February 17, 2026 – Short News

Proximity, Morality, and Standards - Noem, Lewandowski and Trump’s Silence!

Reports speak of a close personal relationship between Kristi Noem and Corey Lewandowski. When asked about it, Donald Trump stated he had not heard anything and would look into it. According to our research, within the agency their closeness is no major secret. What matters is not the private aspect, but the political environment: both move within Trump’s innermost circle, both stand for a course that publicly emphasizes conservative family values.

Journalist: “Reports say that Kristi Noem and Corey Lewandowski are in a close personal relationship. Is that a bad look?”

Donald Trump: “I know nothing about that. Haven’t heard it. I will look into it.”

It is precisely there that morality is regularly deployed as a political argument. When personal relationships in circles of power are openly tolerated while traditional ideals are invoked at the same time, a contradiction emerges that raises questions. Not because of a relationship itself, but because of the standards others are expected to meet. But the mutual Easter gifts are likely already decided: handcuffs and tear gas. Happy Easter.

New Talks in Geneva - Yet the Divide Over Territory and Security Remains Deep

Trump: “Ukraine should get to the negotiating table quickly.”

Representatives from Kyiv and Moscow are meeting in Geneva for another round of peace talks mediated by the United States. It is the third trilateral meeting within a few weeks. Two previous rounds in the United Arab Emirates were described by both sides as constructive, but tangible progress has been limited beyond a prisoner exchange. As fighting continues in eastern Ukraine, the decisive issues now move to the agenda: the territory claimed by Russia in the east and security guarantees after a potential ceasefire.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy made it clear that it would be a mistake to hand territory to the aggressor. At the same time, Kyiv is demanding credible security assurances from the West to prevent another invasion. Moscow categorically rejects Western troops in Ukraine. For Russia, the cession of the part of the Donetsk region still controlled by Kyiv is a condition for ending the war. The Kremlin emphasizes it is prepared to continue the war if there is no compromise.

On the American side, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner are among those moderating the talks. Russia once again sends Vladimir Medinsky as chief negotiator, which is interpreted in Kyiv as a signal of a hard line. Observers assume the negotiations will now revolve more directly around territorial questions. While Moscow points to military advances, Ukraine seeks to raise the price for every meter of land. The government in Washington is simultaneously increasing pressure on Kyiv to reach a solution by summer.

Rubio Backs Orbán - Washington Sends a Clear Signal to Budapest

“We want this country to do well. It is in our national interest - especially as long as you are prime minister and the leader of this country.” With these words Marco Rubio addressed Viktor Orbán. The sentence is diplomatically phrased and yet unmistakable. It ties American interest directly to Orbán personally. In Europe, the Hungarian prime minister has for years been regarded as a pro-Russian power politician who has placed pressure on media, the judiciary, and civil society. That a leading Republican addresses him so openly reads as political backing. It is a tone that differs markedly from earlier criticism coming out of Washington. Instead of distance it signals closeness. Instead of reservation it speaks of national interest. For observers this is more than courtesy. It shows how parts of the American right have accommodated themselves to authoritarian governing styles - and what alliances are growing in the background.

Ahead of Decision on Trump’s Tariffs, Markets Expect Defeat

On February 20 the Supreme Court of the United States will publish its decision on the legality of Donald Trump’s tariff measures. On betting markets, the probability that the Court will rule in favor of the tariffs is currently assessed at only 26 percent. Conversely, 74 percent assume the measures will not stand. Such estimates are not legal judgments, but they do show how investors assess the chances of success. At issue is whether the executive branch exceeded its authority. Trump’s trade policy was presented as a sign of economic toughness. If the Court strikes down the tariffs, it would send a clear signal regarding the limits of presidential power in trade policy.

