Category: World

The recent Canadian election has underlined the widening rifts among the country’s different regions, with voting patterns showing stark contrasts in political preference. A shift in support from smaller parties toward the dominant Liberal and Conservative camps has defined the election outcome, suggesting that many voters have consolidated around the major political players amid an increasingly polarized environment.

In Western Canada, the majority of parliamentary seats have turned Conservative blue. The oil-producing provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan have long harbored feelings of alienation from decision-makers in Ottawa. This sentiment was echoed by many voters in the region, who expressed frustration that the Liberal government appeared more concerned with U.S. affairs than with addressing domestic priorities. This ongoing discontent is so pronounced that it has even led to some voices calling for secession from the rest of Canada. The re-election of a Liberal government, which secured very few seats in these western provinces, could intensify those separatist sentiments.

The New Democratic Party (NDP), which has historical roots in Saskatchewan, has faced a significant electoral setback, marking its worst performance since 1993. Analysts and voters alike point to the party’s continued support for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s struggling administration as a key factor in this defeat. Furthermore, some individuals in Western Canada believe that potential NDP voters may have strategically cast their ballots for the Liberals in a bid to block a Conservative victory, thus weakening the NDP’s final tally.

Meanwhile, in Quebec, the long-standing debate over independence remains a potent undercurrent in the province’s political landscape. Despite this, voters in Quebec appear to have largely supported the Liberals, especially in light of hostile rhetoric from U.S. President Donald Trump. Many Quebecois, though traditionally open to discussions around sovereignty, seem to have opted for stability and national unity in the face of perceived external threats.

Émilie Foster, an adjunct professor of politics at Carleton University, told the BBC last week, “We prefer to be part of Canada instead of being part of the United States, if we have to choose.” Her statement reflects the provincial mood of choosing national solidarity over an uncertain future, particularly when considering geopolitical dynamics with the United States.

Despite these significant regional dynamics, the election campaign has done little to shed light on the pressing concerns of Canada’s Indigenous communities, especially those in the northern territories. While the national conversation has been heavily focused on topics related to Donald Trump and Canada’s positioning in the global landscape, northern Indigenous voters are grappling with immediate and longstanding challenges.

For many in Canada’s remote northern areas, the priority issues include access to nutritious food, clean drinking water, reliable transportation, and the development of essential infrastructure. These practical concerns, however, were largely absent from the mainstream election discourse, leaving northern voters uncertain about whether their communities’ needs will be prioritized in the new political term.

Although the major political parties were busy consolidating their power in the larger urban centers and affluent regions, the northern territories—home to many Indigenous populations—were left feeling disconnected from the national political narrative. Residents there continue to experience higher costs for basic goods, poor water quality in several communities, and inadequate infrastructure, such as roads and healthcare facilities.

While the Conservatives gained considerable ground in Western Canada, and the Liberals retained support in parts of Ontario and Quebec, the northern territories remained on the fringes of political engagement. This has led to skepticism among Indigenous leaders, who are now questioning whether the incoming government will finally prioritize meaningful action on these vital local concerns.

To summarize, the Canadian election results tell a story not just of shifting political allegiances but also of deeply entrenched regional disparities. In the west, feelings of exclusion and resentment continue to grow, potentially feeding separatist ideologies. In Quebec, historical calls for independence have been momentarily sidelined in favor of preserving national unity amid turbulent U.S.-Canada relations. Meanwhile, in the north, Indigenous communities remain worried that their everyday struggles will once again be overshadowed by broader political narratives that do not reflect their lived realities.

As Canadians look ahead to a new government, the question remains whether leaders in Ottawa will seriously engage with the country’s diverse regional voices—or continue to overlook them. The outcome of this election has made one thing clear: Canada is not one unified political entity, but a patchwork of regions, each with its own set of priorities, frustrations, and hopes for the future.

The intensifying trade war between the United States and China has entered a perilous stage, with soaring tariffs leading to widespread economic damage and turbulence in global markets. Among the industries suffering most is international tourism, now caught in the crossfire of policy shifts and aggressive tariff increases. The escalating dispute is not only reshaping trade dynamics but also significantly disrupting air travel, hospitality, and consumer spending linked to global tourism. With the U.S. and China—two of the world’s economic giants—locked in an economic standoff, the broader travel industry is grappling with heightened costs and plummeting demand.

The latest twist in the trade war sees the U.S. threatening to hike tariffs on Chinese imports to a stunning 104%. This move, while aimed at economic leverage, has triggered consequences far beyond trade, affecting airlines, cruise lines, tech firms, and hotels. These industries now face severe uncertainty as supply chains tighten and operating costs rise. The travel ecosystem, heavily reliant on cross-border mobility and stable economic relations, is particularly vulnerable to this conflict.

The travel sector is already witnessing a pullback in global mobility, driven by rising costs and lowered demand. Chinese tourists, among the top international travelers, are beginning to rethink trips to the U.S. as tariffs increase the price of goods and services tied to travel. Major American cities such as New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, which rely significantly on Chinese tourism, could see sharp declines in international visitors. Higher costs on items like electronics—popular purchases among tourists—further discourage travel.

“US states including New York, Michigan, California, Nevada, Florida, and more face tourism declines due to Trump’s tariffs,” as industry observers note, highlighting the widespread economic implications.

Meanwhile, American travelers eyeing China are similarly dissuaded by inflated prices on goods and services caused by reciprocal tariffs. As duties on travel-related products like smartphones, luggage, and apparel increase, international travel becomes less appealing. This drop in tourism between the U.S. and China, once one of the most profitable travel routes, could deal a major blow to airlines, hotels, and tour operators.

In response, travel agencies are adjusting their marketing approaches, shifting attention to regions less impacted by trade tensions. Long-haul flights and cruise packages between the U.S. and China, now more expensive, are facing diminished demand.

The airline industry, too, is under pressure. U.S. carriers could see significant hikes in operating costs due to tariffs on Chinese aircraft parts, including avionics and engines. These increased costs are expected to translate into higher ticket prices, affecting consumer demand. Airlines heavily dependent on U.S.-China routes—such as American, Delta, and United—are especially vulnerable, as weakening demand for both business and leisure travel could shrink revenues.

Airfares for international flights are already under strain from inflation and surging fuel prices. Tariffs add a new layer of financial pressure. Budget airlines may attract more cost-conscious travelers, but their own narrow profit margins make survival in this environment difficult.

The technology sector, at the center of the trade war, is also disrupting travel. Tariffs on Chinese electronics mean travelers can expect to pay more for tech gadgets such as smartphones, cameras, and laptops—tools that are essential for modern travel. “The cost of travel-related tech products like smartphones, cameras, laptops, and GPS devices could skyrocket,” experts warn, pointing out that both leisure and business travelers will be hit.

Airlines, cruise companies, and hotels depend on affordable electronics for operations—like digital check-ins, in-flight entertainment, and mobile booking systems. As costs rise, these services may become less accessible or more expensive, directly impacting the travel experience. Chinese tech firms like Huawei, Xiaomi, and Lenovo are central suppliers of such equipment, and higher tariffs could severely strain the hospitality sector’s ability to maintain services.

For the cruise industry, the trade war brings both supply chain issues and escalating costs. Tariffs on Chinese-made materials used in shipbuilding and maintenance can lead to construction delays and pricier cruises. As cruise lines struggle with increased expenses, they’re likely to pass these onto consumers, discouraging bookings and reducing passenger volume. “With fewer deals on cruise vacations, travelers could opt for land-based travel,” a shift that would cut deeply into cruise revenues.

Chinese tourists—a rapidly growing customer base for cruises—may be especially affected. The increased costs and travel deterrents from tariffs make it less likely that they’ll book cruises in North America, further dampening industry prospects.

Hotels are similarly burdened. Rising prices caused by tariffs and a weakening Chinese economy have prompted tourists to reconsider travel plans, especially to major U.S. cities where Chinese visitors usually spend big. At the same time, hotels that rely on Chinese imports for furniture, electronics, and other essentials now face increased costs, pushing room rates higher.

“As more tourism-dependent cities face rising prices for accommodations and diminished demand, the hotel industry will experience a downturn,” market analysts predict.

Across travel, tech, cruise, and hotel sectors, the long-term pain is just beginning. Businesses are being forced to rethink strategies as costs climb and customers pull back. As tariffs alter supply chains and reduce affordability, travel will likely become more expensive and less predictable. The 104% tariff on Chinese imports now being considered threatens to choke off critical supplies—especially electronics—used throughout the travel industry.

Global markets are reeling from the economic uncertainty this trade war has unleashed. Stock markets are down, currencies are fluctuating, and financial forecasts have turned grim. Asian economies, heavily reliant on exports, are particularly exposed, and nations like Vietnam and Cambodia are bracing for additional fallout. As Chinese exports to the U.S. shrink, other countries fear secondary effects on their own tourism sectors.

“The result? Less disposable income for consumers, fewer international tourists, and a prolonged period of economic volatility,” say industry experts. Smartphone prices, for example, are surging, which could reduce the use of travel apps and disrupt digital services that many tourism companies depend on.

The mounting instability is leading investors to back away from tourism-related stocks, anticipating long-term damage. With global travelers hesitant to spend, tourism operators are seeing a sharp decline in bookings, particularly in Asia and Europe.

China’s retaliation—already involving tariffs up to 34%—has further clouded the outlook for U.S. tourism. Chinese tourists, who make up a large portion of foreign spending in the U.S., are now less likely to visit. Major cities that depend on these travelers face significant revenue losses. Additional barriers, such as stricter visa and customs policies, only add to the deterrent.

Tourism professionals are preparing for a new reality where the intersection of geopolitics and economics continues to dictate business outcomes. “With increased tariffs, uncertainty, and economic pain affecting both consumers and businesses alike, the global tourism industry faces a turbulent road ahead,” notes a senior travel strategist.

The conflict between the U.S. and China is more than a trade dispute—it’s a global economic event reshaping tourism. With both countries locked in a power struggle over market share, tourism becomes collateral damage in a fight that shows no signs of ending. The global travel industry must now adapt to survive, with cost pressures mounting, consumer confidence wavering, and long-term stability increasingly out of reach.

For now, the only certainty is that uncertainty will persist—and the travel world may never look quite the same again.

US President Donald Trump has implemented a series of tariffs—import taxes—on billions of dollars’ worth of goods entering the country.

On Wednesday, Trump declared a national economic emergency, announcing that all imported goods would face a minimum tariff of 10%. For nations he considers the “worst offenders,” the tariffs could be as high as 50%. The 10% tariffs are set to take effect on April 5, while the higher rates will be implemented on April 9.

Currently, Canada and Mexico are exempt from these tariffs, though both nations—along with China—were already subject to certain trade restrictions. Additionally, the Trump administration has expanded existing tariffs on steel and aluminum to include beer and empty cans, which could significantly impact Canada and Mexico.

Furthermore, beginning Thursday, a 25% tariff on imported automobiles will be enforced, while tariffs on specific car parts will roll out in May or later.

Economists have cautioned that these tariffs, along with retaliatory measures from other countries, could lead to higher prices for American consumers. The reason is that the tax is levied on the domestic company importing the goods. These businesses may choose to pass the costs onto customers or reduce imports, leading to lower availability of products.

Potential Price Hikes

Automobiles

The US imported approximately eight million vehicles last year, amounting to around $240 billion in trade.

Experts predict that these new tariffs could raise the price of new cars by several thousand dollars. In December, the average price of a new car in the US reached a record $49,738, according to Cox Automotive. Increased demand for used cars may also push their prices up.

Even vehicles manufactured in the US are expected to become more expensive. Many American automakers operate plants in Canada and Mexico, taking advantage of longstanding free trade agreements. Car parts often cross borders multiple times before a vehicle is fully assembled.

Although tariffs on car parts from Canada and Mexico are currently exempt, US customs and border patrol officials are working on a system to assess these duties.

According to the Anderson Economic Group, tariffs on car components from Canada and Mexico alone could raise costs by approximately $4,000 to $10,000, depending on the vehicle. While experts argue that these costs will likely be transferred to consumers, Trump has stated he “couldn’t care less” if prices rise, believing this move will encourage Americans to buy domestically made cars.

Alcoholic Beverages: Beer, Whiskey, and Tequila

Popular Mexican beer brands like Modelo and Corona may become more expensive for American consumers if importers pass on the additional costs.

Modelo and other foreign beer brands will also be affected by the expanded aluminum tariff, which will now apply to canned beer starting April 4. The Beer Institute reports that 64.1% of beer consumed in the US comes from cans.

In a joint statement, representatives from the American, Canadian, and Mexican spirits industries highlighted that beverages such as bourbon, Tennessee whiskey, tequila, and Canadian whisky “can only be produced in their designated countries.”

Since these alcoholic beverages must be made in specific regions, supply shortages could drive up prices.

Trump has also suggested imposing a 200% tariff on European alcohol imports, which could increase the price of Spanish wine, French champagne, and German beer in the US. However, it remains unclear whether this proposal will be enacted.

Housing Costs

A significant portion of the softwood lumber used in US home construction—about one-third—is imported from Canada.

Trump has downplayed concerns, stating that the US has “more lumber than we ever use.”

However, the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) has voiced serious concerns about how tariffs on lumber could raise home-building costs. Given that most American homes are built using wood, higher lumber prices may deter new construction.

“Consumers end up paying for the tariffs in the form of higher home prices,” the NAHB warned.

Imports from other countries may also be impacted.

On March 1, Trump initiated an investigation into whether additional tariffs should be placed on lumber and timber imports from all nations or whether the US should incentivize domestic production. A report on the findings is expected by late 2025.

Maple Syrup

Canada dominates the global maple syrup market, accounting for 75% of worldwide production.

Around 90% of the syrup is produced in Quebec, which has maintained a strategic reserve for over two decades.

“That maple syrup is going to become more expensive. And that’s a direct price increase that households will face,” said Thomas Sampson of the London School of Economics.

“If I buy goods that are domestically produced in the US, but [which use] inputs from Canada, the price of those goods is also going to go up,” he added.

Fuel Prices

Canada is the largest foreign supplier of crude oil to the US.

Between January and November 2024, 61% of imported oil came from Canada, according to the latest trade data.

Although most imported goods from Canada are subject to a 25% tariff, Canadian energy products face a lower rate of 10%.

While the US has ample oil reserves, its refineries are optimized for processing heavier crude oil, which is primarily sourced from Canada and, to a lesser extent, Mexico.

“Many refineries need heavier crude oil to maximize flexibility of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel production,” the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers stated.

If Canada retaliates by reducing crude oil exports to the US, fuel prices could rise.

Avocados

Mexico provides nearly 90% of the avocados consumed in the US.

The US Department of Agriculture has warned that tariffs on Mexican fruits and vegetables could drive up the cost of avocados, potentially making dishes like guacamole more expensive.

President Donald Trump and his economic advisers are set to outline his “reciprocal tariff” strategy on Wednesday, April 2. As Trump announced on social media, “I have decided, for purposes of Fairness, that I will charge a RECIPROCAL Tariff meaning, whatever Countries charge the United States of America, we will charge them – No more, no less!” However, many trade experts remain skeptical of this approach.

Brookings Panel to Discuss Trade Policy

On Thursday, April 3, the Economic Studies program at the Brookings Institution will host a panel discussion analyzing Trump’s latest trade and tariff policies. The panel will feature:

• Sarah Bianchi, former deputy U.S. trade representative
• Mary Lovely, Anthony M. Solomon senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics
• Kelly Ann Shaw, deputy assistant to the president for international economic affairs in Trump’s first administration

The discussion will be moderated by Ana Swanson of The New York Times, with an audience Q&A session following the panel.

The event is expected to provide insight into the potential economic consequences of the reciprocal tariff strategy and whether it could escalate trade tensions or benefit American industries.

Vice President J.D. Vance stated on Friday that the United States is unlikely to use military force in President Donald Trump’s pursuit of acquiring Greenland. Speaking from Pituffik Space Base, a key American military installation in northwestern Greenland, Vance emphasized that the U.S. respects the island’s sovereignty despite Trump’s repeated assertions that the territory should belong to the United States.

“We do not think military force is ever going to be necessary,” Vance said in response to a question about potential military plans to take control of Greenland. “What we think is going to happen is that the Greenlanders are going to choose, through self-determination, to become independent of Denmark, and then we’re going to have conversations with the people of Greenland from there.”

The comments come as Trump continues to argue that Greenland is crucial to U.S. security interests. His concerns range from Russia’s access to the Arctic to China’s increasing influence in the region.

“We need Greenland for international security. We have to have Greenland,” Trump said in remarks from the White House on Friday.

Vance, however, shifted some of the focus to Denmark’s role in securing Greenland, claiming that the Danish government has failed to adequately protect the strategically important territory.

“The Danes have not done their job in keeping this area safe,” Vance said.

Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, has firmly resisted Trump’s interest in acquiring it. The Danish government has repeatedly stated that Greenland is not for sale, and officials in Copenhagen strongly criticized Vance’s visit.

Vance clarified that the U.S. has no plans to expand its military presence on the island and suggested that any changes in security arrangements would be coordinated with Nuuk, Greenland’s capital.

“We hope that they choose to partner with the United States because we’re the only nation on Earth that will respect their sovereignty and respect their security,” he said.

Greenland’s Political Landscape

Greenland’s recent elections reflect little appetite for a quick break from Denmark. The Demokraatit party, which advocates a long-term path toward independence rather than an abrupt split, won the March election.

Public sentiment in Greenland appears largely against Trump’s proposal, and attitudes toward the U.S. among the island’s 57,000 residents have reached a low point.

This growing tension led to the White House canceling a planned “heritage” tour of Greenland. The visit, originally set for Second Lady Usha Vance, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, and Energy Secretary Chris Wright, was scrapped after officials in Nuuk and Copenhagen pushed back strongly. Greenlandic officials also showed little enthusiasm for hosting the American delegation.

