Reidar Kaarboe
Hva Mener Partiene

We call them sanctions, as if they were a neutral judgment handed down in a courtroom, but in reality, they are our modern form of siege. In the old days, warships were sent to starve a city; today, we use codes and bank transfers to suffocate an entire people. We have seen sanctions against Russia, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, and other places. Now it is Iran that the EU wants to sanction.

We have NOT seen sanctions against the US, either for illegal warfare, support for genocide, killing of civilians in international waters, regime change, actions contrary to international regulations, or, as now, readiness to wage a crushing war against Iran.

We condemn the brutal reactions of a regime that has been backed into a corner, but we choose to close our eyes to who actually painted them into that corner. By strangling the economy and making people desperate, we ourselves have helped fuel the fire that we are now sanctioning them for trying to extinguish.

The most painful thing is not only the use of power, but the hypocrisy that accompanies it. We talk about human rights and international obligations with a matter-of-factness as if we ourselves follow them, but the story of Gaza stands as the ultimate proof that our principles only apply when they do not cost us the friendship of the strongest.

We sanction Iran because it is defined as an enemy, but we never dare to raise our voices against the US or Israel, which are now ready to crush this regime without having the right or authority to do so.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

Redirecting Iran’s oil exports from China to India in exchange for partial US sanctions relief could avert another American attack by satisfying its goal of depriving China of some of the resources that it requires for maintaining its rapid superpower rise without risking a potentially disastrous regional war.

The US’ deployment of an aircraft carrier to West Asia and its newly announced aerial drills ominously hint that another American attack on Iran is forthcoming, one which could embolden neighboring Azerbaijan, Pakistan, and/or Turkiye (which are allies with one another) to try to militarily “Balkanize” it. In connection with that scenario, the Middle East Eye recently reported that the Turkish Foreign Ministry briefed lawmakers about a plan to carve out a “buffer zone” in Iran ostensibly for sheltering refugees.

Since they consider themselves to be “one nation, two states”, and the border is largely populated by ethnic Azeris, Turkiye would certainly coordinate its “buffer” with Azerbaijan, which could then lead to a joint operation for forcibly annexing Northwestern Iran into Azerbaijan to create a Turkic superstate. Even if that particular scenario doesn’t unfold, the prerequisite of which is US strikes leading to large-scale instability in Iran, then Turkiye could still intervene on the pretext of fighting Kurdish separatists.

Elena Panina
Елена Панина (Telegram)

14 European countries have joined forces to block Russian maritime trade in the north-west.

On January 26, the British government website published an “Open letter from the coastal states of the Baltic and North Seas, including Iceland, to the international maritime community.” The letter is directed against Russia's [so-called] “shadow fleet.”

❖ The letter sets out the grounds on which ships belonging to the “shadow fleet” may be detained: concealment of their origin, change of flag, transponders switched off, lack of “proper documents,” and “questionable” insurance. Everything boils down to the idea that the detention of these ships does not carry any legal risks and appears to be an obvious attempt to impose one's right of force.

The letter also points to “the increasing use of shadow fleet vessels to circumvent international sanctions.” In addition, Russia is directly accused of reducing the safety of international shipping by interfering with satellite navigation “in European waters, especially in the Baltic Sea region.”

This “declaration of intent” was signed by Belgium, Britain, Denmark, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Finland, France, Germany, Sweden, and Estonia.

Caitlin Johnstone
Caitlin’s Newsletter

Nobody’s buying the old song and dance anymore. Maybe the people are finding a little magic of their own.

If I spoke critically of something abusive that India was doing in Kashmir, would you expect me to be accused of an anti-Hindu hate crime?

If you criticized an Indian military operation, would you have to preface it with “I don’t hate Hindus or their religion and am not the slightest bit Hinduphobic”?

If there was worldwide opposition to something that Indian military forces were doing, would you expect western governments to start frantically churning out laws to ban that opposition because it was making members of the Hindu community feel unsafe?

Would it ever in your wildest imaginings occur to you that a criticism of the violent actions of the government of India could in any way be interpreted as an attack on the Hindu faith and the membership of that religion? You can probably see where I’m going with this.

Elena Panina
Елена Панина (Telegram)

If we compare the media coverage surrounding Saturday's murder of anti-Trump activist Alex Pretti with Euromaidan in Ukraine, certain parallels can certainly be drawn.

