January 7, 2026 – Short News

Oil for Violence – How Trump Justifies the Seizure of Venezuela!

Donald Trump announced on Tuesday that the United States would receive between 30 and 50 million barrels of Venezuelan oil at market prices. The shipment would be delivered via floating storage directly to American ports, and the proceeds - according to Trump - would be under his control and would “benefit the people of Venezuela and the United States.” The announcement came just hours after new death toll figures emerged from Caracas following the nighttime US military operation in which Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was captured and taken out of the country. According to the military, at least 24 Venezuelan security forces were killed, and the total number of fatalities has now risen to at least 56 by official counts. While Trump praised the operation before Republican lawmakers as militarily brilliant and extraordinarily successful, Venezuela’s Attorney General Tarek William Saab openly described it as a war crime. Three prosecutors were assigned to investigate. Cuban authorities also confirmed that 32 Cuban military and police personnel stationed in Venezuela were killed in the attack. The Pentagon additionally reported seven wounded US soldiers, two of whom remain under treatment.

Trump’s oil announcement fits into an escalation line his administration has been openly pursuing for days. On his platform, he declared that the so-called transitional authorities in Caracas would now deliver, while his administration would effectively steer Venezuelan policy. Acting Venezuelan President Delcy Rodríguez publicly rejected Trump’s threats. Her fate would not be decided in Washington, she said, but by God alone. At the same time, the government in Caracas attempted to project political agency through state-organized rallies, while videos of fallen security forces and destroyed vehicles were distributed via official channels.

In parallel, the White House is preparing a meeting with top executives from the American oil industry. Executives from Exxon, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips are expected at the Oval Office on Friday. Access to Venezuela’s oil reserves, the largest proven reserves in the world, is no longer a side effect but an explicit goal. Trump openly states that his administration now determines how Venezuela is to be economically and politically aligned. The financial scale of the announced oil deal is limited, but its symbolism is far greater. At an oil price of around 56 dollars per barrel, the shipment would be worth up to 2.8 billion dollars. For the United States, that would amount to little more than two and a half days of consumption. Venezuela itself currently produces only around one million barrels per day, a fraction of US production. Nevertheless, Trump uses these figures to frame the military operation in economic terms as well.

At least 24 Venezuelan security forces were killed in a US military operation on Saturday, the Venezuelan military said. This raised the official death toll to at least 56. Venezuela’s Attorney General Tarek Saab stated at a separate press conference that three prosecutors had been tasked with investigating the deaths, which he described as war crimes.

Domestically, the move has drawn a divided response. Polls show that roughly four in ten Americans support the operation to capture Maduro, while a similar share oppose it. The poll is a disaster for a supposedly democratic society in which 40 percent approve of such a belligerent action. A clear majority opposes the United States determining Venezuela’s political leadership. International resistance is also growing. France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom joined Denmark in a demonstrative show of support for Greenland’s sovereignty after Trump once again threatened to take over the Danish territory. Colombia formally protested American threats after Trump also refused to rule out military steps there.

“He has to condemn this immediately” - Trump’s own son pushed for a clear statement

On January 6, 2021, as rioters moved through the Capitol, Donald Trump Jr. sent an urgent message to then–Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. “He has to condemn this shit immediately,” he wrote, referring to his father. Meadows replied, “I’m pushing it very hard. I agree.” It remained at words. While Trump’s inner circle struggled to regain control, the president stayed silent and watched the assault unfold. Only hours later did a halfhearted video follow. These messages show that those at the top knew things were spiraling out of control. But the hesitation was part of the problem, not the solution.

Paris Searches for Stability in Uncertainty

In Paris on Tuesday, more than 30 states gathered for new talks on the future of Ukraine. Host Emmanuel Macron welcomed participants at the Élysée Palace, including Volodymyr Zelensky, numerous European heads of government, and senior representatives of the Trump administration. The focus is on security guarantees in the event of a ceasefire, monitoring questions, and concrete response mechanisms in case agreements are breached.

