Ukraine says it held substantive security talks with United States officials

January 18, 2026

Ukraine says held 'substantive' talks with US — Residents of Sumy, Ukraine, survey the destruction caused by a Russian airstrike in a residential area

When the lights go out: a winter of strikes, talks and the hum of generators

There is a brittle quiet to winter nights in southeastern Ukraine, the kind that sharpens every sound—the scrape of boots on ice, the tinny clink of kettle on a gas stove, the shuffle of people moving from room to room chasing warmth.

On one of those nights this week, more than 200,000 households in Russian-held parts of Zaporizhzhia found themselves plunged into cold and darkness after what Moscow-installed officials said was a Ukrainian drone strike. Telegram posts from Yevgeny Balitsky, the local governor appointed by occupying forces, reported that nearly 400 settlements were affected and teams were racing to restore power as temperatures sat stubbornly below freezing.

“We have been living like this for months—heating that sputters, alternators that whine until they give out,” said Marina, a teacher in a suburb of Enerhodar who asked that only her first name be used. “You learn quickly what matters: warm clothing, extra blankets, a neighbour who can loan you a hot plate.”

The Zaporizhzhia region—once wide open steppe where sunflowers bowed under summer sun and heavy industry hummed along the Dnieper—now wakes to a new rhythm: rolling strikes, rolling blackouts, rolling questions about how to survive the winter. Around 75% of the region is under Russian control, a fact that complicates both relief efforts and the simple human dignity of keeping a kettle boiling.

A night of drones across Ukraine: damage, casualties, and a fractured power grid

President Volodymyr Zelensky said the country endured a mass drone assault overnight, one of the most intense in recent months. “More than 200 drones” hammered at infrastructure across Sumy, Kharkiv, Dnipro, Zaporizhzhia, Khmelnytskyi and Odesa, the president’s office reported. The military registered some 30 strikes across 15 locations.

The toll was immediate: two people killed and dozens wounded, Zelensky said. Kharkiv—Ukraine’s second city, where municipal leaders have repeatedly warned about damage to energy facilities—confirmed one death. Mayor Ihor Terekhov described another night when the city’s lights and warmth were bargaining chips in a war of attrition.

“We are living under the constant calculus of survival,” said Olena, a volunteer with a Kharkiv relief network. “People line up for charging stations, for water. The kids study by candlelight and still ask if they can play outside. That question—simple as it is—feels like the bravest thing.”

Zelensky moved quickly to order emergency imports of electricity and to accelerate delivery of power equipment. When a nation’s lights go out, it reveals the fragile scaffolding beneath everyday life: hospitals wait on generators; refrigerated medicines risk spoilage; water and sanitation systems teeter.

Across the border: Belgorod, Beslan and the spillover of a neighbouring conflict

The violence skidded beyond Ukraine’s borders. The governor of Russia’s Belgorod region said a drone strike on the border village of Nechaevka killed one person and wounded another. In the Caucasus town of Beslan, North Ossetia’s governor reported that two children and an adult were injured after a drone hit a residential building—an echo of a town that still carries the scars of earlier waves of violence.

Across these lines, ordinary lives fragment into statistics: numbers of wounded, names at morgues, families with empty chairs at dinner. These are not abstractions. They are grocery lists, schoolbooks, and birthdays postponed by artillery.

Talks amid the blasts: diplomacy that keeps faith with a battered future

And yet, as drones flew and cities shuffled for warmth, diplomacy kept its awkward, stubborn pace. Ukraine’s security chief Rustem Umerov said his team had held “substantive discussions” in recent days with Jared Kushner—son-in-law of former US President Donald Trump—and American envoy Steve Witkoff. The conversations, Umerov added on social media, focused on economic development, a prosperity plan and security guarantees for Ukraine; they were expected to continue at the Davos Economic Forum the following week.

It is an image with contradictions: the hum of wartime drones on one hand, the quiet rooms of negotiation on the other. Kushner’s involvement signals interest from influential corners in the United States, while Witkoff’s presence underlines how business, investment and strategic guarantees are intertwined in any post-war recovery.

“There is a recognition that rebuilding Ukraine will require not just tanks and missiles, but a serious plan for investment, reconstruction, and security that makes those investments safe,” said Dr. Sara Levin, an expert in post-conflict reconstruction at a European university. “But you cannot thin-slice a peace package without addressing power—literally and figuratively.”

What is on the table

Security guarantees: proposals that would bind allies to defend Ukrainian sovereignty in varying degrees.
Economic recovery: investment frameworks, debt relief and reconstruction funds designed to attract global capital.
Energy resilience: accelerated imports and equipment to keep hospitals, heating and water systems running in winter.

Behind every bullet point lie contentious details. The US has reportedly urged Kyiv to agree to a peace framework that could be presented to Moscow; Russia, for its part, has been cool toward the diplomatic push and has demanded major concessions from Kyiv. Negotiations in Miami and forthcoming talks in Davos are part of what many see as an awkward, urgent dance: how to end hostilities without capitulation, how to give Ukraine the guarantee of survival while preserving its sovereignty.

Stories of resilience: neighbors, volunteers and the long winter ahead

In a small courtyard in Zaporizhzhia, a retired engineer named Anatoliy runs a makeshift charging station from his garage. His sign reads: “Hot tea, phone charger, warm word.” Passersby drop coins, bread, and in the morning, small bowls of borscht that a neighbour has made in bulk.

“We learned to help each other because the state cannot be everywhere at once,” he says, handing over a steaming cup. “When you put your hands together, you warm more than the kettle.”

Humanitarian workers say these communal habits—of sharing blankets, rotating generator duty, and keeping lists of the vulnerable—have saved lives. But they also warn: winter will stretch for months yet, and the infrastructure damage is cumulative.

What does recovery look like after such a long, corrosive campaign? How do you rebuild a grid that keeps being attacked? How do you convince investors to pour money into factories and schools when the overhead risk is rockets and drone wings?

These questions are not simply logistical. They are ethical and political. They ask the world whether it will treat reconstruction as a one-time charitable act or as an investment in a stable, European future. They ask Ukrainians whether the sacrifices of four years of war can be repaid with a durable peace and a society rebuilt around resilience, not vulnerability.

Where to from here?

The headlines this week—blackouts, drone salvos, cross-border strikes and huddled negotiations—are symptoms of a conflict that has settled into the steady business of attrition. The human stories, small and incandescent, are the counterweight: volunteers cooking soup, engineers rigging heaters, parents telling bedtime stories with extra layers of meaning.