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen welcomed the White House’s decision to cancel the heritage tour, calling it a “positive” move that respected Greenlandic sentiment. However, he noted there was no objection to American officials visiting the Pituffik base, which has long been a U.S. military outpost.

U.S. Presence in Greenland

Vance’s visit to northern Greenland provided a rare opportunity to highlight the American military’s presence in one of the world’s harshest environments. Pituffik Space Base, located 750 miles north of the Arctic Circle, serves as a key front line in missile defense, early-warning systems, and space surveillance.

The vice president received an extensive briefing on Arctic security from military personnel stationed at the base. The extreme conditions became apparent upon his arrival, as temperatures hovered at minus 3 degrees Fahrenheit.

“It’s cold as s‑‑‑ here. Nobody told me,” Vance remarked after joining U.S. Space Force Guardians for lunch.

In addition to serious discussions on security, Vance was introduced to some of the unusual traditions upheld by service members at the base. One such tradition is the polar plunge, where participants dive into the frigid Arctic waters. Those who complete the challenge receive a certificate acknowledging their bravery—or as some jokingly call it, a “certificate for stupidity.”

Vance took the opportunity to share a lighthearted moment with the troops, joking about the challenge.

“And let it be known that this task of questionable sanity was accomplished despite near-freezing temperatures, the threat of collapsing icebergs, and lusty seals,” he quipped.

The Signal Chat Controversy

Vance’s trip to Greenland also took place against the backdrop of a controversy surrounding his involvement in a sensitive text chain. The vice president has come under scrutiny for participating in a Signal group chat in which officials discussed classified details about a planned military strike in Yemen.

The chat became a major scandal after it was revealed that a journalist had inadvertently been included in the group. Critics argue that the discussion may have put classified military information at risk.

Vance attempted to downplay the controversy, assuring reporters that an internal investigation is underway. However, he made it clear that no one would face termination over the incident.

“President Trump has said on Monday, on Tuesday, on Wednesday, on Thursday, and I’m the vice president saying it here on Friday, we are standing behind our entire national security team,” Vance stated.

The investigation’s findings are expected to be released “soon,” according to the vice president.

Tensions Over U.S.-Greenland Relations

The Trump administration’s push to establish greater U.S. influence in Greenland has generated friction with Denmark, which has historically controlled the island. In recent years, Washington has increased its diplomatic and economic outreach to Greenland, viewing it as a critical asset in Arctic geopolitics.

Despite these efforts, Greenlanders remain skeptical of Trump’s ambitions. Greenland’s economy and governance remain deeply tied to Denmark, and there is little indication that its population supports closer ties with the U.S. at the expense of its autonomy.

Trump’s repeated declarations that Greenland should be part of the United States have only fueled further resentment. His administration has previously floated ideas such as investing in infrastructure and economic development projects on the island, but these proposals have been met with mixed reactions.

With tensions between Copenhagen, Nuuk, and Washington continuing to simmer, Vance’s trip to Greenland was seen as a diplomatic attempt to balance Trump’s aggressive rhetoric with a more measured approach. However, his visit did little to quell the controversy surrounding the U.S. administration’s stance on Greenland’s future.

As Trump and his allies continue to push for greater U.S. influence in the Arctic, it remains to be seen how Greenland’s leadership and its people will respond. For now, Denmark remains firmly in control, and Greenlanders show little interest in Trump’s vision for the island’s future.

Russia and Ukraine have signaled their commitment to halting hostilities in the Black Sea, but it remains uncertain whether an agreement will take effect soon—if at all.

Moscow attached a significant condition to the deal, stating it would comply only if restrictions on its agricultural exports were lifted. The penalties, imposed by the United States and the European Union, would require a complex negotiation process to reverse.

Additionally, Kyiv and Moscow appear to have differing interpretations of the U.S.-brokered agreement announced on Tuesday. While Russia views the deal as a means to revive a 2022 U.N.-backed accord granting it control over commercial shipping in the Black Sea, Ukraine has insisted it will not allow the Russian Navy back into the western Black Sea, its primary maritime trade route.

Violations and Mistrust Persist

The deep-seated mistrust between the two nations was evident on Wednesday as both sides accused each other of breaching the truce. Ukraine reported an attack on its port city of Mykolaiv, while Moscow claimed to have shot down two Ukrainian drones over the Black Sea.

Russia’s demands indicate that it is in no rush to end the conflict. With a sympathetic administration in the White House and the upper hand on the battlefield, Moscow appears determined to extract maximum concessions before considering a cease-fire.

Russia’s Conditions for Compliance

The Kremlin has made clear that it will not agree to the cease-fire unless its state agriculture bank and other financial institutions involved in food and fertilizer trade are reconnected to the international payment system, Swift.

Given that Swift is headquartered in Belgium, the U.S. would have to convince European regulators to approve such a move. The White House has stated that it will “help restore Russia’s access to the world market for agricultural and fertilizer exports.”

Moscow is also demanding that Western companies resume deliveries of agricultural equipment to Russia and that sanctions on its food and fertilizer companies, shipping vessels, and insurers be lifted.

Despite sanctions, Russia’s agricultural exports remain strong. The country’s grain and fertilizer trade reached $45 billion in 2023, and it continues to export record-high volumes, according to Andrei Sizov, director of the Russian consultancy SovEcon.

Some experts warn that lifting sanctions on a Russian state bank could allow the Kremlin to bypass broader financial restrictions. “The minute you have a sanctions-free bank, you can use it for whatever you want,” said Aleksandr Kolyandr, a Russia analyst at the Center for European Policy Analysis. “It can be an instrument to crack the sanctions regime, but it is much easier to monitor just one bank.”

Ukraine’s Skepticism

While Kyiv has agreed to the maritime cease-fire, it remains wary of Moscow’s intentions.

President Volodymyr Zelensky criticized Russia’s demand for sanctions relief, stating it was “already trying to distort agreements.” He also expressed concerns that the U.S. commitment to facilitating Russian agricultural exports represented “a weakening of positions and a weakening of sanctions.”

With Russia’s demands and the conflicting interpretations of the deal, experts question what Ukraine stands to gain. Notably, the White House has not clarified whether the agreement would protect Ukrainian ports from Russian attacks or lead to the reopening of the ports of Mykolaiv and Kherson—key objectives for Ukraine during negotiations.

Kyiv also has little interest in reviving the 2022 U.N.-backed grain deal that Russia favors. That agreement allowed Ukraine to export grain through a designated Black Sea corridor but also granted Russia the authority to inspect commercial vessels for weapons.

Andrii Klymenko, head of the Black Sea Institute of Strategic Studies, noted that these inspections significantly delayed exports, making the route unprofitable. Since Russia withdrew from the deal, Ukraine has established its own shipping corridor, pushing the Russian Navy out of the western Black Sea and restoring grain exports to near prewar levels.

A Fragile Path Forward

Last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed in a phone conversation with former U.S. President Donald Trump to halt attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure for 30 days. Ukraine, which has advocated for a broader cease-fire, followed suit. Both nations have reaffirmed their commitment to the temporary moratorium on energy strikes.

On Tuesday, the Kremlin outlined which facilities would be protected under the agreement, including refineries, pipelines, storage sites, nuclear plants, hydroelectric dams, and energy transmission infrastructure. However, Russia excluded gas and oil extraction sites—facilities that Ukraine claims have been frequent targets of Russian attacks and that Kyiv had included in its own cease-fire proposal.

The situation underscores Moscow’s strategy of appearing open to negotiations while making minimal concessions.

Ukraine’s Defense Minister Rustem Umerov acknowledged the complexities of the deal, stating on Tuesday that “additional technical consultations” were necessary to effectively implement the energy and maritime cease-fires.

With key details unresolved and both sides skeptical of each other’s commitments, the viability of the cease-fire remains uncertain.

The security landscape of the Western world faces its gravest challenge since the end of World War II, and this shift is likely to be long-term. As one expert notes, “Trumpism will outlast his presidency.” With the U.S. taking a step back, the pressing question is which nations are prepared to assume a leadership role.

In February 1947, at 9:00 AM, Lord Inverchapel, the British ambassador to Washington, entered the U.S. State Department with two critical diplomatic messages printed on blue paper—one concerning Greece and the other Turkey. Britain, financially drained and deeply indebted to the U.S., declared it could no longer support Greek government forces battling a Communist insurgency. Simultaneously, Britain was withdrawing from Palestine and India and reducing its presence in Egypt.

Recognizing the threat of Soviet influence expanding into Greece and potentially Turkey, the U.S. swiftly responded. President Harry Truman proclaimed, “It must be a policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressure.” This policy, known as the Truman Doctrine, cemented the idea that defending democracy abroad aligned with U.S. national interests.

Following this shift, the U.S. launched the Marshall Plan to rebuild European economies and helped establish NATO in 1949 to counter Soviet expansion. This period marked the definitive transfer of Western leadership from Britain to the United States. With its vast economic and military power, the U.S. emerged as the dominant force shaping the post-war world.

For decades, the U.S. played a central role in maintaining global security, but now, the fundamental assumptions behind its foreign policy are being questioned. Donald Trump is the first post-World War II president to challenge America’s global commitments. His stance has created uncertainty about the existing world order and left many wondering what the new one will look like.

A Challenge to the Truman Legacy

Trump’s skepticism of America’s international obligations is not new. Nearly 40 years ago, he placed full-page ads in U.S. newspapers criticizing the country’s military commitments. In 1987, he wrote, “For decades, Japan and other nations have been taking advantage of the United States. Why are these nations not paying the United States for the human lives and billions of dollars we are losing to protect their interests? The world is laughing at America’s politicians as we protect ships we don’t own, carrying oil we don’t need, destined for allies who won’t help.”

This sentiment has persisted into his second term. Recently leaked messages on airstrikes against Yemen’s Houthis revealed administration officials expressing frustration over European reliance on U.S. military action. A message attributed to Vice President J.D. Vance read, “I just hate bailing Europe out again.” In response, another, reportedly from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, stated, “VP: I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC.”

Trump has gone further by embracing Russian President Vladimir Putin. Early in his second term, he informed Russia that Ukraine would not be allowed NATO membership and that he did not expect Ukraine to regain lost territories. Many critics saw this as a strategic blunder, surrendering leverage without securing anything in return.

Some Trump supporters view Putin as an ally in the ideological battle against liberal values, reinforcing the notion that U.S. foreign policy is increasingly shaped by domestic culture wars. Ed Arnold, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, warns, “The US is becoming divorced from European values. That’s difficult [for Europeans] to swallow because it means that it’s structural, cultural, and potentially long-term. I think the current trajectory of the US will outlast Trump, as a person. I think Trumpism will outlast his presidency.”

NATO’s Article 5 “On Life Support”

Trump’s administration has signaled that the U.S. will no longer be the primary guarantor of European security, insisting that European nations must take responsibility for their own defense. Earlier this month, Trump stated, “If [NATO countries] don’t pay, I’m not going to defend them. No, I’m not going to defend them.”

For nearly 80 years, NATO’s Article 5—stating that an attack on one member is an attack on all—has been the bedrock of European security. While UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer expressed confidence in the U.S. commitment to NATO, others remain skeptical.

Ben Wallace, former UK defense secretary, warned, “I think Article 5 is on life support. If Europe, including the United Kingdom, doesn’t step up to the plate, invest a lot on defense, and take it seriously, it’s potentially the end of the NATO that we know and it’ll be the end of Article 5. Right now, I wouldn’t bet my house that Article 5 would be able to be triggered in the event of a Russian attack… I certainly wouldn’t take for granted that the United States would ride to the rescue.”

Public perception reflects this shift. A French poll by Institut Elabe found that nearly three-quarters of respondents do not consider the U.S. an ally of France. Majorities in traditionally pro-American nations like the UK and Denmark also hold unfavorable views of the U.S. Robert Kagan, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, argues, “The damage Trump has done to NATO is probably irreparable. The alliance relied on an American guarantee that is no longer reliable, to say the least.”

Is the West Fragmenting?

For Russian President Putin, these developments play into his strategy of destabilizing Europe. After Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s unsuccessful meeting with Trump, a Kremlin spokesperson declared, “The fragmentation of the West has begun.”

Armida van Rij of Chatham House echoes this concern: “Russia’s objectives are to destabilize Europe. It is to weaken NATO and get the Americans to withdraw their troops from here. And at the moment, you could go ‘tick, tick, and almost tick.'”

Meanwhile, European defense spending has dwindled. The UK, for example, has cut its military budget by nearly 70% since the Cold War peak. Wallace laments, “We had a big budget [during the Cold War] and we took a peace dividend… The problem is we went from a peace dividend to corporate raiding. [Defense] just became the go-to department to take money from. And that is where we just forgot the lessons of our history.”

Germany’s Chancellor-in-waiting, Friedrich Merz, has called for a Europe independent of the U.S. But building an autonomous European military-industrial complex remains a complex challenge. Ian Bond of the Centre for European Reform notes, “The further west you go, the more problematic it becomes until you get to Spain and Italy.”

A New World Order?

Historian Timothy Garton Ash identifies key military assets that only the U.S. currently provides: “The satellites, the intelligence, the Patriot air defense batteries, which are the only ones that can take down Russian ballistic missiles.” He argues that within five years, Europe should develop its own capabilities to replace U.S. support.

Van Rij acknowledges that while European defense autonomy is necessary, “what’s really difficult are the divisions within Europe on how to actually do this and whether to actually do this.”

Trump’s vision appears to favor a world where major powers dictate terms to weaker nations, akin to the spheres of influence system of the Cold War era. The uncertainty surrounding U.S. commitments has left Europe facing a pivotal decision: unite, invest in defense, and maintain independence—or risk becoming subordinate to larger global powers.

Greenland’s political leaders have strongly criticized upcoming high-profile U.S. visits following President Donald Trump’s renewed remarks about taking over the island.

Second Lady Usha Vance is set to visit Greenland this week for a cultural tour, while National Security Adviser Mike Waltz is also expected to travel there with Energy Secretary Chris Wright. However, outgoing Greenlandic Prime Minister Mute Egede has described the visits as aggressive and noted that neither official was invited for meetings. Jens-Frederik Nielsen, the likely next leader of Greenland, accused the U.S. of showing disrespect toward the island’s population.

U.S. Interest in Greenland

Greenland, the world’s largest island, has been under Danish control for about 300 years. While it manages its domestic affairs, foreign and defense policies remain under Copenhagen’s authority. The U.S. has long maintained a strategic interest in Greenland and has operated a military base on the island since World War II. Trump has also expressed interest in Greenland’s rare earth minerals, and his son, Donald Trump Jr., visited the island before his father’s inauguration in January.

Announcing Vance’s visit, the White House stated that she would attend Greenland’s national dogsled race, the Avannaata Qimussersu, and visit historical sites to “celebrate Greenlandic culture and unity.” Meanwhile, Waltz’s trip was confirmed by a source speaking to CBS News, with reports suggesting he would arrive before Vance.

Egede viewed Waltz’s visit as a deliberate provocation. “What is the security adviser doing in Greenland? The only purpose is to show a demonstration of power to us,” he told Greenlandic newspaper Sermitsiaq. Nielsen echoed these concerns, saying the visits demonstrated a lack of respect for Greenlanders.

Trump’s Push for U.S. Control

The tensions follow Trump’s recent remarks about Greenland’s future. In a conversation with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte earlier this month, Trump implied that he might pursue U.S. control over Greenland with NATO’s backing. “You know, Mark, we need that for international security… we have a lot of our favorite players cruising around the coast, and we have to be careful,” he said. “We’ll be talking to you.” When asked about the possibility of annexation, Trump responded, “I think that will happen.”

Greenland’s political parties swiftly condemned Trump’s statements, calling them “unacceptable behavior.” The issue became central to Greenland’s recent elections, in which Egede’s governing Inuit Ataqatigiit party lost unexpectedly to Nielsen’s Democratic party, which advocates for gradual independence from Denmark.

In a speech to the U.S. Congress earlier this month, Trump claimed he supported Greenland’s right to self-determination, stating, “If you choose, we welcome you into the United States of America.” However, polls show that while nearly 80% of Greenlanders favor independence from Denmark, an even larger majority opposes becoming part of the U.S.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has agreed to pause strikes on Ukraine’s energy and infrastructure facilities following a lengthy conversation with former U.S. President Donald Trump. However, Moscow has not committed to a broader ceasefire, keeping the overall conflict active.

In another development, the Trump administration has made public a set of records linked to the assassination of John F. Kennedy, which were previously classified. While a large portion of these files had already been disclosed in the past, many of the newly released 1,123 documents had been redacted in earlier versions. Researchers will need time to thoroughly examine and assess their contents.

Meanwhile, a federal judge ruled that billionaire Elon Musk had exceeded his executive authority concerning his Department of Government Efficiency. The judge’s decision indefinitely halted efforts to dismantle the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

Additionally, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a rare statement countering Trump’s increasingly critical remarks against the federal judiciary. This response appeared to be directed at Trump’s recent calls to impeach judges who rule against him. Despite Roberts’ pushback, Trump dismissed the criticism without much reaction.

The United States has implemented a 25% tariff on steel and aluminum imports from across the globe.

In response, Canada and the European Union (EU) have introduced tariffs on American goods worth billions of dollars, heightening concerns about a potential global trade war.

President Donald Trump has threatened to impose a 200% tariff on alcohol imports from EU countries unless the bloc removes its “nasty 50% tariff on whisky.”

Additionally, Trump has already imposed 25% tariffs on various imports from Mexico and Canada, with some exceptions, as well as a 20% levy on goods from China.

Understanding Tariffs and Their Impact

Tariffs are taxes applied to goods imported from foreign countries.

Importing companies pay these taxes to the government.

Tariffs are usually calculated as a percentage of a product’s value. For example, a 20% tariff on Chinese goods means that an item valued at $10 (£7.76) incurs an additional $2 charge.

Businesses may choose to pass on some or all of the tariff costs to consumers.

Historically, the U.S. has maintained lower tariffs on imported goods than many other nations.