Minnesota authorities have taken a series of “extraordinary legal maneuvers” to unblock the right of local authorities to investigate the murder of Pretti in Minneapolis on January 24 by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, Axios reports. State officials and legal experts have called the federal government's obstruction of the investigation “unprecedented.”

💬 “Sealing off the crime scene, destroying evidence, ignoring a court order, and not allowing anyone to look at the crime scene...This is a turning point for America,” Minnesota Governor Tim Walz said.

To be precise, no one has destroyed any evidence yet, but local authorities have a precedent: after the first murder on January 7, whose victim was Renee Good, the evidence quickly disappeared.

Constantin von Hoffmeister
Eurosiberia (Substack)

Empires decide, regions obey

Venezuela and Maduro became the latest proof that slogans collapse when power enters the scene. Anti-imperialist rhetoric filled media and diplomacy, yet no action arrived to change the outcome. Allies stayed distant. An old rule remains at the center of world politics: might is right. This is the lived reality of Darwinian multipolarity.

Recent United States action in Venezuela marks a decisive moment in contemporary geopolitics. The removal of Nicolás Maduro by American force demonstrates that power, rather than abstract principle, continues to shape international outcomes. Appeals to legal norms and multilateral procedure recede once strategic interests assert themselves. This episode confirms a recurring pattern in world affairs: states that command decisive strength define the limits of acceptable conduct, while weaker actors adjust to realities imposed upon them.

This development reinforces a Darwinian logic that governs relations among powers in a multipolar age. Survival, influence, and expansion favor those states capable of sustained coercion and strategic unity. Venezuela stood isolated, and isolation carried consequences. Regional sympathy existed in language and symbolism, yet material assistance failed to appear. As anticipated by geopolitical analysis, solidarity alone carried little weight when confronted by overwhelming force.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

Astute observers can read between the lines, and discern Russia’s displeasure with [Trump] too...

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s first press conference of the year in late January touched upon a lot of topics, importantly including the Europeans’ plot to subvert Trump’s Ukrainian peace plan.

According to him, the UK “is speaking increasingly more often on behalf of the EU” and therefore plays a leading role in these efforts, “which boil down to one thing – an immediate ceasefire complemented with legal security guarantees for Ukraine. The question is what these security guarantees concern.”

As Lavrov sees it, the purpose is “the preservation of the current Nazi regime”, which “will never legally recognise Crimea, Novorossiya and Donbass as Russia…And a ceasefire along the current line of contact, following which ‘the West will help,’ is unacceptable to us because they will build bases there.” In that scenario, “[France and the UK] will deploy a multinational force in Ukraine, build a network of military hubs (bases) there… and pump more weapons into Ukraine to create threats for the Russian Federation.”

Caitlin Johnstone
Caitlin’s Newsletter

They're Trying To Sneak Israel's President Into Australia Without Anti-Genocide Protests

Israeli president Isaac Herzog is expected to visit Australia at the invitation of the Australian government, with anonymous sources telling the Israeli press that he’s scheduled to arrive on February 7, but so far Canberra itself has been very opaque about the time and nature of the visit. We can surmise from this that they’re currently trying to come up with a strategy for how to sneak the president into the country without the spectacle of him getting confronted by throngs of anti-genocide protesters.

Again: they’re trying to sneak the president into the country for a visit to protect him from anti-genocide protesters. Really think about what that means, and what it says about Australia as a country. When you are doing things like this, you’re on the wrong side of history.

As soon as the UK listed Palestine Action as a terrorist group it was made clear to the entire western world that there is no limit to how far our governments will go to stomp out speech that is critical of Israel. Literally no limit. Once you’re arresting old ladies in wheelchairs for holding a sign that says “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action,” you’re making it clear that there’s nothing you won’t do to bludgeon the populace into line regarding this one particular foreign state.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

Trump might claim that building “Golden Dome” infrastructure there, possibly with the partial purpose of serving as a cover for deploying new offensive weapons systems in the Arctic for targeting Russia and China, is required for plugging the gap between the world’s largest island and Alaska.

Trump framed his desired acquisition of Greenland as indispensable to his “Golden Dome” missile defense megaproject and hinted at the deployment of new offensive weapons systems there too in his post announcing tariffs against several NATO allies that symbolically dispatched military units there.