As Davos convenes and as negotiations continue in tucked-away rooms, remember this: energy is not just a line item on a post-war budget. It is the hum of a hospital, the light on a child’s homework, the steam rising from a pot shared among neighbours. The decisions made this winter will determine whether entire communities warm their hands by solidarity alone—or whether we, collectively, build back the systems that make daily life possible.

Which path do we choose? Will the world rally to repair the lights—or leave families counting candles until spring?

US points to Europe’s ‘weakness’ to justify interest in Greenland

hanad

January 18, 2026

US says needs Greenland because of Europe's 'weakness' — Danish soldiers disembark at the port in Nuuk, Greenland

When the Arctic Became a Bargaining Chip: Greenland, Tariffs, and a Strange Week in Diplomacy

The wind off the Davis Strait scours paint from the wooden houses of Nuuk, and the harbor is a scatter of bobbing trawlers and stubborn gulls. Here, in the capital of Greenland, life still moves to the rhythms of the sea and the seasons: cod in the nets, seals hauled on ice, elders speaking Kalaallisut over strong coffee.

Then came the headlines—of a different tide. A conversation that began in an American TV studio and rubbed raw a thousand years of colonial history suddenly found itself on the streets of downtown Nuuk, in the parliament halls of Copenhagen, and around conference tables in Brussels. It was, to put it mildly, a strange week for an island everyone assumed was firmly settled in the quiet archives of European geopolitics.

Why One Man’s Words Became a Diplomatic Earthquake

On a Sunday morning program watched by millions, the United States’ Treasury Secretary argued that Greenland should be in American hands. “We are the strongest country in the world,” he said, framing the question of ownership as one of strength versus weakness—America versus Europe—in the high-stakes contest with Russia and China. The implication: control of Greenland is not merely symbolic but strategically urgent.

Within hours the idea had metastasized into threats of tariffs. On social media, the U.S. President outlined planned levies—10 percent beginning in February, rising to 25 percent from June unless Greenland were “sold” to the United States. The price was not only political; it was a veiled economic ultimatum aimed at NATO partners who call Denmark one of their closest allies. The rhetoric flattened centuries of nuance into a single transactional sentence: buy this land, or pay.

Immediate Reactions: Protest, Pride, and Panic

In Nuuk and in Danish cities, people turned out by the thousands. A line of protesters in Copenhagen wore baseball caps with the message “Make America Go Away”—an ironic, pointed riff on an older American slogan. In Greenland, fishermen and students and artists packed squares to make a different point: Greenland determines Greenland’s fate.

“This is our home,” said Aqqalu, a 42-year-old trawler captain in Sisimiut, pausing to light a cigarette against the wind. “It is not a postcard you put a price on. Every iceberg here has a name. Every fjord holds our grandmothers’ stories.”

Across the Nordic capitals, the response hardened into diplomatic solidarity. Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark issued a joint warning that tariff threats would “risk a dangerous downward spiral.” The European Union—an economic bloc of 27 countries and roughly 450 million people—called an extraordinary meeting of its ambassadors. France’s president signaled that the EU might deploy its so-called “anti-coercion instrument,” a trade weapon never used, intended to shield the bloc from bully tactics.

Security, Sovereignty, and the Growing Arctic Chessboard

Why the fuss about Greenland? It is geography—massive, ice-covered, and strategically perched between North America and Europe. Greenland is roughly twice the size of Texas, though home to only about 56,000 people. As polar ice retreats, shipping lanes open and mineral prospects—chromium, uranium, rare earths—gleam on global radar. Military planners see a chokepoint; economists see opportunity. Indigenous leaders see life at stake.

American officials framed the idea as an act of preventive security, arguing that Denmark and its European partners project a kind of “weakness” that could leave Greenland vulnerable to great-power encroachment. Opponents were blunt. “Declaring an emergency to prevent an emergency is a circular logic,” said Senator Rand Paul, warning against the idea of using extraordinary powers to seize an allied territory. “There is no basis for such force.”

Even the military posturing tells a careful story. Denmark and several NATO allies have recently increased their presence in Greenland with exercises and reconnaissance missions; a handful of German soldiers departed after a recon flight. The United States, meanwhile, is rebuilding bases and reviving an Arctic interest that had lain dormant since the end of the Cold War.

Local Voices and the Weight of History

To understand why Greenlanders reacted with such visceral resistance, you have to listen to the layers beneath the headlines. Denmark’s relationship with Greenland is itself a complex legacy of colonization, paternalism, and, more recently, increasing autonomy. Greenlanders have been negotiating their own path—balancing economic dependence on subsidies from Copenhagen with a desire for greater self-rule and cultural revival.

“We remember when Sovereignty meant someone else deciding for us,” said Inuk, a university student in Nuuk who studies Indigenous governance. “People here want a say. We want climate policies that respect our way of life, not transactions decided in rooms where we aren’t invited.”

That sense of exclusion was in stark relief at the protests. Signs in Kalaallisut, Danish, and English testified to a shared message: Greenlanders are more than pawns.

Trade as a Weapon—And What That Could Cost

The immediate tool in this diplomatic struggle is economic. Tariffs, by design, squeeze livelihoods and sway public opinion. France’s agricultural minister warned that tariffs would rebound on American farmers and manufacturers—tariffs are boomerangs as much as they are bricks. Norway, though directly targeted by proposals, urged restraint. “A trade war helps no one,” Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store cautioned, calling for calm and dialogue.

Experts on both sides of the Atlantic note the high costs of such brinkmanship. “A 25 percent tariff across major European exports would not only disrupt industry—it would jeopardize supply chains that are deeply integrated with U.S. businesses,” said Dr. Maria Jensen, a trade economist who has studied transatlantic commerce. “The ripple effects would reach consumers and farmers in both continents.”

Questions for a Restless World

What does it mean when a modern superpower treats the fate of an indigenous population as a geopolitical bargaining chip? How should alliances function when the strategic calculus of one partner clashes with the sovereign rights of another? And perhaps most humanly: who gets to decide a people’s future—their government, their neighbors, or distant capitals?

These are not abstract queries. They touch on the broader arc of our times: a world where climate change redraws maps, where global power contests flare at the edges of cooperation, and where populist rhetoric can reshape foreign policy overnight.