However, economists fear that Trump’s new tariffs, along with additional levies he has suggested could take effect on April 2, may drive up consumer prices both in the U.S. and globally.

Trump’s Justification for Tariffs

Tariffs play a key role in Trump’s economic strategy.

He argues that they will strengthen U.S. manufacturing, safeguard jobs, generate tax revenue, and stimulate domestic economic growth.

He also aims to correct America’s trade imbalance by reducing the gap between imports and exports with specific countries.

Despite this, Trump has not ruled out the possibility of a recession resulting from his trade policies, which led to a sharp decline in U.S. stock markets just before the metal tariffs took effect.

U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick later defended the tariffs, stating that they were “worth it” even if they contributed to an economic downturn.

Trump initially targeted Chinese, Mexican, and Canadian imports with tariffs.

These three countries accounted for over 40% of all U.S. imports in 2024.

However, Trump has accused them of failing to do enough to curb the influx of migrants and illegal drugs, such as fentanyl, into the U.S.

All three nations have rejected these allegations.

How the Steel and Aluminum Tariffs Work

The U.S. implemented a 25% tariff on all steel and aluminum imports on March 12.

The U.S. is the world’s largest steel importer, with Canada, Brazil, and Mexico being its top suppliers.

Canada also supplies nearly 60% of all aluminum imported by the U.S.

Initially, Trump announced that there would be no exemptions to the steel and aluminum tariffs.

On March 11, he threatened to double tariffs on Canadian metals due to Canada’s decision to impose higher electricity charges on customers in three northern U.S. states in response to earlier U.S. tariffs.

However, Trump withdrew this plan just before it was set to take effect, as Canada agreed to suspend the extra energy charges.

During his first term in office, Trump had previously imposed 25% tariffs on steel and 10% on aluminum in 2018.

However, he later negotiated exemptions for several countries, including Australia, Canada, and Mexico.

Despite these exemptions, the U.S. International Trade Commission reported that tariffs raised the average price of steel and aluminum in the country by 2.4% and 1.6%, respectively.

Global Reactions to the Steel Tariffs

Within hours of the U.S. tariffs taking effect, Canada and the EU announced countermeasures.

Canada introduced a 25% tariff on an additional C$29.8 billion ($20 billion; £16 billion) worth of U.S. goods starting on March 13.

These tariffs include steel products valued at C$12.6 billion, along with sports equipment, computers, and cast iron items.

The EU’s retaliatory tariffs, set to take effect on April 1 and be fully implemented by April 13, target U.S. goods worth €26 billion (£22 billion).

The list of affected items includes “boats, bourbon, motorbikes,” as well as steel and aluminum products such as pipes, window frames, and tin foil.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen expressed regret over the measure, stating, “Tariffs are bad for business and worse for consumers.”

Trump, responding on his social media platform Truth Social, warned that if the EU did not remove its 50% tariff on American whiskey “immediately,” the U.S. would impose a 200% tariff on “all wines, Champagnes, and alcoholic products coming out of EU-represented countries.”

“This will be great for the Wine and Champagne businesses in the U.S.,” he added.

The UK, which exports significant amounts of steel to the U.S. each year, has taken a cautious stance.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer told lawmakers that the UK would adopt a “pragmatic approach” but stated that it would “keep all options on the table.”

China’s foreign ministry vowed to take “all necessary measures” to protect its interests, asserting that the U.S. tariffs violated World Trade Organization rules.

Tariffs on Canadian and Mexican Goods

Trump has already implemented 25% tariffs on other goods from Canada and Mexico.

Originally set to take effect on February 4, these tariffs were delayed for a month to allow negotiations. They were officially implemented on March 4, alongside a 10% tariff on Canadian energy exports.

On March 5, Trump announced a one-month exemption for North American-made cars that comply with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).

This trade pact, negotiated by Trump during his first term, establishes rules on how much of a vehicle must be produced within North America to qualify for tariff-free treatment.

The auto industry had warned that tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods could have significant consequences, as vehicle components frequently cross borders multiple times before assembly.

After Trump’s exemption announcement, shares in major U.S. automakers surged.

On March 6, Trump expanded the exemption to cover other goods covered by USMCA, including televisions, air conditioners, avocados, and beef.

Additionally, Trump reduced tariffs on potash, a key fertilizer ingredient, from 25% to 10%.

Canada’s Response to the Additional Tariffs

Outgoing Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accused Trump of attempting “a total collapse of the Canadian economy [to] make it easier to annex us.”

He announced immediate retaliatory tariffs on C$30 billion ($21 billion; £16 billion) worth of U.S. imports, with plans for further measures totaling C$125 billion within three weeks.

However, after Trump granted additional exemptions, Canada delayed the second phase of tariffs.

Trudeau’s successor, Mark Carney, also criticized the tariffs as “unjustified” and stated, “In trade, as in hockey, Canada will win.”

Ontario Premier Doug Ford initially planned to impose a 25% surcharge on electricity exports to three U.S. states—Michigan, New York, and Minnesota—in retaliation.

However, these plans were shelved after Trump threatened to double tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum.

Mexico’s Response

Mexico postponed its retaliatory tariffs during the initial negotiation period.

President Claudia Sheinbaum urged calm, stating that “cooler heads will prevail” despite Trump’s actions.

She also agreed to deploy 10,000 troops along the U.S.-Mexico border to curb smuggling.

Following the implementation of tariffs on March 4, Sheinbaum declared them “unjustified” and promised a response involving “tariff and non-tariff measures.”

Before these countermeasures could be announced, Trump unveiled exemptions for carmakers and other goods, which Sheinbaum welcomed.

While Trump has been critical of Trudeau, he has praised Sheinbaum, describing their relationship as “very good.”

China’s Retaliatory Measures

A 10% tariff on all Chinese imports to the U.S. began on February 4.

Trump later announced an exemption for shipments valued under $800.

On February 10, China responded with tariffs of 10-15% on select U.S. agricultural products and imposed export controls on American aviation, defense, and tech firms.

The U.S. tariff doubled to 20% on March 4.

China urged the U.S. to resume negotiations, warning that if America continued a trade war, China would “fight them to the bitter end,” according to foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has accused Russia of deliberately delaying negotiations on a Ukraine ceasefire, claiming that Moscow aims to ensure diplomacy collapses so that the conflict continues.

Meanwhile, Ukraine’s military has refuted claims that its forces are encircled in Russia’s Kursk region. This denial comes after former U.S. President Donald Trump appealed to Russian President Vladimir Putin to spare the lives of what he described as thousands of “surrounded” Ukrainian troops.

In response to Trump’s plea, Putin stated that Russia would allow Ukrainian soldiers in Kursk to live, provided they surrender and lay down their weapons.

During a press briefing following the G7 summit in Canada, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed cautious optimism regarding a potential Ukraine ceasefire but emphasized that further efforts are required to finalize an agreement.

Trump had earlier noted that discussions between the United States and Putin, held in Moscow on Thursday, had been “good and productive.”

The war in Ukraine began with Russia’s full-scale invasion three years ago. Since then, the conflict has evolved significantly, with ongoing military engagements and diplomatic efforts attempting to bring an end to the hostilities.

Economist and political newcomer Mark Carney has officially taken office as Canada’s new prime minister, delivering a strong message that Canada will “never” become part of the United States.

Carney assumed office on Friday, mere days after winning the leadership of the governing Liberal Party, amid escalating trade tensions with U.S. President Donald Trump.

“We know that by building together, we can give ourselves far more than anyone else can take away,” Carney stated after his swearing-in ceremony.

He replaces outgoing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who led Canada for nine years. Carney’s victory in last week’s Liberal leadership contest was decisive, marking a significant shift in the party’s direction.

During his first press conference as prime minister in Ottawa, Carney directly addressed Trump’s previous remarks suggesting Canada could become the 51st U.S. state. “We will never, in any shape or form, be part of the U.S.,” he asserted.

Emphasizing the distinctiveness of Canadian identity, he added, “We are very fundamentally a different country,” later dismissing Trump’s idea as “crazy.”

Carney did not confirm whether he would push for an early federal election, currently scheduled for October, but indicated he would act swiftly to secure “as strong a mandate that is needed for the time.”

One of Carney’s first acts as prime minister was ending a policy that had long been a target of opposition criticism. He repealed the consumer carbon pricing program, a significant environmental policy from Trudeau’s tenure that had become unpopular amid rising inflation.

The carbon tax had been widely criticized by Conservatives, who argued it increased the cost of goods and energy for Canadian households. However, at an afternoon cabinet meeting, Carney clarified that his government remains committed to addressing climate change, noting that the industrial carbon tax on large emitters would remain in place.

Canadians who have been paying into the carbon pricing system will receive their final rebate checks in April.

In recent months, Canadian politics have been largely shaped by Trump’s trade war, which began after he took office in January. With an election on the horizon, Carney is expected to position himself as the most capable leader to handle Trump’s economic policies.

Carney is no stranger to financial crises. He previously served as governor of both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, where he played key roles in stabilizing both economies during turbulent times.

Next week, Carney is scheduled to embark on his first international trip as prime minister, visiting the United Kingdom and France.

Despite tensions, Carney expressed a willingness to engage with Trump. “We respect the United States. We respect President Trump,” he stated.

Acknowledging Trump’s policy priorities, Carney added, “President Trump has put some very important issues at the top of his agenda.”

Carney has pledged to maintain Canada’s retaliatory tariffs on specific U.S. goods for as long as Trump upholds the 25% universal tariffs on Canadian products not covered under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA).

Given Canada’s economic dependence on trade with the U.S., economists warn that if Trump’s tariffs are fully implemented, Canada could face a recession.

Carney’s new cabinet includes several ministers from Trudeau’s administration, particularly those who have been actively involved in negotiations with the Trump administration.

Key figures retained in the new government include Mélanie Joly, who continues as foreign affairs minister; David McGuinty, who remains in charge of public safety; Jonathan Wilkinson, who stays on as energy minister; and Dominic LeBlanc, who moves from finance to trade. François-Philippe Champagne, formerly industry minister, has been appointed to the finance portfolio.

As Canada prepares for its next federal election, Carney’s primary political rival will be Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre.

Before Trump’s tariff threats, the Conservatives held a commanding 20-point lead in some election polls. However, recent polling suggests a much tighter race.

Speaking after Carney’s swearing-in, Poilievre criticized the Liberals’ tenure, arguing that after nine years in power, they had failed to address key economic challenges. “It will be the same Liberal results,” he remarked.

Poilievre also vowed to take a tougher stance against Trump’s trade policies if elected. “If I were to be elected prime minister, I would face off against President Trump directly, respond with counter tariffs, and take back control,” he declared.

In the upcoming election, the Liberals will not only face the Conservatives, who hold 120 seats in the House of Commons, but also the Bloc Québécois, with 33 seats, and the New Democratic Party (NDP), which currently has 24 seats.

NDP leader Jagmeet Singh reacted to Carney’s swearing-in by criticizing his cabinet selections, arguing that they signal a lack of space for progressive Liberals in the new government.

Singh noted that Carney did not create separate cabinet roles for ministers of women, youth, or people with disabilities. He accused the new prime minister of favoring the wealthy, stating that Carney has made billionaires “very rich at the cost of workers.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin has expressed agreement with the concept of a ceasefire in Ukraine but highlighted the need for further discussions on its terms. He also outlined a series of strict conditions that must be met before peace can be achieved.

Putin was responding to a proposed 30-day ceasefire, which Ukraine accepted earlier this week after negotiations with the United States. However, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky criticized Putin’s reaction, calling it “manipulative” and urging for additional sanctions against Russia.

Meanwhile, the U.S. imposed new sanctions on Russia’s oil, gas, and banking sectors, further increasing pressure on Moscow.

Russian authorities announced that Putin was scheduled to discuss the ceasefire on Thursday evening with Steve Witkoff, a special envoy of U.S. President Donald Trump, who had arrived in Moscow earlier that day. However, it remains unclear whether the meeting actually took place. On Friday, Russian state media cited air traffic monitoring service Flightradar, which reported that the aircraft believed to have transported Witkoff had already departed from Moscow. Neither Washington nor Moscow have provided any official statements on the matter.

On Thursday night and into Friday morning, both Russian and Ukrainian forces reported enemy drone attacks. Ukraine reported that seven people, including children, were wounded in the northeastern city of Kharkiv. In Russia, authorities confirmed a massive fire at an oil facility in the southern city of Tuapse.

At a news conference in Moscow on Thursday, Putin discussed the ceasefire plan, stating, “The idea is right—and we support it—but there are questions that we need to discuss.” He emphasized that any ceasefire must lead to “an enduring peace and remove the root causes of this crisis.”

“We need to negotiate with our American colleagues and partners,” Putin added. “Maybe I’ll have a call with Donald Trump.”

The Russian president acknowledged that a temporary truce could be beneficial for Ukraine, saying, “It will be good for the Ukrainian side to achieve a 30-day ceasefire. We are in favor of it, but there are nuances.”

One of the major points of contention for Russia is the situation in its western Kursk region. Putin pointed out that Ukrainian forces had launched an incursion there in August, capturing some areas. He claimed that Russia had regained full control of Kursk and that Ukrainian troops in the region were now “isolated.”

“They are trying to leave, but we are in control. Their equipment has been abandoned,” he stated. “There are two options for Ukrainians in Kursk—surrender or die.”

A day earlier, Ukraine’s top commander, Oleksandr Syrskyi, said Ukrainian troops would maintain defensive positions in Kursk as long as necessary, despite mounting pressure from Russian forces.

During his press conference, Putin also raised concerns about how the ceasefire would be implemented. “How will those 30 days be used? For Ukraine to mobilize? Rearm? Train people? Or none of that? Then a question—how will that be controlled?” he asked.

“Who will give the order to end the fighting? At what cost? Who decides who has broken any possible ceasefire, over 2,000km? All those questions need meticulous work from both sides. Who polices it?”

Zelensky, in his nightly video address, accused Putin of preparing to reject the ceasefire in practice, despite not explicitly saying so. “Putin, of course, is afraid to tell President Trump directly that he wants to continue this war, wants to kill Ukrainians,” he said.

He further argued that the Russian president had placed so many conditions on the ceasefire that it was unlikely to succeed. “The Russian leader has set so many preconditions that nothing will work out at all,” Zelensky said.

Putin’s comments and Zelensky’s response have highlighted the deep divisions between the two sides on how to proceed.

Ukraine advocates for a two-step approach: first, an immediate ceasefire, followed by discussions on a long-term peace agreement. However, Russia insists that both issues should be resolved together in a single, comprehensive deal. Neither side appears willing to compromise at this stage.

Ukraine hopes to pressure Russia into agreeing to a ceasefire by portraying it as an unwilling participant in peace talks. Meanwhile, Russia views the situation as an opportunity to raise its broader concerns, including NATO expansion and Ukraine’s sovereignty.

This situation presents a challenge for Donald Trump, who has stated that he wants a swift resolution to the war. He has repeatedly indicated that he aims to bring the conflict to an end in a matter of days.

However, Putin does not appear inclined to cooperate with Trump’s timeline.

Speaking at the White House after Putin’s remarks, Trump said he would “love” to meet the Russian president and expressed hope that Russia would “do the right thing” by agreeing to the proposed 30-day ceasefire.

“We’d like to see a ceasefire from Russia,” Trump stated.

Earlier in the day, during a meeting in the Oval Office with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Trump told reporters that he had already discussed specific details with Ukraine regarding a potential peace agreement.

“We’ve been discussing with Ukraine land and pieces of land that would be kept and lost, and all of the other elements of a final agreement,” Trump explained. “A lot of the details of a final agreement have actually been discussed.”

Regarding Ukraine’s possible NATO membership, Trump remarked, “Everybody knows what the answer to that is.”

In response to Russia’s continued aggression, the U.S. expanded sanctions on Russian oil and gas, making it harder for other countries to purchase Russian energy by restricting access to U.S. payment systems.

Earlier on Thursday, Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov had already dismissed the U.S.-backed ceasefire proposal.

Meanwhile, on Wednesday, the Kremlin released a video purportedly showing Putin visiting Russia’s Kursk region, wearing military fatigues. Later, Russian officials announced they had recaptured the key town of Sudzha.

The war, which began with Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, has resulted in Russia occupying approximately 20% of Ukrainian territory.

According to data analyzed by the BBC, more than 95,000 Russian soldiers have been killed in the conflict. However, experts believe the actual number is significantly higher.

The Russian military has not officially disclosed its casualty figures since September 2022, when it reported 5,937 deaths.

Ukraine last provided an official death toll in December 2024, when Zelensky stated that 43,000 Ukrainian soldiers and officers had been killed. However, Western analysts consider this figure to be an underestimation.

The United States’ top diplomat has expressed optimism about Ukraine’s proposal for a partial ceasefire with Russia, viewing it as a potential step toward ending the ongoing war. This statement comes just before scheduled discussions in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday between US and Ukrainian officials.

“I’m not saying that alone is enough, but it’s the kind of concession you would need to see in order to end the conflict,” said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Monday.

During the upcoming negotiations in Jeddah, Kyiv is expected to put forward a proposal for an aerial and naval ceasefire with Russia. However, Moscow has previously dismissed such ideas, arguing that any temporary truce would merely serve as a stalling tactic to prevent Ukraine’s military from collapsing.

In a separate event, at least three individuals lost their lives in what was described as a “massive” overnight drone assault on Moscow and its surrounding areas, according to Governor Andrei Vorobyev. The attack damaged seven apartments in a residential complex.

Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin reported that 74 drones aimed at the city were intercepted and shot down. He further stated that debris from a downed drone damaged the roof of one building.

The drone strike led to temporary disruptions in one of Moscow’s district train networks and imposed flight restrictions at the city’s airports.

Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky arrived in Saudi Arabia on Monday to meet Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. However, he is not expected to take a formal role in the negotiations between US and Ukrainian representatives.

