Bishop Warns of Martyrdom - Faith in the Shadow of Minneapolis!
Bishop Rob Hirschfeld of New Hampshire has drawn nationwide attention in recent days after urging clergy to put their wills in order and prepare for a new era. Not a rhetorical one, but a physical test. His words were spoken at a vigil for Renee Good, who was shot and killed by an ICE officer on January 7 while sitting in her car.
The bishop spoke of a possible new phase of Christian witness, in which it would no longer be about explanations, but about placing oneself protectively between power and the vulnerable. He referred to clergy of the civil rights movement who risked their lives to save others. That history, he said, is not a distant past. The Trump administration continues to defend the shooter to this day, citing alleged self-defense. In Minneapolis, but also far beyond, this account is being strongly challenged by video footage and eyewitnesses. The mayor, the governor, and numerous observers openly contradict it.
The bishop did not call for violence, but for fearlessness. Anyone who wants to build a different world must be willing to put their own body on the line. Fear of death must no longer have the final word. Other church voices are also joining in. They speak of protection for migrants, of responsibility toward the weakest, of a church that is not complete without them. In Minnesota, clergy warn against answering hatred with hatred, but with persistence and closeness. What remains is a religious tone that is unusually direct. Not otherworldly, but political. Not abstract, but concrete. And firmly anchored in a present in which faith suddenly once again means taking a stand - with an open outcome.
Soldiers on Standby - Washington Keeps Minnesota Under Reservation
The Pentagon has placed around 1,500 active-duty soldiers on heightened readiness in case they are to be deployed to Minnesota. Two infantry battalions from a unit stationed in Alaska, specialized in operations under extreme conditions, are on call. The background is the massive nationwide deportation operation and the ongoing protests against it. The trigger is the president’s renewed threat to activate the Insurrection Act. This law from the early nineteenth century allows regular troops to be used as domestic law enforcement. A measure that is rarely used and politically highly controversial.
Just a few days ago, Trump declared he would apply the law should those responsible in Minnesota fail to “crack down.” One day later, he partially walked this back, but left no doubt that he could deploy the instrument at any time. The Department of Defense did not deny the preparations. It said tersely that it was always ready to carry out the orders of the commander in chief. For many observers, this readiness alone is a signal.
Minnesota’s governor issued an urgent warning against further escalation. He appealed to the president to calm the situation and refrain from deploying additional troops. More military, his message was, would not resolve tensions, but deepen them. Minnesota thus once again stands at the center of a policy that increasingly responds to internal conflicts with force. That regular soldiers are now being placed on standby marks a new threshold. Nothing has happened yet. But the threat is there - visible, tangible, deliberately set.
Cyprus Under Pressure
Hardly has Cyprus taken over the presidency of the Council of the European Union when investigations are shaking the country’s political leadership. Seen are high-ranking actors talking about money, campaign rules, and ways around sanctions. Shortly thereafter come resignations, criminal complaints, denials. The government speaks of hybrid warfare and is examining targeted foreign influence. Intelligence services are involved, international partners engaged. Suspicion points toward known Russian disinformation structures. The opposition counters. Without corruption, so the argument goes, there would also be nothing that could be secretly filmed.
The debate thus revolves not only around the investigations, but around credibility and responsibility. The timing is explosive. The council presidency demands neutrality, stability, and trust. Precisely that is now in question. In Brussels, concern is growing that Cyprus could become a factor of uncertainty, precisely at a time when the EU is tightening its sanctions policy against Russia. Added to this are puzzling events on the island. The death of a Russian diplomat with intelligence ties, the disappearance of a Russian businessman, a body found later. Officially, there is no connection. Unofficially, unease is growing. For Cyprus, this is now about more than a single scandal. It is about institutional capacity to act. And about the question of whether an EU presidency under permanent suspicion can function. We will return to the case again in the near future, because our investigations are not yet complete.
Protection as a Demand
Stephen Miller now claims that Europe is protected by the United States, and therefore Europe must fall in line. In this case, that means Greenland. Whoever receives security owes obedience. He talks about American tax dollars, about missiles, nuclear weapons, soldiers, intelligence services. Not explanatory, but admonishing. The tone is not one of partnership, but condescending. It does not sound like an alliance, but like a reckoning. This is factually wrong and politically dangerous. Europe is not a passive recipient of protection. European states maintain their own armies, send soldiers on deployments, pay billions, and bear risks. Without Europe, this alliance would not exist. Miller ignores this because it gets in the way of his narrative. He needs the image of a dependent continent to justify demands that have nothing to do with defense anymore. This is how someone speaks who no longer sees alliances as shared responsibility, but has completely lost touch with reality. And that is precisely the problem.