Where We Go From Here

For now, diplomats are on the move. Denmark’s foreign minister plans to visit Norway, Britain and Sweden to clarify NATO’s Arctic stance. Brussels has convened. Protests will continue. The Greenlandic parliament and its people will make their voices heard.

And tucked into those official maneuvers is a quieter, more urgent conversation: how to secure the Arctic without erasing the rights and cultures of those who have lived there for generations. The question is global, because the Arctic’s future—its waters, its weather, its permafrost—affects us all.

So I ask you, as you read this far from an island of ice: would you tolerate your homeland being offered as a bargaining chip for geopolitical leverage? What would you trade for the promise of security? The answers will shape not only one place’s destiny, but the logic by which nations treat one another in an age of scarcity and rising seas.

In Nuuk, the wind still scraps the paint from the houses. The fishermen mend nets. People argue and vote and sing. For Greenlanders, life goes on, stubborn and luminous. But the way the world argues about them—overhead and over the phone and in the glow of TV studios—may prove to be a mirror for what kind of global community we want to be.

Inside Poland’s New Safety Guide: Essential Rules, Tips and Precautions

hanad

January 18, 2026

What is inside Poland's new 'Safety Guide'? — A link in the booklet directs readers to find their nearest shelter

When the Postman Delivers a Survival Manual: Poland’s New Safety Guide and the Everyday Politics of Preparedness

It arrived in the mailbox like a neighborly leaflet—thicker, heavier, and far more charged than any supermarket flyer. Seventeen million copies, the government says. Forty-eight pages of instructions, maps and blank spaces for family plans. A government reaching into homes not with promises of prosperity or progress, but with a practical how-to: how to hide, how to heal, how to keep the lights on if the lights go out.

On a bitter evening in Warsaw, the booklet lay open on our kitchen table, a thin plume of steam rising from a teacup. Outside, tram bells sliced the cold air. A wind-up radio sits in the drawer of my mother-in-law’s kitchen; in cities and villages across Poland, older habits mingle with new anxieties.

“It’s sensible,” said Marek, a retired electrician I met outside a convenience store in the Żoliborz neighborhood. “But it’s also unsettling that we need it. You can feel the change—small things matter now.”

What’s Inside the Guide

The guide reads like a compact emergency philosophy: air raid protocols, a checklist for non-perishable food and three days’ worth of water, instructions for administering first aid, steps to take in the event of biological or nuclear hazards, and advice on preparing for floods and other extreme weather. There are spaces to write down family evacuation plans—names, phone numbers, rendezvous points. A link within points readers toward an online tool for locating the nearest public shelter.

Practicalities headline the list of suggested items: a hand-crank radio and a paper map for when digital navigation is gone, power banks, warm clothes, canned food, and a spirit of readiness. “Better to plan for something you hope never happens,” said my wife, folding the booklet with a quiet determination.

Across Europe, a New Normal of Prep

Poland is hardly alone. In late 2024, Sweden mailed its own “In Case of War” brochure to households; Finland and Norway have published similar advisories. These are not relics of the Cold War being dusted off for nostalgia. They are, instead, a visible measure of a broader shift: nations re-teaching citizens how to live with risk in public life.

Officials in Poland prioritized the first deliveries to eastern provinces—areas that butt up against Belarus, Ukraine and the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad—an obvious geographic logic with geopolitical overtones. The move signaled more than caution; it highlighted the reality that peripheral regions often feel the first reverberations of instability.

When Infrastructure Becomes a Target

This winter’s pamphlet did not emerge in a vacuum. In late December, Poland’s digital minister, Krzysztof Gawkowski, reported that the nation’s power system had been the target of a large-scale cyber-attack that nearly triggered a blackout. Officials blamed sabotage originating beyond Poland’s borders.

Then there were the drone incursions last September from Belarusian airspace, which Poland linked to Russian forces—one more reminder that hybrid threats can flare without formal declarations of war. In November, an explosion destroyed a section of the key Warsaw–Lublin rail line; Prime Minister Donald Tusk called it an “unprecedented act of sabotage.”

“We’re in a very different security environment than we were a few years ago,” said Dr. Ewa Nowak, a security analyst at a Warsaw think-tank. “It’s not just missiles and tanks. It’s drones, cyber operations, and targeted attacks on infrastructure. That forces societies to think about resilience in everyday terms.”

Between Prudence and Panic: How People React

In the small grocery where I bought bread, the owner—a wiry woman named Halina—had already set aside a crate of canned beans and bottled water. “People ask for torches now more than they used to,” she said. “They buy extra tea. You can see worry in their faces, but also a strange calm. We prepare.”

Not everyone is thrilled. A young father from Praga, Jakub, shrugged when he flipped through the booklet. “Necessary, maybe. But a bit scary,” he said. “You put it on the table and you imagine things you hadn’t thought of before.” The phrase resonated with others I spoke to: the guide was described again and again as “practical but frightening,” a document that normalizes the abnormal.

Small Habits, Big Significance

There is a human choreography to preparedness—what you stash in a backpack, who you call if the phones are down, whether you can boil water when the central supply goes cold. These are intimate decisions that suddenly feel political. They also intersect with everyday culture: the pierogi packed for an evacuation, the thermos of borscht in the trunk, the blanket knitted by a neighbor.

“We have a tradition of mutual aid here,” said Aneta, a schoolteacher in Lublin. “In the winter markets, people share wood and warm meals. This guide asks you to formalize what we already do informally—help your neighbor, check on the elderly. That’s comforting.”

What This Means Globally

Ask yourself: how would you respond if the lights went out for days in subzero temperatures? Would you know the nearest shelter? Who would you call if phones and the internet went dark? These are now questions for citizens not just in Poland, but across an increasingly fragile global network of energy and information systems.

As climate change intensifies extreme weather events and as geopolitical tensions transform the character of conflict, the boundary between war and everyday life grows porous. Civilization’s conveniences—power grids, logistics, digital identity—are also its vulnerabilities.

“Preparedness is not paranoia,” Dr. Nowak reminded me. “It’s a social insurance. It asks people to take small, practical steps to endure disruptions. But it’s also a test of public trust. If people believe the state will help them, they prepare differently than if they feel abandoned.”

Practical Takeaways—and a Final Question

Keep at least three days of water and food that doesn’t need refrigeration.
Have a battery or hand-crank radio and a paper map.
Create a written family evacuation plan and store it where everyone can find it.
Know the nearest public shelter; the guide includes a link to find one.