In a video message late on Monday, Zelensky expressed his hopes for “a practical result” from the discussions, stating that Ukraine’s stance would be “absolutely constructive.”

The Ukrainian delegation at the talks will include Andriy Yermak, Zelensky’s chief of staff, along with the country’s national security adviser and several foreign and defense ministers.

On the US side, Rubio will lead the delegation alongside National Security Adviser Mike Waltz and US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff.

Speaking before his arrival in Jeddah, Rubio emphasized the importance of clarifying Ukraine’s stance on a potential peace agreement. He noted that both sides must prepare for tough compromises if the conflict is to be resolved.

“I’m not going to set any conditions on what they have to or need to do,” he said. “We want to listen to see how far they’re willing to go, and compare that to what the Russians want, and then see how far apart we truly are.”

Rubio stressed that both Ukraine and Russia must acknowledge that “there’s no military solution” to the war and that diplomacy is the only viable path forward.

Meanwhile, reports from Bloomberg and Axios suggest that Witkoff is scheduled to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow later this week, though the Kremlin has not officially commented on the matter.

The discussions in Jeddah coincide with increased pressure from US President Donald Trump on Zelensky to agree to a ceasefire with Russia. Notably, this push comes without any firm commitments from the US regarding security guarantees for Ukraine.

This meeting marks the first official encounter between US and Ukrainian officials since Zelensky’s contentious visit to the White House last month. That meeting reportedly ended in frustration, leading the US to suspend military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine—a move seen as an attempt to push Kyiv toward negotiations.

Rubio suggested that the suspension of aid could be reversed depending on the outcomes of Tuesday’s discussions.

“The pause came about because we felt that they [Ukraine] were not committed to any sort of peace process,” he explained. “If that changes, obviously our posture can change.”

He added, “The president is going to use whatever tools he has at his disposal to try to get both sides to that table so this war will end.”

Earlier on Monday, Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, expressed optimism about the upcoming negotiations, saying he expected “substantial progress.”

When asked if he believed Zelensky would return to the US later in the week to sign a minerals agreement, Witkoff told Fox News, “I am really hopeful. All the signs are very, very positive.”

Zelensky has previously signaled willingness to sign a minerals deal with the US, which would create a joint fund derived from the sale of Ukrainian minerals.

According to Witkoff, the Saudi Arabia talks will cover multiple topics, including security protocols for Ukraine and territorial issues.

He emphasized that, despite the suspension of military aid, the US had not cut off intelligence sharing for any defensive needs that Ukraine might have. Trump also told Fox News on Sunday that he had “just about” lifted the intelligence-sharing freeze on Ukraine.

UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer also spoke with Trump ahead of the Jeddah talks. According to a statement from Downing Street, Starmer conveyed that “he hoped there would be a positive outcome to the talks that would enable US aid and intelligence-sharing to be restarted.”

Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and currently controls roughly one-fifth of Ukraine’s territory, including Crimea, which it annexed in 2014.

Mark Carney has secured a landslide victory to become Canada’s next prime minister, replacing Justin Trudeau. In his first major statement, he has committed to winning the ongoing trade war with U.S. President Donald Trump, vowing to impose retaliatory tariffs on American goods until, in his words, “Americans show us respect.”

Meanwhile, Ontario Premier Doug Ford has announced plans to impose retaliatory electricity tariffs on the U.S. He is set to discuss these measures in a live address, emphasizing that Canada will take firm action in response to U.S. economic pressures.

Canada to Launch Advertising Campaign in U.S.

Ford addressed questions regarding a marketing and advertising campaign in the U.S., stating, “We need to inform the American people.” He emphasized the importance of delivering a strong message to Americans, calling them Canada’s “greatest allies in the fight against these tariffs.”

Tariff Impact Will ‘Reverberate’ Across U.S., Says Energy Minister

Stephen Lecce, Minister of Energy and Electrification, highlighted Canada’s role as a major power exporter to the U.S., stating, “They need our power.” He explained that the objective is to “maximize pressure on America and minimize the impacts on Ontario.” Lecce warned that the repercussions of these tariffs will “reverberate” across the U.S., affecting states that rely on and profit from reselling Canadian power.

Ford: Tariffs Could Add $100 to U.S. Utility Bills

Ford outlined the potential consequences of Ontario’s countermeasures, estimating that 1.5 million homes and businesses in Minnesota, Michigan, and New York would be affected. According to Ford, these states could face a surcharge of up to $400,000 per day, potentially increasing bills for American consumers by approximately $100.

While acknowledging the difficulties this would create, Ford stated he “will not hesitate” to raise the charge further or even halt electricity exports entirely. However, he also expressed regret for the impact on American citizens, stating, “I feel terrible for the American people who did not start this trade war.”

‘We Will Apply Maximum Pressure,’ Says Ford

Ford described the situation as an escalating conflict, noting that President Trump is now targeting steel and aluminum with additional tariffs. He asserted that these trade policies are detrimental to families on both sides of the border and affirmed Ontario’s determination to resist. “We will apply maximum pressure to maximize leverage,” he stated, confirming that Ontario will proceed with a 25% surcharge on electricity exports.

Ford Congratulates Carney, Praises His Leadership

Doug Ford, in his public remarks, congratulated Mark Carney on his victory, expressing optimism about the country’s new leadership. He emphasized the need for decisive action, stating, “It’s never been more important to build big things.” Ford also took a moment to thank Justin Trudeau for his service to the country.

‘Every Tool in the Toolbox’ Will Be Used in Response to U.S. Tariffs

Stephen Lecce, addressing the media, stated that Ontario has been a critical energy supplier to the U.S. for years, helping to “keep the lights on” in American homes, factories, and farms. However, he made it clear that Canada would not stand by idly. “When under attack, we will use every tool in the toolbox,” he declared.

Ontario’s Retaliatory Tariffs to Be Unveiled Soon

Ford is scheduled to present a detailed plan for retaliatory tariffs against the U.S., reinforcing his stance from last week, when he warned that Canada could cut off electricity supplies if President Trump’s tariff policies persisted. Around 1.5 million Americans in Michigan, New York, and Minnesota rely on electricity imported from Canada.

Ford’s statements align with his recent post on X, in which he congratulated Carney and declared, “Together, let’s unleash the Canadian economy and make our country more secure by building big, bold projects—starting with the Ring of Fire.”

U.S. Stock Markets React to Trump’s Tariff Strategy

As U.S. markets opened for trading, investor concerns over Trump’s economic policies intensified. Fears of increased costs, business uncertainty, and economic disruption have contributed to a market downturn.

The S&P 500 dropped by approximately 1.7%, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average declined by 0.7%. The tech-heavy Nasdaq took the biggest hit, falling by 2.8%. The market turbulence comes as optimism about artificial intelligence-driven growth fades and fears of a recession rise, particularly after Trump declined to rule out an economic downturn.

The Meaning Behind Canada’s ‘Elbows Up’ Slogan

In his farewell address, Justin Trudeau drew loud applause when he declared, “Elbows up!” The phrase has gained traction as a rallying cry against Trump’s tariff threats and his recent suggestion that Canada could become the 51st U.S. state.

Canadian actor Mike Myers recently echoed the phrase on Saturday Night Live, mouthing the words while pointing to his elbow. The slogan originates from ice hockey, symbolizing readiness to fight back—a sentiment many Canadians now embrace in response to Trump’s trade policies.

Ford Calls Carney’s Leadership Critical Amid Tariff Conflict

Shortly after Carney’s landslide victory in the Liberal leadership race, Doug Ford extended his congratulations, describing the moment as pivotal. “Your election comes at a critical time as our country continues to stare down the ongoing threat of President Trump’s tariffs,” Ford stated.

The Ontario Premier is expected to further elaborate on his plan to impose a 25% surcharge on electricity exports to Michigan, New York, and Minnesota. He has also indicated that, if necessary, he may completely cut off power exports to these states.

What’s Next?

As Canada undergoes a significant political transition, here’s a summary of recent developments and upcoming steps:

• Mark Carney’s Victory: The former Bank of England governor won 85.9% of the vote in the Liberal leadership race and will be sworn in as prime minister in the coming days.
• Justin Trudeau’s Departure: Trudeau must formally resign before Carney can take office. He will remain in position until he meets with Governor General Mary Simon.
• Upcoming Election: A general election must take place by October 20, but it is widely expected to be called sooner.
• Carney’s First Address: In his victory speech, Carney declared, “Americans should make no mistake… in trade, as in hockey, Canada will win.”
• International Reactions: UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron have extended their congratulations to Carney, signaling strong international support for Canada’s new leadership.

Carney’s Background: A Banker Turned Prime Minister

Mark Carney, Canada’s 24th prime minister, has an extensive background in economics and finance.

• Early Life: Born in Fort Smith, Northwest Territories, Carney grew up in a politically engaged family, with his father once running as a Liberal candidate in Edmonton-South.
• Education: He studied at Harvard University on a scholarship and later earned a PhD in economics from Oxford University.
• Career in Banking: Carney served as governor of both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England.
• Political Entry: Despite previous dismissals of a political career—once joking, “Why don’t I become a circus clown?”—Carney’s expertise in financial crises has now positioned him as Canada’s leader during a tense economic standoff with the U.S.
• International Influence: He has participated in G20 meetings alongside Trump and chaired the Financial Stability Board. Recalling a past encounter, he remarked, “Trump only respects power… Good luck with that” when discussing efforts to appease the former U.S. president.

Liberal Party Gathers Momentum for Snap Election

Following months of poor polling, Liberals now sense an opportunity for a political resurgence. Carney’s resounding victory—securing more votes than Trudeau did in 2013—has energized the party.

“There’s no sense that we should delay,” said David McGuinty, the federal public safety minister. “I’m really, really excited for what’s coming. And frankly, it’s time for an election.”

Although no official date has been set for the transfer of power from Trudeau to Carney, political insiders anticipate a swift transition, with an election announcement likely to follow shortly after.

As Canada braces for a new chapter under Carney’s leadership, the nation prepares for an intensified trade battle with the U.S., setting the stage for one of the most consequential political and economic showdowns in recent history.

The competition to succeed Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is in full swing. Leading candidates for the leadership of Trudeau’s ruling Liberal Party, including the globally recognized Chrystia Freeland and Mark Carney, are vying to steer Canada through pressing domestic and international challenges, such as escalating trade disputes with the United States.

After a tumultuous year marked by political crises, Trudeau announced in January that he would resign as Liberal leader once his successor was chosen, eventually stepping down as prime minister.

This Sunday, the Liberals will finally count the votes and declare their new leader, a decision that comes as Canada gears up for a general election later this year.

Why is Trudeau stepping down?

Trudeau has led the Liberal Party for more than a decade. He first brought the Liberals to power in 2015, promising “sunny ways” for Canada. Since then, he has been re-elected twice, most recently in 2021, though that victory cost him his governing majority.

During his tenure, he championed progressive causes, including tackling climate change and addressing historic injustices against Indigenous communities. However, economic dissatisfaction has increasingly overshadowed his leadership in recent years. His administration was further shaken when Freeland, who was serving as deputy prime minister and finance minister, unexpectedly resigned just hours before delivering her annual fiscal update.

Trudeau is stepping down as the Liberal Party faces a significant challenge in the upcoming general elections, expected by October. The party has been trailing in polls against the Conservatives, led by right-wing politician Pierre Poilievre. However, recent weeks have seen the gap narrow as Trudeau’s potential successors, such as Carney, take assertive stances on trade tensions with the United States.

Though Trudeau will relinquish his role as Liberal leader after Sunday’s vote, he has not specified a timeline for stepping down as prime minister. His successor will have the authority to request new federal elections at any time—whether within days, weeks, or months.

What role does the US play?

Relations between Canada and the United States have deteriorated under President Donald Trump. Over the past three months, Trump has blamed Canada for illegal immigration into the U.S., threatened to annex Canada as the U.S.’s 51st state, and imposed steep tariffs on Canadian imports. The White House justifies these tariffs as necessary to curb fentanyl smuggling into the U.S.

The heated rhetoric between Trump and Trudeau has stirred nationalist sentiments in Canada. At NHL and NBA games in the country, some Canadian fans have even taken to booing the U.S. national anthem.

These cross-border tensions may have provided an unexpected boost to the Liberal Party, as Conservative leader Poilievre—often compared to Trump—has sought to distance himself from the U.S. president. At a press conference on Tuesday, Poilievre emphasized, “I am not MAGA.”

“Canadian politics is being convulsed by the Trump government’s assertions about Canada’s future as he saw it, and secondly by the tariffs that were very puzzling to a lot of people given the depth of interdependence between the Canadian and American economies,” said Allan Tupper, a political science professor at the University of British Columbia.

Tupper added that Trudeau’s successor would need to be a skilled negotiator, particularly regarding tariffs. “It just may be a different kind of Canada to deal with. It’s going to be more assertive, more nationalistic, and more in charge of its destiny.”

Who are the leading candidates?

Mark Carney

One of the frontrunners in the race, Carney is a former governor of both the Bank of England and the Bank of Canada. His campaign has focused on clean energy, climate policies, and fostering economic growth.

Carney has emphasized his role in helping Canada manage its debt during the 2008 financial crisis and in navigating the British economy through Brexit. He has also advocated leveraging Canada’s natural resources to drive prosperity while positioning the country as a leader in clean energy.

Experts suggest Carney enjoys significant support from Liberal lawmakers and members of Trudeau’s cabinet. His financial expertise makes him a compelling candidate at a time when economic concerns are at the forefront.

“He’s very competent in economics, so with these tariffs, this economic war, a lot of people are supporting him,” said Charles-Etienne Beaudy, a political science professor at the University of Ottawa and author of Radio Trump: How he won the first time.

Carney has not shied away from addressing tensions with the Trump administration. Speaking to CNN in February, he stated, “Despite being insulted on multiple occasions by senior members of the administration, we are not going to reciprocate in those insults.”

Following the announcement of U.S. tariffs last month, Carney has strongly advocated for dollar-for-dollar retaliatory tariffs that would hurt the U.S. while minimizing the impact on Canada.

Chrystia Freeland

Freeland, a former journalist and another leading contender in the race, was one of Trudeau’s most high-profile cabinet ministers before her resignation.

Born to a Ukrainian mother in Alberta, Freeland studied at Harvard University and later worked as a journalist covering Russia and Ukraine. Entering politics in 2013, she quickly rose through the ranks of the Liberal Party, securing key cabinet positions under Trudeau.

She has prior experience negotiating with Trump on trade. As Canada’s foreign minister in 2018, she played a crucial role in renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with the U.S. and Mexico—a deal that Trump has expressed interest in revisiting. She also clashed with the U.S. administration when it imposed tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum imports.

Trump has personally targeted Freeland, calling her “totally toxic and not at all conducive to making deals.”

Her resignation in December signaled the beginning of Trudeau’s political decline.

On the campaign trail, Freeland has indicated support for a stricter immigration stance and has backed targeted retaliatory tariffs against the U.S.

Karina Gould

Gould, the youngest woman to ever serve as a Canadian minister, has branded herself as a candidate representing a generational shift in leadership. Launching her campaign in January, she stated that the Liberal Party “needs to embrace this shift too.”

Gould has proposed increasing corporate taxes on large businesses earning over $500 million annually. She argues that this policy would incentivize corporations to reinvest in productivity and business development, or else face higher taxes.

Her top priority, if elected, is resolving Canada’s trade dispute with the U.S. before calling for a general election. Like her competitors, she has taken a tough stance against Trump.

Frank Baylis

A businessman from Montreal, Baylis previously served as a lawmaker from 2015 to 2019. In February, he proposed constructing two pipelines to transport natural gas to Europe and Asia, reducing Canada’s economic reliance on the United States.

Baylis has warned against Canada’s heavy dependence on a single trading partner. He has also criticized Trudeau’s handling of Trump, arguing that Canadian leaders made missteps, including traveling to Mar-a-Lago to meet the U.S. president.

“Anybody that’s ever dealt with a bully successfully knows that you don’t give an inch,” Baylis told The Canadian Press last month.

As Canada prepares for new leadership, the next Liberal prime minister will face significant challenges—both at home and abroad. With the U.S. relationship in flux and economic uncertainty looming, the outcome of Sunday’s vote could shape the country’s trajectory for years to come.

U.S. President Donald Trump announced a temporary suspension of steep tariffs on Canada and Mexico on Thursday, March 6, 2025, offering a brief reprieve for businesses and consumers following strong backlash from global markets.

The decision came after the implementation of tariffs of up to 25% on imports from the two neighboring countries on Tuesday, March 4, 2025. The move had caused stock markets to drop significantly, with economists cautioning that such broad tariffs could slow U.S. economic growth and contribute to rising inflation in the near term.

Although the Republican president rejected claims that his trade policies were responsible for market instability, he opted to temporarily pause the tariffs on trade with Canada and Mexico that falls under a regional agreement.

Additionally, Mr. Trump reduced the newly imposed 25% tariff on Canadian potash, a crucial component in fertilizer. U.S. officials noted that their country does not produce large amounts of this resource, making the import levy particularly impactful.

The suspension of these tariffs, which will remain in effect until April 2, follows a similar move a day earlier when the White House announced temporary relief for automakers.

“These changes make conditions much more favorable for our American car manufacturers,” Mr. Trump said on Thursday, March 6, 2025.

However, he emphasized that significant updates would be announced on April 2, when he is expected to introduce “reciprocal tariffs” aimed at addressing what Washington perceives as unfair trade practices. He made it clear that Canadian and Mexican goods could still be subject to new levies after that date.

At the same time, Mr. Trump confirmed that tariffs on steel and aluminum, set to take effect next week, would remain unchanged.

‘Good’ Relationship With Mexico

Explaining the temporary relief for some Mexican imports, Mr. Trump stated on Truth Social that he made the decision “as an accommodation, and out of respect for” Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum. He added, “Our relationship has been a very good one.”