He’s now reportedly using similar language in private when discussing Canada, according to several administration sources, both current and former, who recently informed NBC News of this.

They claim that Trump hasn’t discussed stationing US troops along Canada’s allegedly vulnerable northern border, instead proposing “more joint U.S. and Canadian military training and operations, and increasing joint air and water patrols as well as American ship patrols in the Arctic.” The ostensibly defensive purposes that those plans would advance, however, would still leave a conspicuous gap in the “Golden Dome’s” Arctic interception range between Alaska and Greenland over Canada’s Arctic islands.

It therefore can’t be ruled out that the reported proposals are ultimately meant to advance his goal of building “Golden Dome” infrastructure on those islands for plugging this gap.

Dmitry Medvedev / Telegram
Dept. Chairman of the Russian Security Council

The main question is what price the current occupant of the White House is willing to pay to achieve this goal. Eliminating NATO is not the same as kidnapping a foreign leader who has been betrayed by his allies in a weakened country. And finally, will Trump be allowed to do this?

The pointless event in Davos promises to be interesting. Instead of the tired old topic of Ukraine, they will be discussing frozen Greenland.

The situation here is generally clear. Cowardly European cockerels, swallowing tranquilizers out of fear, will convince the assertive uncle to take full custody of the island, but leave it formally owned by the Danish kingdom. Do as you please, they say: take the island for indefinite free use, develop its mineral resources for free, build military bases, airfields, missile silos, and any other facilities for total control.

However, that is not what Trump wants. Everyone understands: he wants to paint the island in stars and stripes on world maps (they have already published a map that includes Canada and Venezuela) and stand shoulder to shoulder with the founding fathers. He wants to go down in history forever. And at the same time, he wants to become like the President of Russia.

Reidar Kaarboe
Hva Mener Partiene

What arguments lead some to say that the US is a threat to world peace? The US has gone from being a stabilizing big brother to a source of unpredictability and economic pressure. Here are the main arguments that have emerged in the debate among Western allies:

1. Unpredictability and security guarantees

   ● “Transactional” politics: The argument is that under the Trump administration, the US views alliances as business deals. If a country does not “pay enough” (i.e., the 2% target), it is implied that the US may not defend it. This creates uncertainty that Russia can exploit.

   ● US interest in Greenland has caused deep friction. When Denmark recently added the US to its list of national threat assessments, it was precisely because of fears of US pressure or “gunboat diplomacy” aimed at securing control over Arctic resources.

2. Economic warfare against allies

The US is increasingly using its economic power to exert influence, even against its friends.

   ● Tariffs and customs duties: The argument here is that the US is using tariff barriers as a punishment or leverage to get its way in completely different political issues. This undermines the free world market that the West has built together.

   ● Sanctions: The US has a tradition of imposing sanctions that also affect European companies (so-called “secondary sanctions”). This is perceived as an attack on the sovereignty of allies and their right to pursue their own trade policies.

3. Ideological and democratic instability

There is growing concern that the US's internal political divisions pose a threat to stability in the West.

Elena Panina
Елена Панина (Telegram)

Britain’s foreign minister said Wednesday in an interview with the European edition of Politico on January 14:

■  It should be noted that the British military was involved in the January 7 seizure by the Americans of the Russian-flagged supertanker Marinera. London provided Poseidon MRA-1 patrol aircraft and a supply vessel. She promised "stronger action" to reinforce the U.S. "chokehold" on the [Russian] "shadow fleet." At the same time, she did not rule out the possibility of British troops landing on these ships:

Cooper also allowed the use of oil seized from ships to finance military operations in Ukraine. However, she warned that this prospect differs from the use of frozen Russian assets to finance Ukraine.

Evgeny Yushchuk
Евгений Ющук. Новости

The Greenland Defence Agreement of April 27, 1951, is a unique treaty, still in force today, concluded between the United States and Denmark at the height of the Cold War "to counter the Soviet threat through the Arctic."

Although formally signed "within the framework of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization" (NATO), it is essentially a bilateral agreement that grants the United States the exclusive right to establish and use military bases indefinitely throughout Greenland.

The key facility was the strategic Thule Air Base, which continues to play a critical role in the missile warning system and in ensuring North American security.

Legally, the treaty is closely tied to NATO, which determines its unique dynamics. As Danish Defence Minister L.L. Rasmussen noted, changes within the alliance itself could serve as grounds for renegotiating the agreement, but the reverse—the impact of the treaty's abrogation on NATO membership—is unlikely.