Seventeen million booklets will not end uncertainty. They cannot prevent sabotage or guarantee that power will stay on. But they do something else: they transform vulnerability into something manageable, teach citizens a vocabulary for the unexpected, and prompt conversations across kitchen tables and street corners.

So I ask you—reader, neighbor, parent—what would you put in your kit? Would you tuck a wind-up radio under the tea towels, or call your elderly neighbor to check they have warm blankets? In a world where the geopolitical and the domestic are tangled, the act of preparedness is as much about human connection as it is about supplies.

When the postman brings a booklet, it’s not just paper he hands over. It’s an invitation: to plan, to talk, to care for one another. How we answer that invitation will tell us much about the kind of communities we want to be when the next disruption inevitably comes.

TikTok ramps up age verification measures across Europe

hanad

January 18, 2026

Teenagers seek to block Australia's social media ban — More than one million accounts held by Australian teenagers under 16 are to be deactivated on 10 December

TikTok’s New Age-Detective: A Human Story About Algorithms, Childhood and Privacy

Walk into any European piazza at dusk and you’ll see it: parents shepherding children back from football practice, teens filming each other for a few seconds of fame, and the ever-present glow of smartphones. Now imagine a new invisible guardian watching that digital bustle—an algorithm trying to tell who is ten and who is twenty. That is the scene TikTok is painting as it prepares to deploy a continent-wide age-detection system in the coming weeks, a move meant to answer growing European unease over children on social media.

The company, owned by ByteDance, has been quietly testing this technology across Europe for the past year. The idea is deceptively simple: combine what a user writes in their profile, the kinds of videos they post, and how they behave on the app to produce a prediction about their likely age. Accounts that trigger an underage flag won’t be auto-deleted; instead, they’ll be handed to specialist moderators for human review.

How the system is supposed to work

Think of it as a two-part system. The first part is the pattern-finding engine—software that sifts through signals and scores accounts for risk. The second part is a human safety net: moderators trained to make nuanced calls where the machine is unsure.

“No algorithm is a substitute for judgement,” says Dr. Sofia Konstantinou, a child psychologist who has advised several European NGOs. “Machines can spot patterns, but they cannot feel the context around a child’s life.”

When an account is contested—if a user believes they’ve been wrongly flagged—TikTok will rely on more traditional verification methods: facial-age estimation conducted by a third-party company called Yoti, credit-card checks and government-issued identification. Yoti is already used in some verification systems elsewhere in the industry, including by Meta, for age checks.

Why Europe is driving change

Europe’s regulators have been clear: platforms must do a better job of ensuring children aren’t exposed to harms or signing up to services they’re too young to use. With the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) as the backdrop and a patchwork of national discussions on age limits—Australia has taken a hard line with a ban for under-16s, Denmark has proposed bans for under-15s—the pressure is on.

“We’re not trying to be technophobic,” a senior official at a privacy watchdog in Dublin told me over coffee. “We’re trying to protect a cohort that can be especially vulnerable—children whose identities and rights must be safeguarded online.”

In a recent UK pilot, the new tools reportedly helped remove thousands of accounts belonging to users under 13, evidence that better identification can change the landscape of youth presence online. Yet despite progress, there is no international playbook: Europe’s data-protection rules often clash with the technical means companies can deploy without breaching privacy.

Voices from the street

At a playground in Lisbon, Marta Silva watches her 11-year-old scroll through short clips as the autumn sun fades. “I don’t have a problem with TikTok per se,” she says, folding a cardigan around her daughter. “I want them to be safe. If a machine helps spot children using it, that’s good—but I worry about what else it sees.”

Across town, a 16-year-old named Amir shrugs at the news. “I don’t like the idea of a machine guessing my age. It feels like Big Brother,” he says, flicking his phone shut. “But then again, some kids shouldn’t be on here alone.”

And in a rural Dutch village, schoolteacher Els van der Meer offers a broader view: “Digital life isn’t separate from childhood anymore. The trick is making rules that respect young people’s curiosity while keeping predators out.”

The privacy tightrope

This is where the story gets thorny. Age checks can easily veer into invasive territory—asking for a government ID, a credit card, or a face scan raises legitimate worries about data reuse, breach risk, and the chilling effect on privacy. European regulators are hyper-sensitive to these trade-offs; that’s partly why TikTok says it designed the system specifically for Europe and consulted with Ireland’s Data Protection Commission during development.

“There is no single correct answer,” says Liam O’Neill, a policy analyst at a digital rights NGO. “One approach is to use the least intrusive means necessary and to ensure safeguards—data minimisation, strict retention limits, and transparency about what is done with the verification data.”

For many parents, the calculus is simple: minimal inconvenience now for protection later. For privacy advocates, it’s a negotiation over future precedent. Which position will win out? That depends on law, on civil society pressure, and on how companies behave once they hold more sensitive data.

Wider ripples: more than a TikTok story

What happens with TikTok’s age-detector could reverberate across the tech landscape. Platforms worldwide—already wrestling with content moderation, misinformation and addiction concerns—are watching closely. If the European rollout is seen as balanced, it could become a template that others adapt. If it’s perceived as intrusive or ineffective, it could stiffen regulatory resolve.

Consider these broader questions: Can we build technologies that protect children without creating new privacy harms? How do we avoid entrenching surveillance as the default form of safety? And who decides what counts as an acceptable trade-off between access and protection?

Practical takeaways for families and policymakers

Parents: talk with your children about how and why they use social apps; simple rules and open conversation often work better than technical bans.
Policymakers: pursue transparency obligations—platforms should publish clear descriptions of how age-detection works and how data is used and deleted.
Platforms: minimise data retention, use the least invasive tools possible, and provide robust appeals paths for users who feel wrongly identified.

Where we go from here

In the coming weeks, Europeans will start receiving notices about this new system. For many, it will be a welcome reassurance; for others, a prompt to scrutinise. The real test will not be the sophistication of the algorithm, but the quality of the human decisions that follow and the strictness of the privacy guardrails around them.

So I’ll ask you, reader: if an algorithm could keep your child safe online but required handing over a little more data, what would you choose? The answer is personal, and it will shape the rules that govern our digital public square for years to come.

TikTok’s new move is less about a single company than about the choices societies make when technology moves faster than regulation. The stakes—children’s safety, privacy, and autonomy—are too high for simple answers. The important thing is that we keep asking hard questions, demand transparency, and insist that whatever systems are built are as humane as they are clever.