His remarks about Mexico stood in stark contrast to his tense relations with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

On Thursday, March 6, 2025, Mr. Trudeau acknowledged that some industries might receive temporary exemptions but maintained that Canada would remain in a trade conflict with the U.S. for the foreseeable future.

“Our goal remains to get these tariffs, all tariffs removed,” Mr. Trudeau asserted.

‘Economic Reality’

Scott Lincicome, vice president of general economics at the Cato Institute, described Mr. Trump’s decision to ease tariffs on Mexico as “a recognition of economic reality.”

He explained that the move demonstrated an understanding of how tariffs disrupt supply chains, place financial burdens on consumers, and create uncertainty that markets dislike. “The market doesn’t like them and certainly doesn’t like the uncertainty surrounding them,” Mr. Lincicome told AFP.

Since beginning his second term in January, Mr. Trump has frequently threatened tariffs against both allies and adversaries.

He has defended tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China as necessary measures to curb illegal immigration and combat the trafficking of fentanyl, a powerful synthetic opioid.

However, official data from both Canadian and U.S. government sources indicate that Canada contributes less than 1% of the fentanyl in the illicit U.S. supply. Furthermore, Canada is not a major source of illegal immigration, particularly in comparison to migration across the southern border with Mexico.

Meanwhile, China has rejected U.S. accusations regarding its role in fentanyl trafficking, asserting that the issue is a domestic matter for the U.S. and that tariffs will not address it.

Inflation and Trade Deficit Concerns

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent dismissed concerns on Thursday, March 6, 2025, that Mr. Trump’s tariffs would drive up inflation, stating that any effect on prices would likely be temporary.

Mr. Trump has consistently portrayed tariffs as a tool for generating government revenue and correcting trade imbalances.

New government data released on Thursday, March 6, 2025, showed that the U.S. trade deficit had reached an all-time high in January.

The Commerce Department reported that the overall trade deficit of the world’s largest economy surged by 34% to $131.4 billion, driven by a sharp increase in imports.

Analysts suggested that a significant portion of the rise in the trade deficit was due to increased gold imports. However, data also indicated that many businesses had boosted their imports in anticipation of potential new tariffs.

A $53 billion (£41.4 billion) reconstruction initiative, seen as a counter to former U.S. President Donald Trump’s idea of “taking over Gaza” and relocating over two million Palestinians, has been endorsed by Arab leaders at an emergency summit held in Cairo, Egypt.

“The Egypt plan is now an Arab plan,” declared Ahmed Aboul Gheit, secretary general of the Arab League, following the prolonged meeting.

Without directly mentioning Trump’s proposal, Aboul Gheit emphasized the unified Arab stance against any form of Palestinian displacement, whether voluntary or forced.

Egypt developed a comprehensive blueprint, encapsulated in a 91-page glossy document filled with images depicting green neighborhoods and grand public structures, aiming to provide an alternative to a U.S.-led scheme dubbed the “Middle East Riviera,” which had sparked widespread alarm across the Arab world and beyond.

The new plan extends beyond real estate development, focusing on political solutions and the rights of Palestinians.

Egyptian President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi, in his opening speech, urged for a simultaneous political process alongside the reconstruction effort, advocating for a two-state solution—a Palestinian state coexisting with Israel. This framework is widely recognized by Arab nations and much of the international community as the only viable resolution to the conflict, yet it remains firmly opposed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his allies.

Under this new proposal, Gaza would temporarily be administered by a “Gaza management committee under the umbrella of the Palestinian government,” composed of skilled technocrats.

The document does not clarify what role, if any, Hamas would have in this administration. It only briefly alludes to militant groups as an “obstacle” and suggests that their presence would be addressed if the fundamental causes of the conflict with Israel were resolved.

Opinions among Arab states vary regarding Hamas’ future; some call for its complete dissolution, while others believe that decision should be left to the Palestinian people. Reports suggest that Hamas has acknowledged it will not participate in governing Gaza but remains adamant that it will not disarm.

Netanyahu, who has called Trump’s plan “visionary,” has ruled out any future governance by both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.

The critical issue of security is addressed by calling for the deployment of international peacekeepers under the United Nations Security Council.

A large-scale international conference is scheduled for next month to secure the necessary funds for the ambitious reconstruction effort.

Wealthy Gulf nations have signaled a willingness to contribute to the massive financial requirement. However, potential donors remain hesitant, unwilling to invest unless assured that their contributions will not be obliterated in another conflict.

The fragility of the current ceasefire, now appearing to be at risk of collapse, only heightens this uncertainty.

The Arab reconstruction plan outlines a three-phase process, beginning with an initial six-month “early recovery stage” focused on clearing the extensive debris and unexploded ordnance. The following two phases are expected to span several years.

During the early stage, approximately 1.5 million displaced Palestinians would be housed in temporary container units. The proposal’s accompanying images showcase these units as well-constructed homes surrounded by landscaped environments.

Trump continues to question, “Why wouldn’t they want to move?” His characterization of Gaza as a “demolition site” underscores the devastation in the territory, with the United Nations estimating that 90% of homes are either damaged or destroyed.

Essential services such as schools, hospitals, sewage infrastructure, and electricity grids have been almost entirely obliterated.

Trump further stirred controversy by posting an AI-generated video on his Truth Social account, depicting a gleaming, luxurious vision of Gaza. The video featured a golden statue of himself, Elon Musk snacking on a beach, and shirtless images of Trump and Netanyahu basking in the sun—all set to a catchy tune proclaiming, “Trump Gaza is finally here.”

“They had President Trump in mind,” observed a Western diplomat who attended a briefing on Egypt’s plan at the foreign ministry in Cairo. “It’s very glossy and very well-prepared.”

Egypt’s proposal reportedly draws from a broad array of expertise, incorporating insights from World Bank specialists on sustainability and Dubai developers on hospitality.

Additionally, the blueprint reflects lessons learned from the rebuilding of cities devastated by war, including Hiroshima, Beirut, and Berlin. Egypt’s own experience in constructing its ambitious “New Cairo” project, a costly new administrative capital emerging from the desert, has also played a role in shaping the design.

Trump has stated that he will not “force” his vision on anyone but insists that his plan is “the one that really works.”

Now, it is up to Arab states and their allies to demonstrate that their proposal is the definitive solution.

The United Nations, an institution that has endured for nearly eight decades, now faces an existential crisis as the Trump administration continues its threats to significantly cut funding and withdraw from various UN agencies that primarily offer humanitarian aid worldwide.

Tech billionaire Elon Musk, who wields considerable influence over President Trump, has advocated for the U.S. to leave both the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the United Nations. Responding to a right-wing political commentator’s post suggesting, “It’s time” for the U.S. to exit NATO and the UN, Musk simply wrote, “I agree.”

Widely described as Trump’s most powerful advisor, Musk has aggressively targeted the U.S. federal bureaucracy in his role as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). This has raised concerns about whether the UN will be his next target.

The threat to the UN has gained momentum with a group of Republican lawmakers recently introducing a bill calling for the U.S. to withdraw from the organization. They argue that the UN does not align with Trump’s “America First” agenda.

Kul Chandra Gautam, a former UN assistant secretary-general and former Deputy Executive Director of UNICEF, told IPS that if any proof was needed of the Trump-Musk administration’s “mean & malevolent intentions,” this is it.

As part of its cost-cutting measures, the U.S. has decided to terminate funding for several critical global programs, including those targeting polio, HIV/AIDS, malaria, and nutrition. Many of these initiatives have been implemented by reputable international non-governmental organizations (INGOs), UN agencies, governments, and private contractors known for their efficiency and success. Previously, the State Department had deemed these programs essential and granted them waivers to continue receiving funding.

“Here is a case of throwing the baby with the bathwater—millions of children and women cruelly condemned to become sick, malnourished, and dying to satisfy the ego and hubris of the world’s richest man and a would-be Master of the Universe,” Gautam said.

He further noted that this move shattered the illusion of a “waiver” for essential and lifesaving projects, exposing the lack of credibility in Trump and Senator Marco Rubio’s assurances that crucial humanitarian efforts would be protected.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres addressed the crisis in a press briefing last week, expressing deep concern.

“I want to start by expressing my deep concern about information received in the last 48 hours by UN agencies—as well as many humanitarian and development NGOs—regarding severe cuts in funding by the United States. These cuts impact a wide range of critical programs,” Guterres said.

He highlighted the far-reaching consequences of the funding reductions, affecting areas ranging from lifesaving humanitarian aid to support for communities recovering from war or natural disasters, as well as development efforts, counterterrorism initiatives, and the fight against illicit drug trafficking.

“The consequences will be especially devastating for vulnerable people around the world,” he warned.

Andreas Bummel, executive director of Democracy Without Borders, told IPS that while calls for a U.S. withdrawal from the UN have periodically emerged from the Republican Party, Trump’s position remains uncertain.

“While it seems unlikely, it cannot be ruled out that Trump will support this at some point or at least use the scenario to build up diplomatic pressure,” Bummel said.

He pointed out that the U.S. stands to lose more than it gains from such a move. However, Trump’s decisions are not always rational or aligned with America’s best interests. “Certainly, it can be expected that the U.S. first will reduce or threaten to reduce its UN contributions,” he added.

Currently, the U.S. provides 22 percent of the UN’s budget through assessed contributions. The organization’s 2024 regular and peacekeeping budget stands at $3.59 billion.

When asked whether the U.S. can unilaterally cut its contributions, Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury of Bangladesh, a former UN Under-Secretary-General and High Representative, explained that it cannot.

“No, the U.S. cannot do that unilaterally,” Chowdhury told IPS. He clarified that changes in contributions are negotiated in the Committee on Contributions and must be approved by the Fifth Committee, typically by consensus, before being confirmed by the UN General Assembly.

He pointed out that U.S. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke played a crucial role in 2000-2001 in securing an agreement to lower the U.S. contribution from 25% to 22%, which required negotiations with all member states.

Because UN contributions must total 100%, any reduction by one country must be offset by increases from others. However, if the U.S. withdraws from a UN entity, it would no longer be obligated to pay.

“In cases of pending contributions, negotiations would follow,” Chowdhury said. He recalled that in the past, the U.S. has used tactics such as delaying full payments or making partial contributions to exert financial pressure on the UN.

In 2000, Ambassador Holbrooke convinced Senator Jesse Helms, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to agree to clear U.S. arrears to the UN in exchange for a reduction in the country’s contribution rate.

When asked how much money the UN stands to lose and which programs would be affected, UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters on February 28 that the situation remains chaotic.

“We have been informed, and this started a while back but intensified over the last few days, that various agencies have gotten letters. We don’t have a ballpark figure, because this has been done in a bit of a… frankly, in a chaotic way,” Dujarric said.

He provided specific examples of the impact, stating that the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has had approximately 50 projects terminated. The agency’s Mexico office, which works to curb fentanyl trafficking, may have to shut down, affecting programs in Central America and the Darien Gap that focus on combating human trafficking.

“The IOM’s (International Organization for Migration) programs in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) have basically shut down. Their programs in Haiti are at risk. And our FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) colleagues received 27 termination letters, and the list goes on,” he said.

Guterres has been in contact with the heads of major humanitarian and development agencies to discuss the situation and assess the scale of the crisis. However, Dujarric described the overall outlook as grim.

Agencies are attempting to reach out to their U.S. government counterparts for clarification, but those efforts have yielded little engagement.

“So, we’re continuing to try to seek some clarity. But I can tell you that for our side, our priority and our focus and our determination remain on doing everything we can to continue to provide life-saving aid to those who urgently need it,” Dujarric stated.

He emphasized that the U.S. has been a critical and founding member of the UN for decades, with American generosity helping to lift millions out of poverty, eradicate diseases, and promote global stability.

“The generosity of the American people has helped to lift millions out of poverty, has helped to eradicate diseases, has frankly helped to build a more prosperous and safer world for which Americans benefit and the whole world benefits. We have tried at a fairly senior level to engage, especially on this issue, but I can’t say we’ve detected much interest in engaging on this issue,” he noted.

When asked whether the UN is considering cost-cutting measures as a contingency plan, Dujarric acknowledged that the organization is exploring ways to diversify funding sources and increase efficiency.

“Our colleague, Tom Fletcher, the Coordinator of Humanitarian Affairs, who chairs what we call the Interagency Committee—which brings together UN agencies and NGOs—his message has also been clear, which is that we have to figure out how we can save money,” Dujarric said.

He added that efforts are underway to eliminate inefficiencies, overlaps, and bureaucratic turf wars, recognizing that any organization can find ways to work more effectively.

The West faces a “crossroads in history,” British Prime Minister Keir Starmer declared at a crucial summit in London on Sunday. The gathering aimed to shift control of negotiations over the Russia-Ukraine war away from the United States and establish a unified European approach, particularly as tensions between Kyiv and Washington reached a breaking point.

“This is not a moment for more talk. It’s time to act,” Starmer emphasized after an intense day of diplomacy in London, where European leaders worked to pave the way for a ceasefire in Ukraine.

The urgency of the meeting, held at Lancaster House, escalated after U.S. President Donald Trump criticized Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office. The encounter alarmed Western allies while seemingly benefiting Moscow. Zelensky and numerous European leaders attended the summit, a critical moment given the heightened anxieties surrounding the conflict.

Starmer revealed that he was collaborating with France and a select group of nations to develop a proposal to halt the hostilities, which would then be presented to the United States.

French President Emmanuel Macron outlined the framework of this initiative in an interview with Le Figaro, stating that France and the UK had suggested a one-month limited ceasefire in Ukraine.

The initial phase of this Franco-British alternative peace plan would enforce a temporary truce covering air, sea, and energy infrastructures, Macron explained to the French publication. The next stage, he added, would address ground forces. CNN sought comments from Downing Street regarding the proposal.

This initiative appears to rival the negotiation process Trump’s administration launched with Russia the previous month. It also acknowledges the possibility that direct negotiations between Trump and Zelensky could reignite tensions rather than resolve them.

Nevertheless, securing American backing remains essential. During a Sunday press conference, Starmer reinforced this notion, stressing that the U.S. was “not an unreliable ally.” His reassurance came after Trump’s heated dispute with Zelensky deeply unsettled European leaders.

Sunday’s summit aimed to reignite momentum in peace efforts that had been making progress throughout the week, only to collapse after Friday’s confrontation. The meeting underscored European unity, as multiple leaders pushed back against the perception that the continent was merely a spectator in the ongoing negotiations.

“In the end, a deal will have to involve Russia, of course it will, but we can’t approach this on the basis that Russia dictates the terms of any security guarantee before we’ve even got to a deal – otherwise, we won’t make any progress at all,” Starmer asserted.

The UK and France have been working to assemble a “coalition of the willing” that would deploy to Ukraine once an agreement is secured. “If a deal is done, it has to be a deal that is then defended,” Starmer said.

Zelensky commended the summit on social media platform X, stating, “Europe’s unity is at an exceptionally high level, one that has not been seen in a long time.” Separately, he asserted that any potential peace agreement should begin with a prisoner exchange “and the return of children.” This step, he argued, would “demonstrate Russia’s true intention for peace.”

Macron highlighted the advantages of the Franco-British ceasefire proposal, noting its straightforward monitoring process. “We know how to measure it,” he stated. “In the event of a ceasefire, it would be very difficult to verify that the front is respected.”

Macron, who Le Figaro reported had spoken with Trump on Friday, clarified that “no European troops” would be deployed to Ukraine “in the coming weeks.” The French newspaper also reported that Macron remained skeptical about any ceasefire agreement negotiated solely between the U.S. and Russia, arguing that he was “convinced that Vladimir Putin will seek to humiliate Ukraine.”

When asked whether he was aware of the proposal, Zelensky responded that he was “aware of everything” but did not explicitly state whether he supported the ceasefire plan.

‘Nobody Wants to See That’

Zelensky received a warm reception from Starmer on Saturday, a stark contrast to the tense welcome he experienced at the White House. Additionally, King Charles met with the Ukrainian leader at his Sandringham estate on Sunday.

The earlier confrontation between Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, and Zelensky, where they accused him of being ungrateful for American military aid and of risking “World War III” by resisting Russia’s invasion, cast a shadow over the weekend’s diplomatic efforts.

The episode encapsulated Europe’s worst fears. “Nobody wants to see that,” Starmer remarked to the BBC on Sunday. He disclosed that he immediately began reaching out to leaders after witnessing the heated exchange, adding, “My driving purpose has been to bridge this.”

Zelensky returned to Kyiv with more than just diplomatic assurances. On Saturday, Britain announced a plan to expedite$2.8 billion in loans to Ukraine. According to the UK government, the first installment of the funding would be released the following week.

In a Telegram post on Saturday, Zelensky stated, “The money will go toward the production of weapons in Ukraine. This is the fair way: the one who started the war should pay.” He further noted that “the loan will strengthen our defense capabilities.”

On Sunday, Starmer introduced another agreement permitting Ukraine to use £1.6 billion ($2 billion) in UK export finance to procure more than 5,000 advanced air defense missiles, which would be manufactured in Belfast.

‘A Once-in-a-Generation Moment’

“We gather here today because this is a once-in-a-generation moment for the security of Europe, and we all need to step up,” Starmer declared at the summit’s opening.

Downing Street outlined three primary objectives for the meeting: addressing Ukraine’s immediate requirements, securing a “lasting deal” to end the conflict, and formulating robust security guarantees.

“I hope you know that we are all with you and the people of Ukraine for as long as it takes, everyone around this table,” Starmer reassured Zelensky in his opening remarks.

The summit brought together key global figures, including French President Emmanuel Macron, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and leaders from various European nations, along with representatives from the European Union and NATO.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni emphasized the need for unity during her discussion with Starmer on Sunday, stressing that it is “very, very important that we avoid the risk that the West divides” over Ukraine.

Both Starmer and Meloni are expected to play crucial roles in advancing the peace process. Their established relationships with Trump may prove instrumental in persuading him to take European proposals seriously.