The meeting is overshadowed by the recent US military operation in Venezuela and Trump’s repeated threats against Greenland. Several European governments see this as an additional risk to the credibility of transatlantic commitments. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk spoke of strong emotions in Europe and openly questioned the current value of the alliance. For Ukraine, the outlook remains uncertain, as Russia is not participating in the talks. Zelensky warned that Moscow could block progress at any time. Technical monitoring models using satellites and drones, as well as coordinated political and economic responses, are therefore being discussed. At the same time, several European states reaffirmed Greenland’s sovereignty in a joint statement. Paris thus becomes the site of an attempt to sketch stability while the decisive factors lie outside the room.

02:05 a.m. in Caracas

As explosions shook Caracas in the warm night, 21-year-old Mariana Camargo ran through the streets of the eastern part of the city. It was 2:05 a.m., sirens and detonations filled the air, while photographer Matías Delacroix was exactly where one of the first images of the US military operation was captured. Camargo recalls the moment when a large vehicle suddenly stopped. A woman shouted at them to leave, saying there would be bombing. No one argued. Nine young people moved at once, running past houses, through darkness and noise.

Days later, after Nicolás Maduro had been arrested and replaced by his vice president, Camargo and Delacroix returned to the site. For a brief moment, it was quiet. The photo stands for the rupture between everyday life and a state of exception. For Camargo, it is the moment when war entered her life in a single night.

Filming Saves Lives – Submission Does Not

This video is disturbing and shows why the phrase “just cooperate” offers no protection, even for US citizens. In North Carolina, ICE and Border Patrol officers stopped two men without legal grounds. They took their driver’s licenses, asked questions about origin, residence, and purpose of stay, and even acknowledged that filming was allowed. The men remained calm, answered questions, and followed instructions. Then the situation shifted. An officer suddenly claimed filming was prohibited because the driver was allegedly being detained. This is false. Filming police officers in public spaces is lawful even during a stop. The driver stayed calm, one hand on the steering wheel, the phone in the other.

The officer then grabbed for the phone, lunged into the car, and attacked the driver. The car door was opened without permission, additional officers repeatedly tried to seize the phone. Threats, blows, and attempts to pull the driver from the vehicle followed, even though he repeatedly stated he had done nothing wrong. When that failed, they targeted the passenger, threatened him with handcuffs, and used force against him as well. At the same time, officers shouted contradictory orders and accused the men of obstructing an investigation. An investigation that never existed. In the end, they let both men go. Not out of insight, but because they were US citizens, because the stop was unlawful, and because the camera was running.

21 Days Later – Finally Home

This dog spent 21 days in the intensive care unit of a veterinary clinic. Tubes, monitors, unfamiliar smells, little movement, repeated interventions. For animals, such a place is especially distressing because they cannot understand why closeness disappears and routines vanish. Then the moment comes. The door opens and suddenly familiarity returns. The way out is no longer a medical process, but a farewell to fear. The first thing that stands out is the tail. It does not stop moving. No hesitation, no restraint, just joy. For the clinic team, it is the most beautiful part of the job. For the family, the return of a being that was missing. And for the dog, it is simply what matters: being back where it belongs.

A Question Left Hanging

On the sidelines of the Ukraine summit, a journalist posed a simple, uncomfortable question to Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff. What value do security guarantees and political commitments have if, on the same day, Washington openly discusses taking over the territory of a NATO partner. The question did not target details, but credibility. While stability, guarantees, and trust were discussed in Paris, the reference to Greenland hung in the air like interference. The discrepancy between words and simultaneous threats could not be resolved. Kushner and Witkoff deflected, the topic was visibly avoided. Yet this very silence reinforced the impression of a contradiction no one wanted to explain. If commitments are to matter, they must be more than situational statements. The journalist voiced what many were thinking. The answer did not come.

