January 8, 2026 – Short News

Republican Senator McConnell warns against Greenland threats and clear overreach!

Republican Senator Mitch McConnell has sharply rejected statements from the White House environment regarding Greenland. Threats and intimidation by US representatives over claims of American ownership were inappropriate and ineffective, he said. Such rhetoric damages the interests of the United States. McConnell was especially clear on the issue of violence. The use of military force to appropriate sovereign, democratic territory was unacceptable. Greenland belongs to one of the most loyal and reliable allies of the United States. Such a step would severely harm America itself. Not only politically, but strategically. The international standing of the United States would suffer significantly. Trust cannot be built this way. Deterrence is not an instrument here. McConnell made clear that such initiatives would find no support in the Senate. The statement marks a clear boundary within his own party.

US military deployment to the United Kingdom signals operational preparation

In recent days, the United States has deployed at least 12 C-17 Globemaster transport aircraft to several air force bases in the United Kingdom, accompanied by two heavily armed AC-130J Ghostrider aircraft that have also arrived in the region. Three more are en route. The combination of strategic airlift and direct fire support is militarily unambiguous and follows known operational patterns. C-17 aircraft are used for the rapid movement of personnel, ammunition, and heavy equipment into potential theaters of operation. AC-130J aircraft are not deployed for routine stationing, but for immediate combat support from the air. Such movements do not typically occur without a concrete operational reason. The United Kingdom has served for decades as a forward base for US operations in the Middle East and Eastern Europe. The current density of deployments points to heightened readiness within short time frames. Public statements from the Pentagon remain conspicuously vague. British authorities have also offered no explanation that clearly accounts for the scope and purpose of the movements. Comparable constellations have preceded major military operations in the past. The development is therefore relevant to security policy and warrants increased attention.

Kristi Noem declares deadly ICE shooting in Minnesota an act of terrorism – a lie without equal!

Kristi Noem’s statements regarding the deadly ICE shooting in Minnesota mark a new escalation in state rhetoric. According to her account, ICE officers became stuck during an operation in the snow, after which a woman attacked them and attempted to run them over with her vehicle. An officer then fired, the woman was hit and died. Noem publicly declared the incident an act of domestic terrorism. This classification bears no relation to the circumstances.

There is no evidence of a planned or executed violent act, nor of any political motivation on the part of the woman who was killed. She was simply trying to get home. The term terrorism is being used here as a blanket justification for lethal force. In doing so, the department shifts interpretive authority while investigations are still ongoing. At the same time, any civilian confrontation with ICE operations is criminalized. The responsibility of state authorities to deescalate plays no role in this narrative. Instead of clarification, there is a posthumous presumption of guilt. A homeland security secretary who acts in this way undermines the rule of law and public credibility and has long since become untenable in office. You can find the full article here.

Frey rejects ICE and makes the city’s position unmistakably clear

The mayor of Minneapolis, Jacob Frey, did not stop at saying “ICE, get the f* out of Minneapolis.” He stated that ICE is not welcome in Minneapolis and that the city will neither assist nor cooperate with deportations. The actions of federal authorities destroy trust and put people in danger. Protection is not evident, he said. Quite the opposite is happening. A woman is now dead, and that death stands in the space of responsibility of state action. Minneapolis is not a partner city of ICE. The local police do not cooperate with the immigration authority. What happened today once again shows why this separation is necessary. Public safety does not arise from aggressive operations. It arises from clear responsibilities and restraint. The city will maintain its protective mechanisms for migrants. This applies regardless of pressure from Washington.