Mercosur pact pledges prosperity as signing ceremony nears

hanad

January 18, 2026

Mercosur deal to bring 'prosperity' ahead of signing — President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen and Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva shake hands as they meet ahead of the deal signing

When Two Continents Shake Hands: The Quiet Thunder of the EU–Mercosur Deal

There are moments in diplomacy that feel less like ceremonies and more like weather fronts—slow-moving, tense, then suddenly reshaping the landscape. On a humid morning in Rio, under a sky shrugging off rain, European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen met Brazil’s president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Their handshake was not a photo-op so much as the last visible sign of months of haggling, compromise and strategic calculation. What followed was a ripple: a trade accord between the European Union and the Mercosur nations was set to be signed in Asunción, Paraguay, after negotiations that have stretched across decades.

This is not merely a pact about tariffs and quotas. It reads like a map of contemporary geopolitics: trade policy, environmental anxieties, rural economies, industrial strategy, and the search for partnership at a time when multilateralism feels strained. Seen from a distance—literally and figuratively—the deal stitches together roughly 700–750 million people across two trading blocs and represents an influential slice of global economic activity.

The Promise—and the Pulse—of Partnership

Officials framed the agreement as a choice for openness. European leaders argued the accord would secure markets for wine, cars and cheeses, while Mercosur governments highlighted gains for beef, soy, sugar and poultry producers.

“This is a partnership that goes beyond the ledger,” one senior EU policy adviser told me, speaking on condition of anonymity. “It is about signaling that big democracies still believe in rules, not walls.”

From the perspective of South American capitals, the deal is also a pragmatic response to a world where trade wind directions are uncertain. “We want diversified partners,” a trade official in Brasília explained. “China and the United States are essential, but Europe remains a market with predictable rules and demand for higher-value exports.”

How the economics stack up

Details matter. The treaty is designed to eliminate tariffs on more than 90% of bilateral trade—a sweeping removal that will have winners and losers. In concrete terms, European automakers could find fewer barriers in South American markets; European agricultural exporters, such as cheese and wine producers, will also enjoy more favorable access.

At the same time, Mercosur producers anticipate a larger, more stable outlet for commodities like beef and soy. For countries whose economies are built in part on agricultural exports, that stability matters.

Population reach: roughly 700–750 million consumers combined.
Tariff reduction: over 90% of goods covered.
Sectoral winners: autos, wine, dairy (EU); beef, soy, sugar, poultry, honey (Mercosur).

Voices from the Ground

The deal is being celebrated in ministerial corridors and scrutinised in rural markets. In a cattle market in Rio Grande do Sul, a rancher wiping dust from his boots wrapped his palms around a lukewarm cup of coffee and said, “If European demand pays for quality and traceability, that’s good for us. But we need support—veterinary services, audits, and time to adapt.”

A farmer from the Lot-et-Garonne region of France, who travelled on a bus with others to Brussels last month to protest, described the mood as defiant. “We fear a flood of cheaper meat and grain. Standards on the farm matter—animal welfare, antibiotics, not just price,” she said.

In Asunción, artisans and small traders view the signing with a mixture of curiosity and caution. “Will more Europeans buy Paraguayan leather or will cheap imports undercut us?” asked Carmen, who runs a boutique near the historic center. “Trade opens doors, but it also brings competition.”

The Political Tightrope: Environment, Standards, and Sovereignty

This agreement arrives amid global debates about what trade should reward. Environmental groups worry that increased demand for agricultural commodities can encourage deforestation unless the pact is accompanied by enforceable safeguards. Indigenous communities, too, watch with anxiety; trade expansion can mean agricultural frontiers that press on ancestral lands.

“Markets can be engines of development, but they can also amplify existing inequalities,” said a Latin American environmental law scholar. “Without robust enforcement, promises on sustainability can become words on paper.”

European farmers and civil society groups have staged protests in France, Ireland, Belgium and Poland. Their message: trade cannot come at the cost of lowered production standards or environmental destruction. For their part, Mercosur leaders insist the pact respects national sovereignty and provides room for domestic regulation, while opening markets that have long been difficult to access.

Minerals, Manufacturing—and the New Geopolitics of Resources

Beyond agriculture and automobiles, another layer of the agreement is quietly strategic: critical raw materials. South America sits on deposits of lithium, nickel and other inputs essential for electric vehicles and renewable-energy technologies. Europe, seeking to diversify its supply chains and reduce dependence on any single foreign supplier, has flagged partnerships on “critical raw materials” as a priority.

“Supply chains are now a security issue,” said a Brussels-based industrial strategist. “Access to lithium, for instance, is not only about batteries; it’s about industrial competitiveness and technological sovereignty.”

Why This Matters to You—Wherever You Live

Why should an EU–Mercosur trade agreement matter to a reader in Tokyo, Lagos, Nairobi or New York? Because trade pacts create new flows—of goods, capital, and regulatory standards—that ripple across the global economy. Cheaper inputs lower production costs somewhere; higher standards in one market can become benchmarks elsewhere. The pact also reflects a broader global choice between embracing interdependence or pulling up the drawbridge.

Ask yourself: do you want rules that enable trade while protecting the planet, or market access indifferent to externalities? Can diplomacy and civil society work together to ensure that economic opening becomes a tool for sustainable development?

Looking Ahead: Ratification, Implementation, and the Long Game

Signing is only a milestone. Ratification, national legislatures, and implementation will test the strength of this accord. That process—often messy and episodic—will shape who gains and who loses, and whether the promised “rules-based” partnership is more than rhetoric.

Expect battles in parliaments and on farms. Expect scrutiny on supply-chain traceability and environmental impact assessments. Expect negotiations over quotas, safeguards and the tempo of liberalisation.

Most of all, expect this to be a living story. Trade is not a ledger that balances at a single point in time. It is a sequence of choices by consumers, businesses, courts and regulators.

Parting Thought

The EU–Mercosur deal is not an answer—it is a question. It asks whether nations can use trade to bind themselves together in a way that elevates standards and livelihoods, or whether short-term gain will reopen old wounds. As the ink dries in Asunción, the real work begins: turning a diplomatic accord into a fair, enforceable and sustainable reality for millions. That task will be messy, human and utterly consequential. Will we rise to it?

EU ambassadors to convene after Trump’s looming threat of tariffs on EU

hanad

January 18, 2026

EU ambassadors to meet following Trump's tariffs threat — Protesters in Denmark and Greenland demonstrated yesterday against Donald Trump's demands

When Tariffs Meet Ice: How a Twitter-Style Ultimatum Threw Greenland and Europe into Crisis

On a winter afternoon that felt ordinary to the untrained eye, a short, blunt message set off a chain reaction that stretched from the fjords of Nuuk to the marble halls of Brussels.