Denmark has consistently insisted that the treaty cannot be terminated unilaterally; doing so requires the mutual consent of the United States, Denmark, and, increasingly, the Greenland Home Rule Government.

However, the United States could, in theory, withdraw unilaterally by giving Denmark 12 months' notice, in accordance with international law.

Such a hypothetical attempt at denunciation by the United States (for example, as part of a review of its commitments) would create serious political complications on several levels:

Moon of Alabama
Moon of Alabama (Blog)

[First, a comment by Another World Is Possible:]

🔺What are legitimate targets in war? It seems to us that a distinction should be made between civilian infrastructure on the one hand and institutions, military positions plus military gear on the other. More importantly, there should be one between civilians and military personnel.

🔺A big problem here is the degree to which civilian and military infrastructure are interrelated. In such situations, then what do you do? Is the bombing of power stations legitimate?

🔺The darkening of Kyiv is holding a population hostage to its rulers. The threadbare, unsupported theory here basically is that a cold, hungry population then rises up and overthrows the hated regime. To our knowledge, this has never happened anywhere.

🔺In our view, the civilian population is always sacrosanct, and their needs must go first. To bomb their much-needed supply of electricity is not OK. Not in Ukraine, not in Yugoslavia, not in Palestine, nor anywhere else. We generally support the Russian special operation, but depriving Ukrainian civilians of electricity in wintry conditions is taking it a step too far. We’re not OK with it. – Editor

                                                                                 ♠ ♠ ♠

NATO doctrine holds that the side in a war that has severe trouble with its infrastructure has choices to make.

Electricity and heating supplies in Ukraine have stopped in large parts of the country. Kyiv had already been on scheduled blackouts in which groups of consumers received, for example, four hours of electricity, only to be cut off for eight hours. That scheduling has ended. The blackout has become permanent.

Over several weeks, Russian attacks had isolated Kyiv's electricity supply from the rest of the country. It then attacked generating stations within the city. There is now less than 10% of the electricity supply available than the city would normally use. Public lighting has been shut down as much as possible. Factories have closed down. Schools and Universities are on prolonged holidays. Many shops have closed because running their private generators costs more than they can make while open.

George Samuelson
Strategic Culture Foundation

If Mrs. Good was a “domestic terrorist,” then the United States is a breeding ground of all those millions of “terrorists” who drive around town with their families inside of SUVs.

Americans took to the streets over the weekend in over 1,000 protests across the country to demand justice for a mother who was shot dead by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

Renee Nicole Good was your typical suburban American. She was the mother of three children and liked to write poetry. But on January 7, her life was cut tragically short when she was shot in the head by an ICE agent, yet another tragedy that has sharply divided the nation. The protesters insist that Good was unjustly killed, and the visual evidence of the incident strongly supports that argument.

Good was seen on video blocking a neighborhood street with her SUV. While that is certainly grounds for law enforcement to arrive on the scene, what happened in the course of action defies logic. As two ICE agents approach the vehicle, no attempt to calmly converse with Good was seen. Instead, one of the agents grabs the door handle and aggressively demanded that Good exit the vehicle. Obviously scared by the encounter, Good made a fatal decision as she attempted to flee the scene. This caused the second officer, who was standing off to the left in front of the vehicle, to open fire at the windshield with three bullets, hitting Good in the head and killing her instantly.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

Building more facilities there to complement Pituffik Space Base would further the US’ “Golden Dome” missile defense plans for obtaining a strategic edge over Russia while extracting more critical minerals from there would reduce dependence on vulnerable Chinese supply chains.

Trump recently reaffirmed his intent to annex Greenland on the pretext that this would supposedly preempt China or Russia from invading NATO member Denmark’s autonomous territory.

Many believe that his main motivation, however, is to obtain control over what’s estimated to be the world’s second-largest reserve of critical minerals. The Daily Mail then reported that the US itself is actually planning on invading the world’s largest island, not China or Russia, who Denmark doesn’t consider to pose a threat.

Amidst this news, Bloomberg reported that “UK, Germany Talk NATO Forces in Greenland to Calm US Threat” ostensibly with the intent of deterring the US even though it’s extremely unlikely that they’d fight it over Greenland just like it was earlier assessed that France wouldn’t either.