The price of power: deaths, oil, and a president without limits

When Venezuela’s interior minister Diosdado Cabello named a figure on Wednesday evening, the scale of the US intervention became undeniable. One hundred people had been killed in the American attacks on Caracas, with a similar number injured. Previously, at least 80 deaths had been reported. It is the first official casualty count from the government, and it marks a turning point. What is sold in Washington as a precise operation has wounded entire neighborhoods in Venezuela’s capital and plunged a country into shock. Cabello also confirmed that President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores were injured in the attack. Flores reportedly confronted the American forces and declared they would not take her husband without her. Days later, she appeared in a Manhattan courtroom with visible bruises and a bandaged face. Both pleaded not guilty to all charges. The images contradict the narrative of a clean arrest. They show violence that echoes into the courtroom.

While Caracas slowly returns to daily life under heavy security, uncertainty prevails. Armed soldiers control streets, pro government militias stop vehicles, yet markets reopen, buses run, people walk their dogs. Many do not know whether they should send their children back to school after the holidays. Public life is returning, but cautiously, tentatively, under the impression of a power that could strike again at any time.

At the same time, a second front is unfolding at sea. The United States seized two large oil tankers, part of a so called ghost fleet transporting Venezuelan, Russian, and Iranian oil under false flags. One of the tankers, formerly known as Bella 1, had evaded US authorities for weeks, changing names and flags and ultimately adopting Russian markings. The other, the M Sophia, carried up to two million barrels of Venezuelan crude oil and had falsified its position data to evade sanctions. Washington frames these actions as enforcement of existing law. For many states, they appear as an expansion of American claims of authority on the high seas.

President Donald Trump went further. On social media, he declared that Venezuela would in the future purchase exclusively American products, paid for with proceeds from a new oil deal he claimed he would personally control. Agriculture, pharmaceuticals, energy equipment, everything would come from the United States. No confirmation came from Caracas. In the US Congress, however, immediate opposition followed. Democratic senators made clear that the president has no constitutional authority to appropriate foreign oil revenues. The notion of personal control over Venezuelan oil caused bipartisan unease. At the same time, Trump executed an abrupt foreign policy reversal. After days of escalation with Colombian President Gustavo Petro, whom he had previously insulted and threatened with military options, Trump suddenly spoke of honor. A phone call of around one hour, mediated by the US embassy, had clarified many things, he said. Petro had explained the situation, and Trump claimed to appreciate his tone. A meeting at the White House was being prepared. Just days earlier, Washington had revoked Petro’s visa and hinted at sanctions. Now there is talk of rapprochement.

This simultaneity of violence, economic claims, and sudden diplomacy is no coincidence. It is the pattern of this policy. Military pressure is built up, then used as leverage to extract political and economic concessions. In Venezuela, this means deaths, injuries, and a population living in fear. In Colombia, it creates anxiety over escalation and relief over a postponed confrontation. On the world’s oceans, it destabilizes trade routes already strained by sanctions and counter sanctions. What remains is the image of American power without visible limits. A government that simultaneously arrests, bombs, seizes, and negotiates, without drawing clear lines. For those affected in Caracas, these contradictions are not abstract. They are visible in destroyed homes, in injuries, in the question of whether normal life is still possible. And for the world, another question becomes ever more pressing: who sets boundaries for this approach when law, diplomacy, and military force merge into one?

Republican senator rejects White House power claims

Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina has publicly contradicted Stephen Miller with unusual sharpness. “You know what makes me angry? Stupid talk,” Tillis said, addressing the Trump adviser. Stephen Miller does not speak for him, nor for Congress. One can say it is the president’s position that Greenland should become part of the United States. But it is not the position of this government as a whole. Congress is not a subordinate body, but an equal branch of government. Tillis made clear that foreign policy statements cannot be expanded through advisers. The Constitution sets clear limits on personal claims to power. Especially on territorial questions, institutional restraint applies. That boundary, he said, has been crossed by those around the president. The statement shows that resistance is growing even within the president’s own ranks.