Europe finds itself in turmoil following a tense confrontation between former U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House. Reports indicate that the Trump administration is considering halting all military aid to Ukraine, raising concerns across European nations.

Norway, home to the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund valued at €1.7 trillion, has benefited from an estimated €109 billion in war-related profits due to surging gas prices in 2022 and 2023. Despite its vast financial resources, Norway has contributed only €3.35 billion to Ukraine’s war effort. This figure was strongly criticized by leading Swedish and Danish newspaper editors, who described the amount as “pathetic” and “reprehensible.” In comparison, Sweden and Denmark have donated €5.41 billion and €8.05 billion, respectively.

Liberal Party leader Guri Melby emphasized the need for increased contributions, stating on Saturday, “Norway is one of the few countries that has large amounts of money readily available, and we must therefore multiply our support for Ukraine immediately.”

Norway’s former Conservative Prime Minister, Erna Solberg, echoed the call for swift action. She urged a significant and rapid increase in aid, adding, “The government can safely assume there is will in Parliament to give more.”

In response to growing pressure, the Liberal Party and the Socialist Left Party have requested an emergency parliamentary session. However, Euractiv reports that they are now awaiting a formal proposal from the government before proceeding further.

Meanwhile, Sylvi Listhaug, leader of the conservative Progress Party—Norway’s second-largest party according to recent polls—proposed increasing defense spending to 3% of GDP by 2030. At present, Norway allocates approximately 2% of its GDP to defense.

The leader of the Green Party, which currently polls at 2.7%, took an even more ambitious stance, suggesting that Norway should commit €85.5 billion to support Ukraine.

A spokesperson from Norway’s foreign ministry defended the country’s contributions, asserting, “Norway is among the largest donors to Ukraine. We have so far committed at least NOK 167 billion (€14.7 billion) in support until 2030.” The spokesperson also emphasized the importance of long-term investments, noting that both Ukraine and NATO allies value the predictability of Norway’s assistance. “For 2025, based on a cross-party agreement in Norway’s parliament, we have so far pledged and allocated 35 billion NOK.”

Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre assured that additional support measures are forthcoming. “We will present a proposal to increase Ukraine support for parliament soon,” he said. Støre is also set to participate in a meeting of European leaders in London tomorrow.

Calls to Utilize Sovereign Wealth Fund

Since 2001, Norway has adhered to a fiscal rule limiting annual withdrawals from its sovereign wealth fund to 4%, later reduced to 3%. This policy was established under the leadership of Jens Stoltenberg’s first cabinet and has enjoyed broad political backing. Stoltenberg, who previously served as NATO’s Secretary General, now holds the position of Norway’s finance minister, coinciding with renewed scrutiny of the budget rule.

Amid escalating security concerns, discussions on using the sovereign wealth fund to bolster European defense and support Ukraine have gained traction in Norway. One proposal suggests reallocating approximately €300 billion of the fund’s €450 billion in liquid bonds into European defense bonds, with the stipulation that the funds be used exclusively to enhance Europe’s defense capabilities.

On Friday, Solberg reinforced the argument for increased spending, stating that Norway must leverage its oil wealth to strengthen its own defense. Some of her party’s high-ranking members had previously advocated for tighter regulations on how the fund’s money should be allocated. “Peace is more important than shortsightedness and inflation,” she asserted.

However, Stoltenberg cautioned against altering the budgetary framework, warning on February 7, “It is a dangerous idea to break the budgetary rule to give more money to Ukraine.”

Norway’s Expansive Financial Resources

Despite adhering to its fiscal guidelines, Norway remains in a strong financial position to expand its aid commitments.

Sveinung Rotevatn, deputy chair and financial policy lead for the Liberal Party, revealed that a proposal currently under discussion in Norway’s Parliament, the Storting, aims to increase Ukraine support by an additional 100 billion Norwegian kroner this year. If approved, this would elevate Norway’s financial assistance to Ukraine for 2025 from €3 billion to €11.5 billion.

Norway’s Foreign Ministry declined to specify further details on potential increases in aid, instead referring to Prime Minister Støre’s recent statement on the matter.

Rotevatn underscored the urgency of the situation, declaring, “It has become unequivocally clear that all of Europe must shift gears in our support and policy towards Ukraine and to ensure security in Europe.”

Minister of Foreign Affairs Espen Barth Eide reinforced this stance, asserting, “All other policies we pursue assume that we are a free and independent country and that we have a functioning international world order.”

As European nations grapple with the potential consequences of the U.S. withdrawing military support from Ukraine, Norway faces increasing pressure to step up its financial commitments. With vast sovereign wealth at its disposal, the question remains: Will Norway heed the calls for greater contributions, or will it continue to adhere to its longstanding fiscal restraints?

Even before the dramatic Oval Office confrontation between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, relations between the U.S. and Europe were growing increasingly strained.

Following Friday’s diplomatic breakdown between Trump, Zelenskyy, and Vice President JD Vance, the future of the trans-Atlantic alliance, which has endured for eight decades, appears uncertain.

In a striking rebuke to Trump, European leaders expressed their unwavering support for Zelenskyy. Trump had accused Zelenskyy of being “disrespectful” and “gambling with World War III” by continuing Ukraine’s resistance against Russia’s invasion.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen praised Zelenskyy’s resolve, posting on X, “Zelenskyy’s dignity honors the bravery of the Ukrainian people. Be strong, be brave, be fearless. You are never alone, dear President Zelenskyy. We will continue working with you for a just and lasting peace.”

Germany’s likely next leader, Friedrich Merz, reaffirmed his stance, emphasizing that “we must never confuse aggressor and victim in this terrible war.” French President Emmanuel Macron also voiced strong support, stressing the importance of respecting the Ukrainians “fighting for their dignity, their independence, for their children and for the security of Europe.”

Perhaps the most striking statement came from European Union foreign minister Kaja Kallas, who asserted, “Today it became clear that the free world needs a new leader. It’s up to us, Europeans, to take this challenge.”

However, not everyone sided against Trump. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban characterized the tense Oval Office meeting as “difficult” but commended Trump, saying he “stood bravely for peace.” Meanwhile, some observers argued that Zelenskyy escalated tensions unnecessarily by publicly challenging a far more powerful negotiating partner upon whom Ukraine heavily depends.

For Zelenskyy’s supporters, these European leaders’ strong backing reflects a belief that Ukraine’s struggle is not just a localized war but part of a broader hybrid conflict. They contend that Russia’s aggression extends beyond the battlefield, encompassing cyberattacks on Western democracies. They fear that granting Moscow a symbolic victory in Ukraine could embolden further expansionist moves. This concern is heightened by accusations that Trump is undermining the alliance by pressuring U.S. allies while fostering closer ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is widely regarded in Europe as a war criminal.

This growing unease explains why U.S.-Europe relations were fraying even before the recent diplomatic debacle. Over the past several weeks, there have been increasing indications that European powers are seeking greater autonomy from their long-standing reliance on Washington.

Following his center-right Christian Democratic Union party’s victory in Germany’s elections, Merz signaled a shift in priorities. “My absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that, step by step, we can really achieve independence from the U.S.,” he declared. He also questioned whether NATO’s upcoming June summit would maintain the alliance in its current form or require the rapid establishment of an independent European defense structure.

His remarks were particularly striking, given his traditionally pro-American stance. They suggested not only a willingness to boost defense spending—something Trump has long demanded—but also a desire for Europe to chart its own course. “I never thought I would have to say such a thing on a television program,” he admitted.

Yet, many questions remain about what this European military independence would entail. Would it require Europe to match U.S. defense spending within NATO? Leaders like Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer have expressed no desire to reduce cooperation with Washington. Alternatively, would the U.S. gradually withdraw from its European commitments altogether?

Regardless of the approach, the challenges are immense. The U.S. military’s deep integration into Europe means that its removal would leave critical gaps in air defense, military satellites, and cyber capabilities. Sven Biscop, a director at the Brussels-based Egmont Institute, warned that such a shift would create “huge holes” in European security infrastructure.

Since World War II, the U.S. has provided military protection to Europe in exchange for influence across the continent. Unraveling this interdependence would require hundreds of billions of dollars—costs that would likely fall on European taxpayers already struggling with a cost-of-living crisis and cuts to public services.

Last year, the European Union’s collective defense budget stood at $457 billion, far below the U.S. defense budget of $968 billion. Even Russia’s military spending, at $462 billion, surpassed that of the EU, despite Russia’s smaller economy. Since its invasion of Ukraine three years ago, Moscow has refocused its entire economy on military production.

Achieving full European military deterrence without U.S. support would take a minimum of five years, according to Luigi Scazzieri, assistant director at the London-based Centre for European Reform. “You can probably get something that fills a large part of the gap in two to three years—but only with a lot of urgency,” he added.

Despite these logistical hurdles, Merz’s statements reflect an acknowledgment that trans-Atlantic relations are entering a new phase. Sophia Besch, a senior Europe fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, noted that the Trump administration “no longer acknowledges shared community of values, shared interests, and puts forward a very ‘great power competition’ view of the world, where Europe is a side player and Russia is an equal.”

Merz is not alone in his call for European self-reliance. Macron has long advocated for Europe to reduce its dependence on Washington. In response to Merz’s remarks, Macron declared, “We are experiencing a historic moment. It can lead to an unprecedented Franco-German agreement.”

Biscop believes that European leaders must act swiftly to organize this shift in defense strategy. He suggested forming a European “war Cabinet” to coordinate efforts, potentially including leaders such as Britain’s Starmer, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, and the EU’s von der Leyen.

“They need agility and they need to move fast,” Biscop urged. “Even faster on Ukraine—because the Americans and Russians are already negotiating.”

As tensions between Washington and Europe continue to rise, the question remains whether Europe can truly break free from its historical reliance on U.S. military and economic support. For now, leaders across the continent appear determined to chart a new course—one that may redefine the future of the trans-Atlantic alliance.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has called on the United States to “stand more firmly on our side” following what he described as a “tough dialogue” with former U.S. President Donald Trump.

Zelensky stated that Ukraine is prepared to finalize the U.S.-proposed minerals deal but stressed that Kyiv requires concrete security guarantees from Washington.

His remarks follow a heated exchange at the White House on Friday, during which Trump accused him of “gambling with World War Three.”

Meanwhile, the British government has confirmed that Prime Minister Keir Starmer will host Zelensky at Downing Street today. This meeting comes ahead of an important summit with European leaders set for Sunday.

How U.S. Media Outlets Are Reacting

American media outlets are actively covering the fallout from last night’s public diplomatic standoff between Zelensky and Trump.

Fox News ran the headline “‘World War III’ fears,” previewing an interview with Zelensky conducted by host Bret Baier. In the interview, Baier questioned whether Zelensky believed the relationship with Trump could be salvaged after the confrontation.

Bloomberg’s front page carried the headline: “President Zelensky’s blow-up with Trump leaves allies facing disaster.”

The Washington Post reported that the “fiery meeting” in the Oval Office had “upended Trump’s Russia-Ukraine peace deal.” Meanwhile, CNN focused on the global implications, running the headline: “Western leaders scramble to back Ukraine.”

MSNBC’s Anthony L. Fisher characterized the encounter as a disgraceful moment for the United States, writing, “Trump’s Oval Office meeting with Zelensky was a shameful moment for America.”

The New York Times framed the incident as emblematic of a broader shift in U.S. foreign policy, stating that the meeting “points to Trump’s foreign policy revolution.”

Ukrainian Reactions: ‘Trump Looks Like a Partner for Russia’

The reaction in Ukraine has been swift, particularly from residents in Lviv, located in the western part of the country.

One local commented that Trump does not seem to be aligned with Ukraine’s interests, saying, “He looks like a partner for Russia.”

Another citizen expressed the need for greater European involvement, stating, “Europe should be much more active economically and in terms of military support.”

A third resident noted that he had low expectations ahead of Zelensky’s trip to Washington, suggesting that the recent developments have only reinforced doubts about U.S. commitment.

Observers have pointed out that the once-solid alliance between Ukraine and the U.S. appears to be fracturing, forcing European nations to step in and fill the gaps, particularly in terms of military aid.

The White House meeting itself has drawn mixed interpretations—some viewing it as a moment of necessary bluntness, while others see it as a display of arrogance.

Senator JD Vance’s involvement in the confrontation also stood out. Typically, vice presidents play a more restrained role in high-level diplomatic meetings, but Vance’s aggressive approach surprised many.

Zelensky, appearing visibly frustrated, engaged in the verbal sparring, escalating tensions further. “I’ve never seen anything like last night’s argument in the White House before,” an observer remarked. Some speculate that the confrontation was orchestrated to provoke the Ukrainian leader.

Moscow Watches as U.S.-Ukraine Tensions Rise

The Kremlin has taken a cautious approach in responding to the fallout from the White House meeting. Russian President Vladimir Putin has not commented on the situation, though analysts believe the confrontation played into Moscow’s hands.

During a meeting with Russian security officials, Putin acknowledged that Trump’s stance on Russia offers some “hope” but refrained from making any predictions about whether improved relations with Washington could influence the war in Ukraine.

Despite increased diplomatic engagement between Moscow and the White House, no concrete agreements have emerged, and there is no scheduled meeting between Trump and Putin.

For Russia, the optics of Trump and Vance confronting Zelensky serve as an unexpected strategic advantage. Nevertheless, while rhetoric may be shifting, the war in Ukraine persists, and fears over U.S. aid reductions have yet to materialize.

Putin appears to be treading carefully, ensuring that his comments do not alienate the Trump administration while also maintaining Russia’s longstanding adversarial stance toward the U.S.

A Devastating Visit for Ukraine

Regardless of whether Zelensky was intentionally provoked or should have handled the situation with greater diplomacy, the visit to Washington proved to be disastrous for Ukraine.

Many Ukrainians watching from Kyiv perceived the encounter as a moment of existential importance for their nation.

Yulia, a Kyiv resident, defended Zelensky’s approach, saying, “It was an emotional conversation, but I understand our president. Maybe it wasn’t diplomatic, but it was sincere. It’s about life, we want to live.”

Andriy, a 30-year-old local, criticized Trump and Vance’s conduct. “They were so rude,” he said. “They don’t respect the people of Ukraine.”

Dmytro, 26, voiced concerns that U.S. policy might be shifting in Russia’s favor. “It looks like Washington supports Russia,” he observed.

Inna Sovsun, a Ukrainian member of parliament, described the reaction in Kyiv as one of “shock.”

“It was difficult to watch a president who’s been a victim of Russian aggression being attacked by the leader of the free world,” she said. “It’s painful.”

Moscow Declares Zelensky’s Trip a Failure

Russia has wasted no time in labeling Zelensky’s visit to Washington as a diplomatic disaster.

Maria Zakharova, the Kremlin’s foreign ministry spokeswoman, claimed the Ukrainian leader was “obsessed” with prolonging the war. She reiterated Moscow’s goals of “demilitarizing” Ukraine and permanently annexing occupied territories.

Zakharova also accused Zelensky of being a reckless instigator of global conflict. “With his outrageously rude behavior during his stay in Washington, Zelensky confirmed that he is the most dangerous threat to the world community as an irresponsible instigator of a major war,” she said.

She added that Kyiv and certain European capitals must recognize this reality if there is to be any hope for a peaceful resolution to the crisis.

Meanwhile, Putin remains silent on the Oval Office incident. While world leaders have weighed in, the Russian president has opted to observe developments from the sidelines.

However, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev did not hold back. Writing on social media, Medvedev said Zelensky had been “slapped down in the Oval Office” and urged Washington to halt military assistance to Ukraine.

Zelensky Calls for U.S. Support as the War Continues

Zelensky has reiterated his plea for stronger U.S. backing, emphasizing that Ukraine needs more than just diplomatic assurances.

Posting on X, he reaffirmed his willingness to sign a minerals deal with Trump but underscored the necessity of clear security commitments from Washington.

His remarks come in the wake of the contentious Oval Office meeting, where he faced sharp criticism from Trump and Vice President JD Vance.

Trump has since characterized the encounter as a misstep for Zelensky, asserting that the Ukrainian leader “overplayed his hand with a weak set of cards.”

Following his Washington visit, Zelensky has arrived in London, where he is set to meet Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Later, he will attend a European summit where Ukraine’s security and military aid will be key discussion points.

Meanwhile, the war rages on in Ukraine. The city of Kharkiv has suffered further casualties following a Russian drone attack, highlighting the ongoing devastation despite the political drama unfolding on the world stage.

European leaders have expressed strong support for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky following his tense encounter with former U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House.

Leaders from Germany, France, Spain, Poland, and the Netherlands took to social media to reaffirm their backing for Ukraine. Zelensky responded to each message, personally thanking them for their solidarity.

Zelensky has since traveled to London for a summit hosted by UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, whose government has emphasized its unwavering commitment to Ukraine, according to Downing Street.

The show of European unity follows a heated exchange in the Oval Office on Friday, where Trump told Zelensky to negotiate a settlement with Russia or risk losing U.S. support.

During the confrontation, Trump criticized Zelensky for not showing enough gratitude for the military and political aid the U.S. has provided to Ukraine in its war against Russia. Trump warned him that failing to appreciate this assistance was akin to “gambling with World War Three.”

As international leaders reacted to the confrontation, social media was flooded with messages of support for Ukraine, including statements from the prime ministers of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Zelensky responded to each one with a simple but direct acknowledgment: “Thank you for your support.”

French President Emmanuel Macron strongly condemned Russia’s actions, stating, “There is an aggressor: Russia. There is a victim: Ukraine. We were right to help Ukraine and sanction Russia three years ago—and to keep doing so.”

Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof reiterated the Netherlands’ commitment, writing, “We support Ukraine now more than ever. We want a lasting peace and an end to the war of aggression started by Russia. For Ukraine and its people, and for Europe.”

Germany’s outgoing Chancellor Olaf Scholz stressed the Ukrainian people’s desire for peace, remarking, “No one wants peace more than the citizens of Ukraine.” His expected successor, Friedrich Merz, reinforced this stance, stating, “We stand with Ukraine” and emphasizing that the world “must never confuse aggressor and victim in this terrible war.”

Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez kept his message straightforward: “Ukraine, Spain stands with you.” Meanwhile, Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk addressed Zelensky and the Ukrainian people directly, stating, “Dear [Zelensky], dear Ukrainian friends, you are not alone.”

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen praised Zelensky’s leadership, stating, “Your dignity honors the bravery of the Ukrainian people.”

Beyond Europe, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau assured, “Canada will continue to stand with Ukraine and Ukrainians in achieving a just and lasting peace.”

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese echoed similar sentiments, writing, “Australia has proudly supported the brave people of Ukraine in their struggle to defend their sovereignty against the brutality of Russian aggression and in support of international law.”

Additional statements of support came from Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Moldova, Romania, Sweden, and Slovenia.

However, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán offered a different perspective, siding with Trump. He posted, “Strong men make peace, weak men make war. Today President @realDonaldTrump stood bravely for peace. Even if it was difficult for many to digest. Thank you, Mr. President!”

Following his confrontation with Trump, Zelensky left the White House earlier than expected. Nevertheless, he later expressed gratitude to Trump on social media, writing, “Ukraine needs just and lasting peace, and we are working exactly for that.”

On Saturday, Zelensky took to the messaging platform Telegram to emphasize the significance of global attention on Ukraine. “It is very important for us that Ukraine is heard and that no one forgets about it, neither during the war nor after,” he wrote.

He added, “It is important for people in Ukraine to know that they are not alone, that their interests are represented in every country, in every corner of the world.”

In an interview with Fox News after his White House visit, Zelensky admitted that his dispute with Trump was “not good for both sides” but expressed hope that their working relationship could be repaired.

The tense encounter unfolded as the two leaders were set to sign an agreement granting the U.S. access to Ukraine’s deposits of rare earth minerals. However, the conversation took a turn when U.S. Vice President JD Vance, who was present in the meeting, suggested that the war needed to be concluded through diplomatic means.

Zelensky pushed back, asking, “What kind of diplomacy?” He referenced a 2019 ceasefire agreement negotiated before Russia’s full-scale invasion, a deal that took place while Moscow was still backing separatist forces in eastern Ukraine.

Vance, in response, accused Zelensky of being disrespectful and “litigating” the conflict in front of the media. The conversation grew increasingly tense as both sides interrupted each other.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has since called for an urgent summit between the U.S., Europe, and other allies to address the situation in Ukraine.

On Sunday, Sir Keir Starmer is set to host critical talks at Downing Street, where European leaders will discuss potential strategies for enforcing a future peace agreement.

The UK Prime Minister believes that any lasting settlement will require U.S. military assets to play a role in monitoring and enforcing the terms. This could include intelligence-sharing, surveillance efforts, and possibly even air support to deter further aggression from Russian President Vladimir Putin.

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy are set to meet at the White House on Friday following heated exchanges over peace negotiations and an unexpected shift in U.S. policy toward Vladimir Putin and Russia.

As the conflict nears its third anniversary, Trump has referred to Zelenskyy as a “dictator without elections” and a “modestly successful comedian,” while adopting a more accommodating stance toward Putin. Trump suggested that the U.S. would negotiate the terms of a settlement with Russia.

Zelenskyy, in response, accused Trump of being trapped in a “web of disinformation,” particularly after preliminary discussions between U.S. and Kremlin officials in Saudi Arabia. Trump also falsely claimed that Ukraine initiated the war, disregarding the fact that Russia launched the invasion.

The key issue at stake, which could influence the course of peace talks, is an agreement granting the U.S. access to Ukraine’s mineral resources. Trump has framed this deal as a means to ensure that American taxpayers receive some form of reimbursement for the financial aid provided to Ukraine during its conflict with Russia.

“We’ll be digging. We’ll be dig, dig, digging. Dig, we must,” Trump stated on Thursday, emphasizing that the U.S. would be actively involved in extracting rare earth minerals in Ukraine. “It’ll be great for Ukraine. It’s like a huge economic development project. So, it’ll be good for both countries.”

Zelenskyy, however, has presented the deal differently, viewing it primarily as a strategy to maintain U.S. support.

Although the agreement does not offer the security guarantees Zelenskyy deems essential for a lasting peace settlement, Trump administration officials argue that significant U.S. investment in Ukraine’s economy could function as a deterrent against further Russian aggression.

“I will meet with President Trump,” Zelenskyy stated on Wednesday. “For me, and for all of us in the world, it is crucial that America’s assistance is not stopped. Strength is essential on the path to peace.”

Details of the Agreement

According to officials familiar with the discussions, the agreement involves U.S.-Ukraine collaboration in extracting valuable minerals and other natural resources from Ukrainian soil.

Unlike previous proposals, this version does not require Ukraine to allocate revenue from mineral sales to repay the U.S. $500 billion—an amount the Trump administration previously described as “payback” for the approximately $183 billion in aid provided to Ukraine, as reported by the U.S. special inspector general overseeing Ukrainian assistance.

Instead, the deal proposes the creation of a joint investment fund for Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction. The specifics regarding the management and operation of this fund will be determined through subsequent negotiations.

Much of the success of this initiative will depend on market forces.

“The profitability of the fund is entirely dependent on the success of new investments in Ukraine’s resources,” said Gracelin Baskaran, director of the Critical Minerals Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and Meredith Schwartz, a research associate at the same program.

“Therefore, the response of private industry is key to the success of the fund and will determine how much value the United States ultimately derives,” they explained.

However, Ukrainian officials made some concessions. Initially, Kyiv sought firm security guarantees within the agreement, but the finalized framework lacks these provisions.

“However, the idea is that with joint U.S.-Ukraine investment in the nation’s resources, the United States will continue to have a stake in Ukraine’s security, stability, and lasting peace and therefore be incentivized to uphold and defend Ukrainian security,” Baskaran and Schwartz stated.

Should the deal prove successful, they suggest that the U.S. may enhance its mineral security, but tangible benefits might not materialize for decades.

“Mining is a long-term effort—so the United States may not yield benefits for another 20 years,” they noted.

Trump himself acknowledged the uncertainty.

“You know, you dig and maybe things aren’t there like you think they’re there,” he remarked on Thursday.

A Shift in Trump’s Rhetoric

After days of harsh criticism directed at Zelenskyy, Trump moderated his stance on Thursday.

When asked whether he still considered Zelenskyy a dictator—an assertion he made just over a week ago—Trump replied, “Did I say that? I can’t believe I said that,” before quickly moving on.

Later in the day, Trump also commended Zelenskyy and Ukrainian forces for their resilience in combat.

“We’ve given him a lot of equipment and a lot of money, but they have fought very bravely. No matter how you figure it, they have really fought,” Trump acknowledged. “Somebody has to use that equipment. And they have been very brave in that sense.”

Ukrainian officials advocating for the mineral deal may view Trump’s softened rhetoric as validation of their argument—that signing the agreement could strengthen ties between Kyiv and the Trump administration, whereas delaying it might further strain Trump’s perception of Zelenskyy.

However, whether this positive shift in tone will endure remains uncertain.

“Critical mineral resource access is the latest arena for Trump to focus his transactional methods of diplomacy,” Baskaran and Schwartz stated. “But the viability of the deal remains to be seen as tensions continue to rise between the two world leaders.”

Given Trump’s well-known impatience, some U.S. officials anticipate that slow progress on the deal could lead to frustration.

Additionally, any discord during Friday’s White House meeting could quickly sour Trump’s attitude toward Zelenskyy once again. While Trump is expected to emphasize the economic benefits of the agreement for the U.S., Zelenskyy is likely to push for additional security assurances.

Nonetheless, Trump projected optimism ahead of the meeting.

“I think we’re going to have a very good meeting,” he said. “We’re going to get along really well. Okay. We have a lot of respect. I have a lot of respect for him.”

John E. Herbst, senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center and a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, believes that the very fact that the meeting is taking place is a positive development for Ukraine.

“Zelenskyy’s visit highlights how far he has come from two weeks back, when Trump spoke of seeing Putin as many as three times in the near future, or even last week, when senior Russian and U.S. officials were meeting in Riyadh,” Herbst said. “Yet now it is Zelenskyy, not Putin, in the Oval Office.”

Ongoing Peace Talks

While public attention has largely shifted to negotiations over the mineral deal, discussions aimed at ultimately resolving the war in Ukraine are continuing through separate diplomatic channels.

On Thursday, American and Russian officials convened in Istanbul for a six-hour meeting focused on expanding the staffing of their respective embassies in Moscow and Washington. Secretary of State Marco Rubio previously emphasized that such diplomatic expansion was necessary to facilitate cooperation, including efforts to end the war in Ukraine.

Officials from both sides described the meeting’s outcome as favorable, predicting that a stronger diplomatic presence could pave the way for broader peace negotiations and a potential summit between Trump and Putin.

As European leaders push for U.S. security guarantees to enforce a truce in Ukraine, Trump has repeatedly asserted his confidence in Putin’s commitment to honoring a peace agreement.

“I’ve known him for a long time now,” Trump said. “I don’t believe he’s going to violate his word. I don’t think he’ll be back. When we make a deal, I think the deal is going to hold.”

However, before meeting with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Trump added an important qualifier.

“You know, look, it’s trust and verify, let’s call it that,” he remarked.

Clifford D. May, president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, stressed the importance of Trump maintaining a realistic perspective on Putin.

“As President Trump attempts to negotiate a halt to Russia’s war against Ukraine, it’s not unreasonable for him to show respect for Mr. Putin (as he has been) if he believes that will make Mr. Putin more likely to agree to concessions,” May said.

“But it’s imperative that President Trump harbor no illusions about Mr. Putin—about his character, ambitions, ideology, and his abiding hatred for American greatness,” he added.

President Donald Trump voiced optimism that Russia’s war in Ukraine is approaching a resolution as he met with French President Emmanuel Macron on Monday, marking the third anniversary of the invasion. However, Macron emphasized the importance of ensuring that any potential agreement with Moscow does not equate to Ukraine’s surrender.

The discussions took place amid significant uncertainty regarding the future of transatlantic relations, as Trump seeks to reshape American foreign policy. His approach has largely sidelined European leadership while he pursues a swift resolution to the conflict in Ukraine.

Although Trump and Macron displayed cordiality at the White House, their respective nations were engaged in a dispute at the United Nations over resolutions that labeled Russia as the aggressor in the war.

Addressing the broader conflict, Trump stated that he believed Russian President Vladimir Putin would be open to the presence of European peacekeepers in Ukraine.

“Yeah, he will accept it,” Trump said to reporters. “I have asked him that question. Look, if we do this deal, he’s not looking for more war.”

Trump also expressed hope that the war could conclude within weeks. He suggested that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy would soon travel to the United States to finalize an agreement allowing America access to Ukraine’s essential minerals, which are crucial for advanced technology.

The economic deal Trump is promoting is intended to compensate for some of the $180 billion in U.S. aid that has been allocated to Kyiv since the war began. A portion of these funds has been utilized domestically to replenish aging weapons that were supplied to Ukraine.

“It looks like we’re getting very close,” Trump said regarding the minerals deal before his meeting with Macron. He indicated that Zelenskyy might visit Washington this week or next to sign the agreement.

Ukraine’s Security Considerations

Ukraine is also seeking long-term security assurances as part of any settlement. However, Trump did not specify whether the developing agreement would include such commitments from the United States. Instead, he remarked, “Europe is going to make sure nothing happens.”

A French official familiar with the discussions between Macron and Trump indicated that the U.S. president did not oppose the idea of American security guarantees in a potential peace agreement, though the specifics were still being negotiated. The official spoke anonymously, as they were not authorized to comment publicly.

During a joint press conference, Macron acknowledged that European nations must increase their defense efforts but warned against conceding too much to Russia.

“This peace must not mean a surrender of Ukraine,” Macron asserted. “It must not mean a ceasefire without guarantees. This peace must allow for Ukrainian sovereignty.”

Macron had ceased direct communication with Putin after Russian forces carried out atrocities in the Kyiv suburb of Bucha early in the conflict. However, he stated that the situation had evolved and expressed hope that Trump’s engagement with Putin could lead to progress.

“Now, there is a big chance because there is a new U.S. administration, so this is a new context,” Macron said. “So there is good reason for President Trump to reengage with President Putin.”

Putin, however, stated on Monday that he had not discussed a detailed resolution to the conflict with Trump. Additionally, Russian and American negotiation teams had not delved into specifics when they met in Saudi Arabia last week.

Putin also mentioned that Russia was open to including European nations—who were initially excluded from the talks in Riyadh—in future peace negotiations.

A Shift in American Foreign Policy

The third anniversary of the war and the discussions at the White House occurred at a time of considerable unease in Europe. Trump’s administration has ushered in a drastic shift in U.S. foreign policy.

Trump has made bold territorial demands involving Greenland, Canada, Gaza, and the Panama Canal. Just over a month into his second term, his “America First” approach has raised concerns among diplomats and former government officials who previously viewed the United States as a pillar of global stability.

Despite occasional missteps, the United States’ military, economic, and diplomatic influence has defined the post-World War II era, particularly after the Soviet Union’s collapse ended the Cold War. Many fear that Trump’s strategy could dismantle these long-standing principles, including those that underpin the United Nations and other international institutions.

“The only conclusion you can draw is that 80 years of policy in standing up against aggressors has just been blown up without any sort of discussion or reflection,” said Ian Kelly, a former U.S. ambassador to Georgia during the Obama and first Trump administrations and currently a professor at Northwestern University.

Meetings with European Leaders

Trump is set to meet with another key European leader, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, on Thursday.

His approach to Ukraine has unsettled European allies, particularly his repeated criticism of Zelenskyy for not engaging in negotiations to end the war. Trump has also pushed for Ukraine to sign an economic deal granting the U.S. access to its vital mineral resources, which are valuable to American aerospace, medical, and technology industries.

Initially, Zelenskyy resisted the proposal, citing the lack of security guarantees. On Sunday, he wrote on X that “we are making great progress” but insisted that “we want a good economic deal that will be part of a true security guarantee system for Ukraine.”

During a public dispute, Trump accused Zelenskyy of residing in a “Russian-made disinformation space” and labeled him a “dictator,” falsely asserting that Kyiv had instigated the war. In reality, Russia invaded its smaller, less-equipped neighbor in February 2022.

When asked on Monday whether he considered Putin a dictator as well, Trump declined to use the term, stating, “I don’t use those words lightly.”

Differences Among Allies

While Macron and Trump engaged in discussions, including a virtual meeting with fellow Group of Seven (G7) leaders, the United States diverged from its European allies at the United Nations. The U.S. refrained from endorsing resolutions that explicitly blamed Russia for the invasion of Ukraine.

The United States ultimately abstained from voting on its own resolution after European countries, led by France, succeeded in amending it to explicitly identify Russia as the aggressor.

Before meeting with Trump, Macron emphasized that he would urge the U.S. president to recognize the shared interest of Americans and Europeans in not appearing weak in front of Putin.

“It’s not you, it’s not your trademark, it’s not in your interest,” Macron said. “How can you then be credible in the face of China if you’re weak in the face of Putin?”

Despite this stance, Trump has indicated his desire for Russia to rejoin the G7, from which it was expelled in 2014 following its annexation of Crimea.

“I really believe he wants to make a deal,” Trump said regarding Putin. “I may be wrong, but I believe he wants to make a deal.”

The opposition conservatives, led by Friedrich Merz, secured a modest victory in Germany’s election on Sunday, while the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) saw its support double, marking the strongest performance for an extreme-right party since World War II, according to projections.

Chancellor Olaf Scholz acknowledged defeat for his center-left Social Democrats, calling it “a bitter election result.” Projections from ARD and ZDF public television indicated that his party had finished in third place, marking its worst postwar performance in a national parliamentary election.

Merz expressed his intention to form a coalition government by Easter, though assembling such an alliance is expected to be challenging.

A Discontented Electorate

The election was held seven months ahead of schedule after Scholz’s unpopular coalition collapsed in November. His three-year tenure had been plagued by internal divisions, leading to widespread dissatisfaction among voters. However, there was little enthusiasm for any of the candidates.

Key concerns during the campaign included the prolonged economic stagnation in Europe’s largest economy and the pressure to control migration. Merz, in recent weeks, had strongly advocated for stricter immigration policies, fueling debate. Additionally, uncertainty surrounding Ukraine’s future and Europe’s alliance with the United States added to voter concerns.

As the most populous country in the European Union and a leading NATO member, Germany plays a crucial role in shaping Europe’s responses to global challenges. It has been the second-largest supplier of weapons to Ukraine, following the United States. The outcome of the election is expected to influence Germany’s stance on issues such as U.S. foreign policy under a potential new Trump administration.

According to projections based on exit polls and preliminary results, Merz’s Union bloc garnered around 28.5% of the vote, while the anti-immigration AfD received approximately 20.5%—nearly double its 2021 result.

Scholz’s Social Democrats managed just over 16%, significantly lower than their previous election performance and worse than their postwar low of 20.5% in 2017. The Greens, who had been part of the outgoing coalition government, secured about 12%.

Among the smaller parties, the hard-left Left Party showed resilience, making a comeback with up to 9% of the vote. The pro-business Free Democrats, also a part of the collapsed government, appeared poised to lose their parliamentary representation, with support hovering around 4.5%. Meanwhile, the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) was on the brink of the 5% threshold required to enter parliament.

Merz Faces Tough Road Ahead

The ability of Merz to form a coalition government depends on whether he can secure a majority with the Social Democrats or if a second partner, likely the Greens, will be necessary. The inclusion of the BSW in parliament could also influence coalition dynamics.

“The most important thing is to reestablish a viable government in Germany as quickly as possible,” Merz emphasized.

“I am aware of the responsibility,” he stated. “I am also aware of the scale of the task that now lies ahead of us. I approach it with the utmost respect, and I know that it will not be easy.”