The message came not from a formal diplomatic channel, but from a social media post: the U.S. president declaring a schedule of escalating tariffs against a list of European countries — unless Washington was allowed to buy Greenland. The words landed with the force of a thunderclap. Within hours, ambassadors from the EU’s 27 member states were summoned to an emergency meeting being convened under the six-month rotating presidency of Cyprus.

A sudden summons and a continent on edge

Cyprus’s late-night notice called EU envoys to an emergency session, set for 5pm local time. For diplomats used to hours of behind-the-scenes consultations and carefully calibrated communiqués, the speed of the response was itself a signal: something in the transatlantic relationship had broken open.

“We had to act immediately,” said one EU official speaking on condition of anonymity. “This wasn’t a policy paper or a phone call. It was a unilateral digital threat that could reshape trade and security in one paragraph.”

Why did Europe react so fast? Because the stakes were large and practical. The threatened tariffs — a 10% levy imposed from the start of February, rising to 25% from June — would hit imports from a list that included Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, and Finland. For many industries, that could mean disrupted supply chains, higher consumer prices, and a chilling effect on investment.

Greenland: more than ice and myths

To those who picture Greenland as empty white space on a map, the dispute is a sharp reminder that territory is never merely geography. Greenland is roughly 2.16 million square kilometers of ice and rock — the world’s largest island — and home to around 56,000 people, many of them Inuit (Kalaallit) who trace their presence there across centuries.

Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark. It has internal self-rule and control over much of its domestic affairs; foreign policy remains a complicated dance between Nuuk and Copenhagen. That complexity, and the island’s strategic location in the Arctic — a region of increasing geopolitical attention as ice melts and new sea routes open — quickly turned what might have been a private negotiation into a continental confrontation.

“Our future should be decided by Greenlanders,” said a shopkeeper in Nuuk, who asked to be identified only as Marius. “Not by a list of tariffs or auctioneers from far away.”

Security anxieties and raw political theater

Washington’s message framed the threat as a matter of security: the island, the U.S. argued, could not be allowed to fall under the influence of competitors like China and Russia. But European officials pushed back, urging a recognition that Greenland’s status is enmeshed in NATO obligations and the political sovereignty of the Kingdom of Denmark.

“Applying economic punishment to allies for pursuing collective security is counterproductive,” said Britain’s prime minister in a public message. “This is not the route to stable relations among NATO partners.”

Across the Channel, France’s president declared the notion of such a purchase both unacceptable and threatening. “No intimidation will make Europe change course on matters of sovereignty or security,” he said, summing up a mood that shifted from disbelief to defiance in less than a day.

What legal levers are in play — and how fragile are they?

One of the most jarring aspects of the episode was the ambiguity. The U.S. leader issued the tariff timetable without citing a clear legal mechanism. Would the administration lean on national-security trade statutes, emergency powers, or some other authority? The absence of an immediately transparent legal path left lawyers, markets, and governments scrambling.

“Historically, presidents have invoked broad national-security provisions when they want to act fast on trade,” said a trade policy analyst who asked not to be named. “But those moves get litigated, and a domestic court could very well end up deciding how much power the executive really has.”

Indeed, the question of executive trade power is already the subject of fierce debate in U.S. courts and legislatures. Any attempt to put tariffs of 25% on favored trading partners would invite legal challenges — and a political backlash that could ripple through upcoming elections and transatlantic institutions.

Economy, politics, and the human cost

Beyond legal wrangling, the tariff threat has practical consequences. European automakers, agricultural exporters, and high-tech firms rely on steady access to U.S. markets. Small businesses that import specialty components could be crushed by sudden levies. Consumers might see price spikes. Economists warn of a classic tit-for-tat: a trade spiral that chills cross-border trade, investment, and trust.

“It’s not just numbers on a spreadsheet,” said an EU trade adviser. “There are factories, jobs, and families behind every percentage point.”

Possible tariff levels announced: 10% from February; 25% from June.
Targeted countries: Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, Finland.
Greenland: ~2.16 million km²; population ~56,000; part of Kingdom of Denmark.

Voices on the ground and the protests that followed

In Copenhagen, demonstrators poured into the streets chanting for diplomacy and dignity. In Nuuk, locals gathered to assert that their destiny belonged to them — not to foreign bargaining chips. A group of students organized a vigil, lighting candles and reading statements about indigenous rights and environmental stewardship.

“We are surrounded by the world’s largest ice sheet,” a student leader said. “Our climate, our economy, and our language are not negotiable.”

These scenes underscore a broader trend: across the globe, communities are refusing to be framed as objects of geopolitical chess. Indigenous governance, self-determination, and climate justice are part of the conversation now.

What happens next?

For now, the EU has pledged unity. The European Commission’s president warned that weaponizing tariffs against allies “would undermine transatlantic relations and risk a dangerous downward spiral.” The emergency meeting was meant to coordinate a response — whether diplomatic, economic, or legal.

But the larger question is less procedural and more philosophical. When great powers issue public ultimatums via social platforms, do we accept a new, noisier normal in which international law and precedent are replaced by instantaneous threats? Or do democracies find ways to reinforce institutions — alliances, trade frameworks, and courts — that can resist the drama of a single afternoon’s decree?

Ask yourself: would you want your country’s future decided in the same swift, unilateral way? What price are we willing to pay in trade, security, and trust to settle a territorial fantasy?

Beyond Greenland: a test for alliances and norms

This episode is about more than Greenland. It’s a litmus test of the rules that have governed international relations since the mid-20th century: mutual respect, predictable dispute settlement, and the idea that allies manage disagreements without threatening mutual ruin.

In a world where climate change is opening new strategic spaces and supply chains bind continents together, the old binaries — friend vs. enemy, home vs. foreign — are fraying. The response from Europe, from the Arctic, and from businesses and courts will help define whether decorum or disruption wins.

For now the ice remains, massive and indifferent, but what surrounds it — the people, the treaties, the commerce, and the alliances — is suddenly very fragile indeed.

Five people killed in multiple avalanches across Austria’s Alps

hanad

January 18, 2026

Five reported killed in avalanches in Austria — Several people have died across the Alps since last week following heavy snowfall (File image)

Snow, Silence and Sorrow: The Alps Grapple with a Deadly Week of Avalanches

The mountains do not always speak loudly. Sometimes they whisper, and sometimes—after a night of heavy snowfall—they roar without warning.

