calls for help were vivid, immediate, unbearably close. Then the land kept moving and rescuers had to pull back for everyone’s safety. The voices went silent.
On the Front Line
Emergency services worked like a well-rehearsed human machine—police, firefighters, and volunteers coordinating around the risk that more ground could come away. Assistant Police Commissioner Tim Anderson described the operation as a rescue mission while the slope remained unstable, and would not be drawn on exact numbers, saying only that the missing were “single figures.” Nearby, a dozen family members watched from across the street, wrapped in blankets, eyes fixed on a scene that felt part disaster movie, part private tragedy.
Tourist Season, Traditions, and Tipped Caravans
Mount Maunganui is both a neighbourhood and an idea: a compact beach town where the summit walk up the extinct volcanic cone is a morning ritual and the sands fill with enthusiastic sun-seekers. In summer the mountain hums with walkers and families drawn to the white beaches and the local cafés that do a brisk business before noon. The campsite that was struck is a seasonal hub; camper vans, couples, and spontaneous road-trippers gather there with a view of the sea and the mountain.
“You expect to get sunburn or a flat tyre, you don’t expect the ground itself to betray you,” said Aroha Rangi, a local café owner who watched the rescue efforts from the corner of her shop. “This place is built around the outdoors—people walk the mountain every day. Now we’re all looking up at it differently.”
What Science and History Tell Us
Landslides aren’t new to New Zealand; the country’s steep, volcanic landscapes and temperate, wet climate have always set the stage. Mount Maunganui itself is the remnant of an ancient volcano—beautiful, benign, and in a single night dangerously mobile. Scientists say events like this fall at the intersection of geology and extreme weather. GNS Science, New Zealand’s geoscience authority, has long warned that saturated slopes following intense rain are the classic trigger for slope failure.
Globally, researchers link the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme rainfall events to climate change. The IPCC’s past assessments note that some regions are seeing heavier downpours that can overwhelm soil stability. For coastal communities and popular outdoor spots, that translates into a new sort of vulnerability: landscapes we assume are permanent are, in fact, dynamic and changing faster than many of us imagine.
Local Data and Wider Context
- Tauranga, home to roughly 155,000 people, is one of New Zealand’s fastest-growing cities.
- Mount Maunganui is a magnet for domestic and international tourists, particularly in the southern summer months.
- New Zealand’s emergency services regularly contend with landslides, flood events, and storm damage—risks compounded when heavy rain follows extended wet periods.
Faces in the Crowd
At the site, grief and grit sat side by side. A dozen family members gathered on the opposite kerb, sharing cigarettes, making tea, and clinging to each other’s arms. “We’re just waiting to hear if our daughter is alive,” one woman said, voice small but firm. Nearby, a retired builder handed out gloves and bottled water to volunteers who had spent hours trying to free anyone trapped under the mud.
“It felt like trying to hold a tide back with a bucket,” said William Pike, a Fire and Emergency commander, of the initial rescue attempts. “We heard voices, we responded. Then it became too dangerous to push on because the slope was still moving. It’s a terrifying decision—to step back when people might still be trapped.”
Questions to Sit With
How do communities balance the lure of outdoor life with the unpredictability of the land beneath their feet? What does safety look like in places where nature shifts rapidly? These are not only local questions. From the Philippines to British Columbia, people are grappling with how to live with landscapes that can change in an instant.
For the families waiting in Tauranga, the technical and philosophical debates are secondary to the urgent, human ones: are our people safe, are they coming home, what support will be there in the aftermath? The answers will come slowly—identification, counseling, rebuilding—and some will never be complete.
Where We Go From Here
Rescue crews continue to work, but with caution. Heavy machinery scrapes and lifts, crews map the unstable ground, and specialists assess how to proceed without triggering further collapse. The city has closed off the area and begun the grim work of recovery and accounting.
In the weeks ahead, expect investigations into why the slope failed, whether warnings existed, and what mitigation measures—drainage, slope reinforcement, updated risk maps—might prevent another tragedy. Expect also the quieter work of community recovery: counselling centres, fundraisers for affected families, and conversations about whether some camps or structures should be relocated.
For now, Tauranga breathes in a held way, waiting for news, counting the missing by single figures and holding rituals of grief. The mountain is still there, a silhouette against a shaken sky, as beautiful and as unsettling as ever. What would you do if the ground beneath your feet began to change? How do we reconcile a love of the outdoors with the reality that the earth is not always steady? These are the questions communities everywhere must answer—not as abstractions, but in the rubble, with the people who live and love there.
Irish peacekeepers brace for escalating intensity amid rising tensions
Under the Same Sky: Irish Peacekeepers, Bunkers and the Human Pulse Along the Lebanon-Israel Border
There is a particular hush that falls over a military...
Lingering doubts surround US justification for Iran mission
Morning in a City of Screens: How a Day of Strikes Became a Day of Questions
Yesterday began like a thousand other mornings in Washington...
Sirens Signal Threat of Strike, Irish Expat Reports from Kuwait
Night Sirens Over the Gulf: Expatriates, Schools and the Sound of Uncertainty
When Jake McAllister and his family stepped off the plane in Kuwait after...
Video shows compiled evidence of alleged war crimes in Ukraine
In the shadow of Kharkiv: cataloguing a war, one ruined missile at a time
There is a place on the outskirts of Kharkiv that looks...
Trump warns of prolonged Iran war after attacks strike Riyadh, Beirut
On the Brink: A Region Rewired by Fire and Sound
Night fell heavy over Tehran like a held breath, then shattered. Windows rattled, streetlights flickered,...