After the Pardon, the Threat Remains

During an improvised march, individuals pardoned by Trump for their involvement in the Capitol riot openly mocked police officers. The chants are antisocial, aggressive, and devoid of any distance from violence. They are directed not at politics in the abstract, but at people in uniform, directly and unmasked. That this scene is possible has a history. Its name is Donald Trump. His immoral pardons did not pacify, they emboldened. Those who feel validated do not become quieter, but louder. What is visible here is the erosion of democracy into a political climate deliberately encouraged by Trump and the Republicans. Responsibility is shifted, guilt relativized, boundaries erased. That these appearances are not isolated shows how far moral decay has already set in. They are part of a development in which loyalty matters more than law and order. In Germany, the AfD is a prominent example of this. Loud, but hollow. The 2026 midterms thus become more than a normal election. They will decide whether this behavior remains without consequence or is answered by society.

Honors After the Attack

Venezuela’s National Bolivarian Armed Forces commemorated the soldiers killed in the US attack on the country. In a formal ceremony, the fallen were named individually, accompanied by military honors and state symbols. For the leadership in Caracas, the commemoration is more than an internal ritual. It serves as a public assertion that this was a military attack and not a police action. The images are directed inward and outward alike.

While Washington speaks of law and order without seeming to know what that means anymore, Venezuela emphasizes the visibility of losses. The killed soldiers are portrayed as defenders of the country, not as marginal figures in an operation. The ceremony underscores the rupture between the narratives of both sides. It marks mourning, but also a claim. And it makes clear that, for Venezuela, the events are not concluded - regardless of the fact that Maduro is what he is: a dictator. That does not matter under international law.

The Deal That Should Never Have Existed

Russia signaled as early as 2019 during Trump’s first term that it would give the United States free rein in Venezuela if Washington, in return, allowed Moscow to proceed unhindered in Ukraine. This was stated by Fiona Hill, then Donald Trump’s Russia adviser, later before Congress. There was repeated talk of a strange trade, Venezuela for Ukraine, flanked by contributions in Russian media referring to the Monroe Doctrine.

Statement by Fiona Hill Before Congress
October 14, 2019 – First Impeachment Proceedings Against Trump

“And I was also told by Amos and other colleagues that there were certain linkages. That is why I wanted to ask you to step back during this period. That was in March, April into May, when we had a stalemate in Venezuela. And the Russians were signaling at that point very clearly that they somehow wanted to strike a very odd trade-off between Venezuela and Ukraine. In other words, if we wanted to enforce some version of the Monroe Doctrine - that is, keep Russia out of our backyard - because this was after the Russians had deployed these hundreds of operatives, essentially to shore up the Venezuelan government and to preempt a possible US military intervention - then they were signaling, in essence:

You have your Monroe Doctrine - you want to keep us out of your backyard - well, we have our own version of it - you are in our backyard in Ukraine.”

There was never a formal offer, but there were clear hints from Moscow. Hill firmly objected at the time and made clear that Ukraine and Venezuela were not negotiable as linked issues. Today, that separation appears fragile. After Maduro’s removal, the United States openly claims control over Venezuela’s policy, while Trump simultaneously asserts power claims in Greenland and issues threats against Colombia. For Moscow, this confirms a world order in which great powers divide spheres of influence among themselves. Hill warns that this approach makes it harder for Ukraine’s allies to condemn Russia’s claim to Ukraine as illegitimate. When strength decides, law loses weight.

INSA Politician Ranking 2026 – A Predictable Collapse

The INSA Politician Ranking 2026 delivers a sobering result for Alice Weidel. In the overall ranking, she lands far down the list, with her assessment within her own camp particularly striking. Even among supporters of the Alternative for Germany, Weidel achieves only weak approval ratings. The ranking measures personal approval, not party strength, and thus clearly separates brand from person. It is precisely here that the fault line appears. The party mobilizes, the top figure does not convince.

For Weidel, this is bitter. For society, it is not, because a claim to leadership without backing quickly rings hollow. The result points to a problem that cannot be solved with volume alone. The figures suggest that popularity does not automatically follow simply because a party polarizes. The ranking holds up a mirror to the AfD leadership - and the reflection is decidedly unfavorable for Weidel.