On a crisp morning in the Pongau region near Salzburg, Austrian rescue helicopters cut through a blue sky streaked with contrails, dropping ropes and hope into a landscape that moments before looked like a postcard: thick pines bowed under fresh snow, cornices rimed in white. By midday the postcard had been torn. An off‑piste avalanche smashed through a group of seven ski tourers, killing four people and leaving another gravely injured. A separate slide in the same area pulled away a woman who could not be saved. By the time rescuers were leaving the snowline, five lives had been claimed in Austrian mountains that have sustained an unnerving rhythm of tragedy this season.

What happened in Pongau

The details are heartbreaking in their ordinary cruelty. The group had been traveling off marked trails, a practice known as ski touring that has become increasingly popular. The avalanche swept with the speed and finality of a freight train; witnesses and rescue teams described scenes of chaos—shovels frantically probing, dog teams scratching at the surface, the metallic whine of helicopter rotors.

“This is a bitter reminder of how fragile the margin for error is right now,” said Gerhard Kremser, district head of the Pongau mountain rescue service. “We had issued clear warnings about avalanche danger. People still went out. Families are grieving because of a choice that carries known risks.”

Four rescue helicopters, mountain rescue personnel, Red Cross dog teams and a crisis intervention unit were rushed to the scene. Rescuers fought against deep drifts and unstable layers of snow to locate the buried, and to try to keep the possibility of survival alive.

“We do everything we can,” said Anna Müller, a volunteer with a local ski patrol, her voice hoarse from the cordite of effort and sorrow. “The mountains take time to forgive. But people—friends, fathers, sons—are not easily replaced.”

A pattern unfolding across the Alps

The deaths in Pongau add to a grim tally of avalanches across the Alpine arc in recent days. A 13‑year‑old skiing off‑piste in Bad Gastein died earlier in the week; a 58‑year‑old ski tourer lost his life in Weerberg in Tyrol last Sunday. In neighboring Switzerland a German man was killed and four others injured while cross‑country skiing. France, too, reported multiple fatalities over the weekend—six skiers lost to avalanches at various resorts.

Across the region, the chorus of mourning has become louder. Local mayors, ski instructors, and mountain rescuers are all telling the same story: more people are seeking quiet slopes beyond the groomed runs, and the mountain’s temperament—winter’s layering of storms, wind slabs, sun crusts—has rarely been so complex.

“We have seen a steady rise in backcountry activity in the last five years,” said Dr. Elena Rossi, an avalanche scientist at the University of Innsbruck. “Partly it’s the desire for solitude and untouched snow; partly it’s the economics of ski holidays. But the snowpack is changing too. Warmer spells interspersed with heavy dumps produce weak layers that can persist for weeks.”

Experts point to a multifaceted mix: increased human exposure, evolving recreational patterns, and meteorological quirks. The European avalanche warning services use a five‑level danger scale; in recent days many valleys reported danger at the ‘considerable’ to ‘high’ end of that scale following successive storms. When that happens, even experienced tourers can be caught out.

The human stories behind the headlines

Numbers numb. Names make it real.

A husband who called authorities after his wife was swept away stood by the rescue hub wrapped in a weathered jacket, his hands jammed into his pockets as if to steady a trembling body. “She loved the mountains,” he said in a voice that did not rise above a whisper. “We married because she had a map in her head—she always knew where to go. I do not know how to map a life without her.”

A ski instructor from a nearby resort, leaning against a rescue vehicle, spoke in blunt, weathered terms. “People think they’re pioneers. They download trail apps, strap on fat skis, and they go. They forget the mountain’s memory—layers from storms two weeks ago are still unstable. Respect the red flags.”

Rescue work on the razor’s edge

Rescue teams across the Alps are stretched thin. The immediate response to an avalanche—searching within the so‑called ‘golden hour’ when survival probabilities decline steeply—requires manpower, trained dogs, helicopters, and equipment. In Pongau, that effort was marshalled quickly, but the weight of snow and the time it takes to dig through meters of avalanche debris are relentless adversaries.

“Our teams train for these moments, but training doesn’t take away the ache,” said Franz Huber, a mountain rescuer. “Every recovered identity is a story, a family—sometimes children. We build resilience, but grief follows closely.”

What this week tells us about risk, nature, and choice

So what are we to make of this rash of avalanches? Is it simply bad luck, or part of a larger pattern?

There are no easy answers. Winters will always be capricious. But there are trends worth noting. More people are seeking backcountry experiences, and at the same time, weather systems are delivering heavier, more rapid snowfalls in short bursts—conditions that can create unstable, dangerous layers.

“We have to marry respect for the mountains with respect for data,” Dr. Rossi urged. “Education—avalanche courses, beacon practice, checking bulletins—saves lives. So does humility.”

Practical steps—and an invitation

For those who still hear the call of the silent slopes, the rules are simple and uncompromising. Carry the right gear. Travel with companions who know how to use the gear. Check avalanche bulletins. Get training. And when warnings are high, choose safety over solitude.

Here are basic recommendations from mountain rescue services:

Always carry an avalanche transceiver, probe, and shovel—and know how to use them.
Take an accredited avalanche safety course before going off‑piste.
Check the regional avalanche bulletin and heed local warnings.
Travel with experienced partners and maintain visual contact.
Consider hiring a local guide when unfamiliar with terrain.

Ask yourself: what is the value of a perfect run if it costs a life? Is the private thrill worth the public grief?

Grief, memory, and the long season ahead

Austria wakes today to another tally in a winter that will not easily be counted. The mountains endure, indifferent and magnificent. Humans, by contrast, will carry these losses into kitchens and classrooms and ski lift lines, retelling an experience that has been made smaller and sharper by the absence of those who died.

“We go up to feel alive,” said a local café owner in Pongau, stirring a pot of soup as skiers passed with red cheeks and hungover smiles. “But life is fragile up there. The mountain owes us nothing. We must go with care.”

If the week’s avalanches teach us anything, let it be not only a lesson about the physics of snow, but about how communities respond to tragedy—through rescue, through grief, and through renewed calls for caution. The Alps will continue to draw us. Let them be the place where respect is repaid as often as risk is taken.