Elena Panina
Елена Панина (Telegram)

CEPA (USA): Consequences of the Seizure of a Russian Tanker Could Be Extremely Dangerous for Everyone

The US Navy's "thrilling pursuit" of a Russian "shadow fleet" tanker in the North Atlantic may be considered by some in the West a reputational defeat for Moscow, but the consequences of this success for Washington (and London) could be far-reaching. This, oddly enough, is what the foreign agents Andrei Soldatov and Irina Borogan, of the Washington-based Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA, undesirable in Russia), write about.

■ The authors recall that the Marinera incident was the most high-profile, but far from the first, episode in a spiral of escalating conflicts at sea. In April 2025, Estonian authorities detained the Djibouti-flagged tanker Kiwala. In October, French special forces boarded the same vessel, which had by then been renamed Boracay and reflagged under the Benin flag. At the end of December, Sweden detained the Russian cargo ship Adler, which had departed from St. Petersburg. Finland also detained the oil tanker Eagle S... From this, CEPA analysts draw a logical conclusion: the stakes in the game surrounding Russia's "shadow fleet" are constantly rising. However, the West shouldn't rejoice too much. "The widespread belief that the Russian Navy will always retreat in the event of a conflict is a dangerous misconception. NATO countries will almost certainly board Russian vessels more frequently now, and at some point, Russian forces will eventually appear nearby. There is a risk of an unintended and extremely dangerous confrontation," CEPA warns. They point out that the Russian corvette Boykiy already escorted two sanctioned tankers through the English Channel this summer.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

Here’s the English version of the interview that I gave to Müstəqil’s Sahile Cabbarova about the latest US-Iranian tensions.

Trump’s statements suggest that his administration expects the latest protests to weaken the Iranian government and possibly serve as the “publicly plausible” pretext for another round of American and/or Israeli strikes on the country.

Many observers assess that the US and Israel got the best of Iran during last summer’s 12-Day War and that its air defenses were greatly damaged. If that’s true, then another round of strikes could advance their strategic agenda there.

The questions for observers to ask are whether this is an accurate assessment; whether each or both have the political will to endure Iranian retaliation; and the extent to which non-state actors and/or neighboring states could exploit the strikes afterwards.

Evgeny Fedorov
Top War

Trump's first case | From the very beginning of Donald Trump's reign, the entire world heard a relentless stream of promises and threats. The annexation of Greenland, nationalization of the Panama Canal, resolving the Ukraine crisis in a single day, and much, much more. The threats against Venezuela, frankly, seemed like yet another bravado from the aging US president. The most pessimistic predicted symbolic strikes on Caracas, similar to the bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities. They said Trump would strike Venezuela and declare the job done—there would be no more drug trafficking. Optimists hoped for a gradual escalation.

Sooner or later, Trump was bound to forget the hated Nicolás Maduro. Both sides were missing out on a crucial asset: Venezuela's gigantic oil reserves. Caracas controlled 18 percent of the world's oil. As we see from the results of January 3, it controlled it extremely poorly. Trump needs Venezuelan oil for many reasons. Firstly, he believes it's entirely American. Hugo Chávez nationalized the industry at one point, effectively expelling Americans from the country. Secondly, control of a country with the world's largest oil reserves is a very important foreign policy asset. Almost all American wars have been started over hydrocarbons, and the attack on Caracas was no exception.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

The “Trump Doctrine” is all about the US’ continued military overmatch vis-à-vis China together with placing the US in a position where it can complementarily deny China access to the energy and markets that it requires to maintain its growth and thus its superpower trajectory.

Trump 2.0’s grand strategy has become much clearer over the past month since the US bombed ISIS in Nigeria on Christmas, executed its astoundingly successful “special military operation” in Venezuela, and is now threatening new strikes against Iran on the pretext of supporting anti-government protesters. What these three states have in common is their important roles in the global energy industry, whether present or potential (due to sanctions-related limitations), and in China’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI).

Accordingly, coercing those countries into subordinating themselves to the US (whether by tariffs, force, subversion, etc.) would result in Trump 2.0 obtaining influence over their energy exports and trade ties, which could be weaponized to pressure China.

What the US wants from China is for it to agree to a lopsided trade deal that would then be replicated with the EU and the US’ other partners for, as the new National Security Strategy states, “rebalanc[ing] China’s economy towards household consumption”.