Europe Draws a “Small” Line
The message from Washington is clear. Either there is an agreement on Greenland or punitive tariffs will follow. Ten percent starting in February, significantly more later. The tone is not negotiatory, but demanding. Exactly this triggered a swift reaction in Brussels on Sunday. The ambassadors of the 27 EU member states convened for a crisis meeting. For now, the willingness to escalate is low. The aim is to talk, not retaliate. At the same time, it was made unmistakably clear that Greenland is not a negotiating object as long as its population wants otherwise.
In Washington, this appears to make little impression. The U.S. Treasury secretary openly stated that Europe would eventually understand that American control over Greenland would be best for everyone. A sentence that in Brussels is understood more as a threat than as an argument. Behind the scenes, countermeasures have long been on the table. A package of retaliatory tariffs worth more than 90 billion euros could be activated at short notice. In addition, an instrument is being discussed that has never been used before, designed to counter external economic coercion. It would primarily hit American corporations.
Europe’s restraint has reasons. Militarily, many believe, one remains dependent on the United States. The idea that without Europe half of the American air force would have to remain grounded still does not occur to most. But this calculation is also beginning to shift, slowly. Public sentiment is turning, resistance is growing in parliaments as well. Several heads of government have directly contradicted Trump. Tariffs against allies are wrong, London said. A mistake, said Rome. NATO leadership also confirmed talks, but remained conspicuously vague, something we know well from the past. In the end, there is a joint statement by several European states. The EU loves joint statements, and they have brought little to nothing. The threats, it says, damage the transatlantic relationship and could trigger a dangerous spiral. Europe demonstratively stands behind Greenland. Negotiations are still ongoing, patience still infinite.
Davos and One’s Own Standard
The annual meeting of the World Economic Forum begins in Davos. Around 3,000 representatives from politics, business, and civil society come together to talk about war, the economy, climate, technology, and shifts in power. It is not about decisions, but about influence. The guiding theme is dialogue. What is meant is the attempt to at least discuss global conflicts while they escalate. On the agendas are climate protection, artificial intelligence, geopolitical tensions, supply chains, and social inequality. When the global elite meets in Davos, protecting the planet once again tops the agenda. At least in the announcements. Sustainability is one of the guiding motifs, and the question is how prosperity can be achieved within the limits of the Earth. The ambition does not end with speeches and panels. The meeting itself is also supposed to become cleaner. Fewer emissions, less waste, more efficiency. That is the promise of the organizers. Routes are short, buildings more tightly clustered, trains are encouraged, not planes. Energy is to come from renewable sources, temporary structures reused multiple times, materials passed on instead of discarded.
When it comes to food, the focus is on local products, on planning instead of excess. What remains is reused. Plastic bottles have largely disappeared, waste is sorted, measured, evaluated. Still, the biggest chunk remains untouched. Thousands travel in, many intercontinental. That cannot be organized away. Not even with offset programs. Those responsible speak openly of limits. Davos is small, much takes time, much lies outside one’s own influence. Progress comes step by step, not at the push of a button. Thus the meeting itself stands as a symbol of the dilemma it discusses. High ambitions, real constraints, visible improvements, and blind spots at the same time. Whether Davos protects the planet remains open. Only one thing is certain. It measures others by standards against which it must repeatedly measure itself.
Everything Cheaper - Except the Truth
Trump claims prices will fall. Food will become cheaper, rents will drop, plane tickets cheaper, hotels more affordable, even phones will cost less. A list delivered with the self-assurance of a success report. The problem is simple. It is not true. Not for food, not for rents, not in the daily lives of most people. Anyone who shops notices it. Anyone looking for an apartment even more so. Anyone who travels still pays more than before. Yet this claim is repeated, lied about until the doctor comes. As if reality could be replaced by nonsense. As if it were enough to say something often enough. What becomes visible here is not an optimistic assessment, but a glimpse into Trump’s world. Prices are not described, they are asserted. Thus a parallel world emerges in which everything gets better while nothing of it arrives outside. Anyone who contradicts is labeled an opponent. Anyone who believes it is left behind empty-handed. One will hear this often. It does not become truer because of it.