Syrian forces expand control across northern territory amid ongoing operations

hanad

January 18, 2026

Syrian army extends hold over north Syria — Kurdish fighters stand near burning tires at the entrance to the city of Tabqa in the northern Syrian Raqa province

When Flags Shift: Syria’s Quiet Reclamation of the North

There are days when a town’s rhythm — the clatter of market stalls, the schoolchildren’s laughter, the slow churn of evening prayer — marks out a kind of sovereignty. For more than a decade in northern Syria, Kurdish-administered areas had that rhythm: an emergent, messy autonomy grown from the ashes of war. Then the drums of a different authority began to beat. In a matter of days, the Syrian army pushed into neighborhoods and towns that had effectively governed themselves for years, reclaiming airfields, oilfields and, with them, the contours of daily life.

I drove through Deir Hafer recently, about 50km east of Aleppo, under a sky streaked with dust and the taut, metallic smell of fuel. Men in plain clothes — fighters from the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces — were loading trucks. Mothers stared from doorways. The army’s flag, unfamiliar to many here for years, snapped in the wind over checkpoints that had been newly reinforced.

What changed — quickly

In March, Damascus and Kurdish authorities signed a deal: a blueprint, at least on paper, for integrating Kurdish forces into the state security apparatus and resolving the odd geography of control that has divided northeast Syria. The agreement included withdrawals, redeployments east of the Euphrates and promises of some political inclusion.

But agreements on paper are brittle in times of war. Implementation slowed, trust frayed, and the Syrian army — moving in what officials called the enforcement of the pact — swept into areas around Aleppo, into Tabqa in Raqa province and toward precious oilfields. Witnesses say army units took the military airport at Tabqa and seized two oil installations nearby. Kurdish commanders confirm clashes and casualties on both sides.

“We woke to the sound of engines and soldiers,” said Layla Haddad, a schoolteacher who lives on the outskirts of Tabqa. “We don’t want new battles in our homes. People here have already lost too much.”

More than language: a decree and its limits

At the center of this uneasy reordering was a political gesture: a presidential decree declaring Kurdish a “national language” and granting citizenship to Kurds stripped of nationality decades ago. For many families in Qamishli — the region’s main Kurdish hub — the decree was the first formal acknowledgment from Damascus since the country’s independence that Kurds are a part of the Syrian nation.

But symbolism can be shallow. “This tells us we are noticed; it doesn’t tell us we will be heard,” said a shopkeeper, Ahmad Baran, as he stacked baklava near the city’s mosque. “We want legal protections, constitutional rights, and a say in how our region is run. Language is important, but it doesn’t stop a checkpoint from arresting a neighbor.”

Analysts say the decree is a classic trade-off: cultural recognition without significant power-sharing. “What Damascus offered is an olive branch wrapped in a leash,” said Dr. Mira Al-Najjar, a Middle East analyst. “It softens the optics, but the zones of power — security, resource control, administration — remain in state hands.”

Why the north matters

The Kurdish-led administration controlled large swathes of Syria’s oil-rich northeast, territories captured during the civil war and the long fight against the Islamic State group. These areas are not only ethnically diverse; they are strategic. Control of the oilfields, the highways and the agricultural plains means leverage over reconstruction, revenue and regional influence.

That leverage is why external powers watch closely. The United States, which supported Kurdish forces for years in the fight against IS, has called for de-escalation. European capitals and regional leaders have urged calm. A U.S. military statement urged Syrian government forces to “cease offensive actions” in areas between Aleppo and Tabqa. France and leaders from Iraqi Kurdistan issued calls for restraint and a ceasefire.

On the ground: fear, pragmatism and the quotidian

For ordinary residents, the choices are painfully pragmatic. Some see the return of Syrian troops as a route to stability, an end to checkpoints run by militia groups and a step toward restoring state services. Others fear that new control will mean reprisals, new mobilizations, or simply the grinding, bureaucratic sclerosis that has followed centralization elsewhere in Syria.

“If the army brings fuel, food, and opens the hospital, people here will accept it,” said Hassan Khalil, a farmer who has tilled the same land his grandfather did. “But if they come only to take our fields or to punish the fighters, that is different.”

Curfews have been declared in parts of Raqa, and the army has labelled zones southwest of the Euphrates “closed military zones,” warning of strikes on what it called military sites. The SDF, accusing Damascus of betrayal, has reported clashes south of Tabqa and has called for international mediation.

Across borders and headlines

The battle for northern Syria is never just local. Turkey, Iran, Russia, the United States and regional Kurdish authorities all have stakes. Ankara, in particular, views the Kurdish-led forces as linked to groups it considers terrorist organizations and has historically launched cross-border operations to prevent an autonomous Kurdish corridor. Moscow and Tehran back Damascus, but their priorities — influence and reconstruction contracts — are not always aligned with the Syrian state’s tactics.

Outside the region, pundits ask whether Damascus’ moves signal a broader campaign to reassert control over the country’s fractured peripheries, or whether this is a limited push to secure resources and strategic points. Some see a pattern: cultural concessions offered to minorities, but strict limits drawn around political or military autonomy.

Key point: Kurdish forces have held de facto autonomy across much of northeast Syria for more than a decade.
Key point: The Syrian army’s recent advances include towns around Aleppo, Tabqa airbase and nearby oilfields.
Key point: A presidential decree granted Kurdish language recognition and citizenship to some stateless Kurds, but many say it falls short of political guarantees.

What comes next?

Readers might ask: can reconciliation be engineered from these pieces? A sustainable settlement would require more than decrees. It needs constitutional guarantees, participatory governance, and oversight mechanisms that bridge security and civil life.

“Rights are defended in constitutions, not in press statements,” said an academic in Erbil who has tracked autonomy debates for years. “If this moment is to be historic, it must translate into real power-sharing, not merely cultural tokens.”

And there is another question worth considering: how will the people who have rebuilt schools, grown economies and formed civil councils over the last decade reconcile with a central state that has, for decades, sought to centralize control? Can local institutions be folded into national ones without losing what made them functional during the chaos?

For now, life in the north goes on in fits and starts — markets open, children go to school when streets are quiet, farmers plant when seeds are available. But in the cafes and courtyards, the talk is not only about the next harvest. It is about belonging, justice and the thin margin between recognition and real rights.

As the dust settles each evening, people here ask the same thing they’ve asked for years: Will promises turn into protections? Will new flags mean new freedoms? Or are we witnessing, yet again, a passing of control that leaves the deeper questions unresolved?

1...505152...268 Page 51 of 268