Witness in Minneapolis contradicts ICE operation from his own political stance

An eyewitness in Minneapolis criticized the ICE operation in unusually direct terms. He described himself as politically right leaning. Precisely for that reason, he said, what he saw shocked him. “That’s not what you should do,” he said. That is not how things are done in America. His statement is not directed against laws, but against the manner of enforcement. The operation did not create safety. It created fear and chaos. For the witness, it was evident that the situation should have been deescalated. Instead, it escalated. The man’s political orientation makes the criticism notable. It does not come from a left wing environment. It comes from the conservative right.

Incitement against demonstrators escalates after ICE operation in Minneapolis

After the protests in Minneapolis, MAGA aligned calls have circulated that cross every boundary. On social media, it is claimed that displaying foreign flags and chanting against ICE are proof of treason. Demonstrators are broadly labeled enemies of the state. Calls follow for the deportation of entire groups of people. At the same time, they are accused of supporting the killing of federal officers. There is no evidence whatsoever for this claim. Protest is deliberately equated with violence. Criticism of authorities is reframed as an attack on the state. The language aims at intimidation and dehumanization. It delegitimizes fundamental rights such as freedom of assembly. Those who speak this way shift the boundaries of what can be said. The result is further escalation. This does not create security. It undermines it.

After deadly ICE shooting, protests spread nationwide

Following the fatal shooting of a woman by an ICE officer in Minneapolis, protests quickly spread across large parts of the United States. In Minneapolis itself, tens of thousands took to the streets. The trigger was the death of 37 year old Renee Good, who was shot and killed by an ICE agent that same day. Many demonstrators carried still images from the now widely circulated video showing the deadly encounter. Protests also took place in other cities, including New York City, Seattle, Tucson, Phoenix, Boston, Chicago, and many more. The demonstrations are directed not only against ICE, but also against the Department of Homeland Security and the Border Patrol. In Minneapolis, the American flag was burned in isolated incidents, which immediately triggered political backlash. The overwhelming majority of protests, however, remained peaceful. The images show broad and diverse participation. The incident has developed into a nationwide conflict over violence, responsibility, and state action. We will keep you informed about the protests and are planning a special report.

Trump seeks closeness to Putin while simultaneously sharpening confrontation

President Donald Trump officially declares that he wants to achieve strategic stability with Russia, while at the same time pursuing a policy that visibly increases tensions. The latest example is the military seizure of a Russian flagged oil tanker in the North Atlantic. The operation involved a maritime surveillance aircraft and heavily armed gunships launched from bases in the United Kingdom. Washington justifies the action as enforcement of the blockade on Venezuelan oil exports. In Moscow, the move is perceived as a provocation. Russian President Vladimir Putin had previously officially demanded that the pursuit of the vessel be halted. Russia’s government protested, but avoided any threats. Trump thus keeps communication channels open on one hand, while demonstrating military dominance on the other. This line weakens Russia’s position in Latin America, where Moscow seeks influence but can scarcely secure it. The arrest of Nicolás Maduro reinforced this impression. Russia’s response has been strikingly restrained, in order not to jeopardize options in the Ukraine conflict. The inconsistency of this policy reflects less strength than strategic unease.

Europe struggles with Trump’s power politics and remains conspicuously silent in public

European governments are increasingly nervous about Donald Trump’s foreign policy line, but avoid open criticism. Behind closed doors, concern is growing over threats against Greenland, Iran, and the military intervention in Venezuela. Publicly, cautious statements and appeals to unity dominate. The reason is strategically clear: Europe needs the United States to protect Ukraine from further Russian aggression. At meetings in Paris, European and American representatives emphasized progress on security guarantees for the post war period. Russia was not involved in these talks. At the same time, several states declared their solidarity with Denmark, without directly naming Washington. President Emmanuel Macron demonstratively avoided questions on Greenland and Venezuela. Internally, however, alarm is widespread. In Copenhagen, Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen openly warned of the end of NATO in the event of an attack on Greenland. Nevertheless, Europe remains largely inactive. Sanctions or countermeasures are discussed, but not implemented. Dependence on American security paralyzes political room for maneuver. Europe’s silence is not approval, but an expression of strategic fear.