“When Does This War End?” - For Many Ukrainians the Question Is Already Wrong

Since February 2022 the war in Ukraine is no longer an exceptional state, but everyday life. In the trenches between drones and artillery, in workshops near the front, in cities under fire, a sober perspective has taken hold. The war does not end because someone wishes it, but when conditions allow it. An officer at the front summarizes it in the spirit of a thought by Viktor Frankl: those who hope for a quick end or believe in endless suffering will break. Only those who focus on the task endure. Many soldiers report that they no longer wait for rescue from outside. Expectations of quick help have diminished. That has not worsened morale, but stabilized it. They build their own structures, develop drones, deploy robots to clear paths and transport ammunition. Technology changes the battlefield not as a future vision, but as daily practice. At the same time Russia continues to rely on costly offensives and accepts high casualty numbers.

Ukraine cannot copy this approach in terms of manpower or economics. Its goal is to neutralize Russian attacks and raise the cost for Moscow to such a level that the war becomes politically unsustainable. For many at the front, the question of when it ends is secondary. What matters is how this war ends. It is not about when, but how. As long as that remains open, the war remains reality - not a chapter that can simply be closed.

A Mayor, 101 Votes, and the Question of Who Is Actually Being Protected

In Coldwater, Kansas, a small town of 700 residents, former mayor Joe Ceballos stands trial. He won the election by 101 to 20 votes. Hours before the result was finalized, he was charged: as a non-citizen he had voted illegally. Ceballos is a lawful permanent resident, has lived in the town for decades, came to the United States from Mexico at age four, and received his Green Card in 1990. He admits he voted. He says no one ever told him he was not allowed to. He now faces multiple charges for false voting statements and unlawful ballot casting. The courtroom filled with neighbors, ranchers, shop owners. Many of them voted for Donald Trump and support a hard line on illegal immigration. Yet they have known Ceballos for decades. He worked in the municipal public works department, later as a lineman for a utility company, raised flags along Main Street on holidays, and fixed potholes instead of making headlines. For many he is not a symbol, but their mayor.

The case has become politically charged. The office of Kris W. Kobach speaks of a real problem of non-citizen voting. The Department of Homeland Security announced it would examine deportation in the event of a conviction. Legally the matter is clear: non-citizens are not permitted to vote. Factually the number of such cases is low. In Coldwater two realities collide: the abstract argument about voting rights and the concrete person who has been part of the community for nearly forty years. Ceballos recently applied for citizenship, passed the civics test, and stated in his interview that he had voted. That honesty triggered the investigation. He now fears a conviction with consequences up to deportation to a country he has not visited since childhood. His neighbors call for proportionality. Prosecutors call for consequences. In the end a court will decide - and beyond that the question of whether law here means only punishment or also proportionality.

Nuclear Talks Under Threat - Washington Increases Pressure on Tehran

In Geneva the United States and Iran resume talks over Iran’s nuclear program while the military situation in the Middle East remains tense. Donald Trump demands a rapid agreement and openly raises the possibility of an American strike should no deal be reached. He emphasizes that an agreement is preferable, but without results “we will see how that turns out.” At the same time the United States has expanded its military presence in the region, including two aircraft carrier strike groups. For Washington the issue is not only uranium enrichment, but also Iran’s missile program and its support for armed groups in the Middle East. Tehran signals willingness to talk on the nuclear issue, but so far rejects negotiations on other security questions. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi speaks of “real ideas” for a fair agreement, but makes clear there will be no submission to threats.

There is also the regional factor. The leadership in Israel, represented by Benjamin Netanyahu, demands strict conditions: a complete renunciation of uranium enrichment, sharp missile restrictions, and an end to support for groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. In the Strait of Hormuz the Iranian Revolutionary Guard demonstrated its readiness through a naval maneuver. Iran’s economic situation remains strained, with international sanctions weighing heavily. At the same time the events of last year - Israeli air strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and subsequent U.S. involvement - serve as a reminder of how quickly diplomatic efforts can shift into military confrontation. The talks in Geneva are therefore more than routine. They will determine whether the conflict intensifies further or whether a limited way out can be found.