Merz also warned that prolonged coalition negotiations would be detrimental. “The world out there isn’t waiting for us, and it isn’t waiting for long-drawn-out coalition talks and negotiations,” he told his cheering supporters.

Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck, the Greens’ candidate for chancellor, urged Merz to adopt a more moderate approach following an intense campaign.

“We have seen the center is weakened overall, and everyone should look at themselves and ask whether they didn’t contribute to that,” Habeck remarked. “Now he must see that he acts like a chancellor.”

Despite its role in Scholz’s unpopular administration, the Greens fared relatively well compared to their coalition partners. Matthias Miersch, the Social Democrats’ general secretary, admitted that their defeat had been long in the making. “This election wasn’t lost in the last eight weeks,” he observed.

A Triumphant Yet Isolated Far-Right Party

AfD co-leader Tino Chrupalla celebrated the party’s historic gains, addressing enthusiastic supporters. “We have achieved something historic today,” he declared.

“We are now the political center and we have left the fringes behind us,” Chrupalla asserted. AfD’sprevious best result was 12.6% in 2017 when it first entered parliament.

Alice Weidel, AfD’s candidate for chancellor, signaled the party’s openness to coalition talks with Merz’s conservatives. “We are open for coalition negotiations” with the Union, she said, adding, “Otherwise, no change of policy is possible in Germany.”

However, Merz and other mainstream leaders have consistently rejected working with AfD, and he reiterated this stance in a televised discussion with Weidel and other political leaders after the election.

Weidel suggested that AfD would not need to compromise much in any theoretical coalition, arguing that the Union had largely adopted its policies. She dismissed Merz’s victory as hollow, stating, “It won’t be able to implement it with left-wing parties.”

She predicted instability if Merz formed an alliance with the Social Democrats and the Greens. “It will be an unstable government that doesn’t last four years, there will be an interim Chancellor Friedrich Merz, and in the coming years, we will overtake the Union,” Weidel claimed.

Merz dismissed the possibility of a coalition with AfD, emphasizing that their policy positions were fundamentally at odds. “We have fundamentally different views, for example, on foreign policy, on security policy, in many other areas, regarding Europe, the euro, NATO,” he stated.

“You want the opposite of what we want, so there will be no cooperation,” he added.

Scholz also condemned AfD’s rising influence, asserting, “That must never be something that we will accept. I will not accept it and never will.”

The election saw more than 59 million eligible voters participate in choosing the 630 members of the Bundestag, Germany’s lower house of parliament, who will take their seats under the iconic glass dome of Berlin’s Reichstag building.

Former Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley took issue with President Trump’s recent remarks about Ukraine and its leader, Volodymyr Zelensky. She criticized Trump for his stance on the ongoing war in Eastern Europe and his negative comments about Zelensky, calling them “classic Russian talking points” and “exactly what Putin wants.”

On Tuesday, Trump appeared to place blame on Zelensky and Ukraine’s leadership for the war, which is now nearing its third anniversary. The following day, he reinforced his criticism, stating that Zelensky had done a “terrible job” leading the embattled country. Trump also accused Ukraine’s president of exploiting Washington, pointing to the extensive financial aid the U.S. has provided over the past three years.

Haley, who withdrew from the 2024 race and later endorsed Trump, took issue with his statements. As a strong advocate for U.S. foreign policy interests, she has consistently supported Ukraine and has argued that aiding Kyiv aligns with America’s national security priorities.

Trump’s criticisms of Zelensky coincided with a meeting in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday, where U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and national security adviser Mike Waltz, engaged in discussions with Russian representatives. The talks aimed to explore potential peace negotiations and a re-establishment of diplomatic relations, which had weakened following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Notably, Ukraine was not represented in the meeting.

The following day, Trump escalated his attacks, referring to Zelensky as a “dictator” and accusing him of failing to hold nationwide elections. He also claimed that Zelensky’s approval rating had plummeted to single digits. However, under Ukraine’s martial law, elections are not permitted. A survey published Wednesday by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology indicated that 57 percent of Ukrainians still trust their president.

Zelensky did not remain silent in the face of Trump’s remarks. In response to Trump’s Tuesday comments, he fired back, stating that the former U.S. president was operating within a Russian “disinformation space.”

Haley’s criticism of Trump aligns with her longstanding foreign policy views. Since joining the Hudson Institute think tank after exiting the presidential race, she has maintained that supporting Ukraine is vital to U.S. interests. She has also voiced her backing for Ukraine’s eventual inclusion in NATO, further underscoring her commitment to Kyiv.

Trump’s recent remarks on Ukraine have not only drawn pushback from Haley but also from his former vice president and one-time 2024 primary rival, Mike Pence.

“Mr. President, Ukraine did not ‘start’ this war. Russia launched an unprovoked and brutal invasion claiming hundreds of thousands of lives. The Road to Peace must be built on the Truth,” Pence stated in a pointed message on Wednesday.

Some Republican senators have also expressed concerns over Trump’s rhetoric. Many have defended Zelensky’s leadership, emphasizing that Russia was the aggressor in 2022, eight years after annexing Crimea.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who recently traveled to Kyiv with Senate Democrats, acknowledged Zelensky’s challenges but praised his leadership. “Zelensky is frustrated, but he’s also been the right head of state for the time. He’s kept a nation together focused on Russian occupiers, and I think we should give them a fair amount of credit for that work,” Tillis said.

Sir John Major has cautioned that democracy is at risk as the United States retreats from its global leadership role.

The former British prime minister expressed concern that President Donald Trump’s policy of American “isolation” is leaving a power vacuum, potentially emboldening nations such as Russia and China.

Sir John, who led the UK from 1990 to 1997, remarked that the progress achieved since the Soviet Union’s collapse was now being undone. He asserted that Russia was likely to invade other countries in the near future. “There is no doubt in my mind that democracy has been in modest decline over the last 18 years,” he said, emphasizing that “ugly nationalism” was emerging, contributing to an increasingly unstable global situation.

His warning coincides with preparations by European leaders for an emergency summit on the war in Ukraine. Meanwhile, U.S. and Russian officials are set to engage in peace talks, raising concerns that European nations, including Ukraine, are being excluded from negotiations.

Sir John also dismissed U.S. Vice President JD Vance’s recent criticism of Europe’s record on free speech. He argued that such remarks should have been directed at Moscow or Beijing instead. Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s The World This Weekend, he stated, “It’s extremely odd to lecture Europe on the subject of free speech and democracy at the same time as they’re cuddling [Russian President Vladimir] Putin.”

He further condemned Russia’s suppression of dissent, saying, “In Mr. Putin’s Russia, people who disagree with him disappear, or die, or flee the country, or—on a statistically unlikely level—fall out of high windows somewhere in Moscow.”

Sir John highlighted the shifting geopolitical landscape, stating, “The world is changing and may not be reshaping in a way that is congenial to the West.” He pointed to Russia’s aggressive actions in Ukraine as evidence that past diplomatic gains were being undone. “Many of the gains we made over recent years, when the Soviet Union collapsed, are now being reversed, and you see a very aggressive Russia again in Ukraine,” he said. He warned that if Russia succeeded in its objectives in Ukraine, “no doubt they’d be elsewhere before too long.”

Discussing the broader decline of democracy, Sir John reiterated, “There is an ugly nationalism growing, mostly from the intolerant right… So it is a very unsettled time.”

Addressing domestic political matters, the former Conservative leader acknowledged the economic difficulties faced by the UK government, particularly Chancellor Rachel Reeves. However, he suggested that the current global climate might necessitate increased defense spending. “It’s very, very easy to say from outside government, ‘I’d just do this and I’d spend all this money,'” he said. “I would prefer to say I would realise in my plans that we have to make a very material increase in the level of defence expenditure and do it as a priority as soon as it is credible to do so.”

Speaking separately on the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg program, Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds emphasized the need for the UK and Europe to respond to U.S. calls for greater contributions toward their “collective defense” in the face of “greater threats.”

Reynolds confirmed that the government would outline a roadmap to increase defense spending from 2.3% to 2.5% of the nation’s economic output. However, he did not specify a timeline for achieving this target.

Despite growing tensions between the U.S. and its allies regarding the Ukraine conflict, Reynolds maintained that there was “still a great deal of common ground” between the nations.

Sir John has voiced his concerns on multiple occasions in recent years, particularly regarding Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which began in 2022. In the early stages of the war, he joined former Prime Minister Gordon Brown and others in signing a petition demanding that Vladimir Putin face a Nuremberg-style trial for war crimes over his actions in Ukraine.

U.S. Vice President JD Vance, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky, and nearly 60 world leaders and policymakers are set to gather in Munich for the annual Munich Security Conference (MSC) over the next three days.

For nearly two decades, this event has been a focal point for global security discussions, but this year, the stakes appear higher than ever. A senior Western official described the current global security climate as “the most dangerous and contested time” of their career.

Cracks in the International Order

The established global security structure, often referred to as the International Rules-based Order, is facing unprecedented strain. Some argue it is already beginning to collapse.

When Russian President Vladimir Putin launched his full-scale invasion of Ukraine three years ago, much of the world condemned the move. NATO, the European Union, and Western nations demonstrated remarkable unity in supporting Ukraine, ensuring it could defend itself without direct Western military intervention.

While Hungary and Slovakia occasionally expressed reservations, there was broad consensus that Putin’s invasion needed to fail to prevent Russia from further aggression, possibly against NATO members like Estonia. The prevailing belief was that Ukraine should receive whatever it needed to achieve a strong negotiating position for lasting peace.

U.S. Shifts Policy on Ukraine

However, that unity has begun to fray. Former President Donald Trump has significantly undermined Ukraine’s stance by declaring—through his Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth—that restoring Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders is “not realistic.” Additionally, the U.S. has dismissed Kyiv’s aspirations for NATO membership, a key goal for President Zelensky, and ruled out sending troops to defend Ukraine from potential future Russian invasions.

Further rattling Western allies, Trump recently held a cordial 90-minute phone call with Putin, abruptly ending a three-year diplomatic freeze. This shift in U.S. policy suggests a preference for quickly ending the war, even if it means meeting many of Moscow’s demands.

Over the coming days in Munich, Trump’s team is expected to outline their plans for Ukraine, with retired U.S. Army General Keith Kellogg traveling to Kyiv next week for further discussions. However, a clear rift has emerged between Washington and Europe. While the U.S. prioritizes ending the war swiftly, European leaders had, until recently, believed that sustained pressure on Moscow—amid significant Russian battlefield casualties and economic struggles—could secure a more favorable peace for Ukraine.

NATO’s Growing Divisions

Beyond Ukraine, other cracks are emerging within NATO. Trump’s recent announcement of his interest in “buying” Greenland—an autonomous territory of Denmark—has sparked fresh tensions. When Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen firmly stated that “Greenland is not for sale,” Trump reportedly reacted with a “horrendous” phone call and did not rule out using force to take the territory.

The notion of a NATO country threatening to seize another member’s land was once unthinkable. In Greenland’s case, U.S. security interests are already well-served, as the island hosts more American troops than Danish forces, and Copenhagen has been open to strengthening mutual defense arrangements.

While many in Scandinavia hope Trump’s proposal is mere rhetoric, the broader damage is already done. His remarks signal a troubling precedent—that using force against neighbors for territorial gain is acceptable.

Former UK National Security Adviser and Ambassador to Washington, Lord Kim Darroch, warned that Trump’s threats against Denmark—whether economic or military—send a dangerous message. “Even if nothing comes from it, it’s done great damage. It’s another signal of Trump’s disdain for NATO. And it will be interpreted in Moscow and Beijing as a message that they have a free hand in Ukraine and Taiwan respectively,” he said.

At the Munich Security Conference, European allies will seek reassurance from Washington that NATO remains strong. However, Trump appears determined to reshape America’s global role and seems unlikely to heed European concerns.

President Donald Trump welcomed Jordan’s King Abdullah II to the White House on Tuesday, once again pushing his controversial idea of evacuating Gaza’s population, placing it under U.S. control, and transforming it into a tourist destination.

This ambitious but highly improbable proposal to reshape the Middle East would require Jordan and other Arab nations to take in displaced Gazans. However, after their meeting, Abdullah reaffirmed his opposition to such a move.

Their discussion took place in the Oval Office, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio also present. Although Trump had previously suggested withholding U.S. aid from Jordan or Egypt if they refused to accept more people from Gaza, he appeared to backtrack on that stance.

“I don’t have to threaten that. I do believe we’re above that,” Trump stated. This contradicted his earlier remarks, where he had implied that reducing U.S. assistance was a possibility.

When asked multiple times about Trump’s plan to empty Gaza and convert it into a Mediterranean resort, Abdullah refrained from making any concrete remarks or committing to taking in large numbers of displaced Gazans.

However, the Jordanian leader did express his country’s willingness to accept up to 2,000 ill or cancer-stricken children from Gaza “right away.”

“I finally see somebody that can take us across the finish line to bring stability, peace and prosperity to all of us in the region,” Abdullah remarked, referring to Trump during their meeting.

After spending about two hours at the White House, Abdullah proceeded to Capitol Hill for discussions with a bipartisan group of lawmakers. Later, he posted on X, stating, “I reiterated Jordan’s steadfast position against the displacement of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.”

“This is the unified Arab position. Rebuilding Gaza without displacing the Palestinians and addressing the dire humanitarian situation should be the priority for all,” he wrote.

Despite Abdullah’s firm stance, Trump used the meeting to once again suggest that the U.S. could assume control of Gaza. He claimed this wouldn’t require American financial contributions but insisted that placing the region under “U.S. authority” was feasible, though he did not elaborate on what that would entail.

“We’re not going to buy anything. We’re going to have it,” Trump said regarding U.S. control in Gaza. He envisioned constructing new hotels, office buildings, and residences, promising that the region would be “exciting.”

“I can tell you about real estate. They’re going to be in love with it,” Trump added, referencing his background in property development, while also maintaining that he had no personal interest in handling the redevelopment.

Trump has previously suggested that Gaza’s population could be relocated, either temporarily or permanently—an idea that has been met with strong opposition across the Arab world.

The former president also reiterated that a fragile ceasefire between Hamas and Israel could be scrapped if Hamas failed to release all remaining hostages by midday Saturday. He first raised this point on Monday but acknowledged that Israel would ultimately decide on the matter.

“I don’t think they’re going to make the deadline, personally,” Trump commented on Tuesday, referring to Hamas. “They want to play tough guy. We’ll see how tough they are.”

Abdullah’s visit coincided with a critical period for the ceasefire in Gaza. Hamas has accused Israel of breaching the truce and has delayed the release of more hostages captured during its attack on October 7, 2023.

Following Trump’s remarks, Hamas issued a statement calling them “racist” and “a call for ethnic cleansing.” The group also accused the former president of attempting to “liquidate the Palestinian cause and deny the national rights of the Palestinian people.”

Trump has repeatedly proposed that the U.S. should control Gaza and transform it into “the Riviera of the Middle East.” His vision includes relocating Palestinians to neighboring nations without granting them a right of return.

However, his statements on Tuesday contradicted his previous stance on potentially withholding U.S. aid from Jordan and Egypt—two long-standing American allies and top recipients of foreign assistance—if they refused to accept additional Palestinians from Gaza.

Jordan already hosts over 2 million Palestinians, and its government has remained resolute in opposing forced displacement. Last week, Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi stated that his country’s stance on Gaza’s population transfer was “firm and unwavering.”

Beyond concerns over jeopardizing the longstanding objective of a two-state solution, both Egypt and Jordan have expressed private security fears about admitting large numbers of displaced Palestinians, even on a temporary basis.

Trump first outlined his plans for relocating Gaza’s residents and asserting U.S. control over the region during a press conference last week alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

At the time, the former president did not rule out deploying American troops to help secure Gaza but simultaneously insisted that no U.S. funds would be allocated for its reconstruction—raising significant questions about how his proposal could be implemented.

Following Trump’s initial remarks, both Secretary of State Marco Rubio and White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt sought to clarify that his administration envisioned only a “temporary” relocation of Palestinians from Gaza. They claimed the move would allow for essential tasks such as clearing debris, disposing of unexploded ordnance, and reconstructing the region.

However, when asked in a Fox News interview on Monday whether displaced Palestinians would eventually be permitted to return to Gaza, Trump firmly responded, “No, they wouldn’t.”

President Donald Trump has issued an Executive Order directing increased scrutiny of three United Nations entities: the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).

The order formally confirms the United States’ withdrawal from the UNHRC and suspends all future financial contributions to UNRWA. Additionally, it calls for an expedited review of UNESCO to examine whether the organization has demonstrated “anti-Israel bias.”

Under the directive, Secretary of State Marco Rubio must also assess and report on “international organizations, conventions, or treaties” that may foster radical ideologies or sentiments deemed “anti-American.”

Raising concerns about UNRWA’s alleged affiliations with terrorist activities, the order claims the agency has engaged in “anti-Semitic and anti-Israel” actions. It refers to reports that certain UNRWA personnel were involved in the October 7th attacks against Israel and highlights the use of the agency’s facilities by Hamas and other militant groups for stockpiling weapons and constructing tunnels.

“UNRWA has reportedly been infiltrated by members of groups long designated by the Secretary of State (Secretary) as foreign terrorist organizations, and UNRWA employees were involved in the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel,” the order states. It further criticizes the UNHRC for providing cover to human rights violators and accuses UNESCO of displaying a persistent anti-Israel stance over the past decade.

The order instructs the Secretary of State to formally inform the UN Secretary-General, as well as the leadership of UNRWA and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, that the U.S. will no longer contribute funds to UNRWA or the UNHRC. Additionally, it declares that the United States will not “satisfy any claims to pay 2025 assessments or prior arrears by these organizations.”

Furthermore, the directive specifies that the U.S. will not take part in the UNHRC’s activities or seek a seat on the Council. The Secretary of State has been tasked with shutting down the Office of the U.S. Representative to the UNHRC and eliminating all associated positions.

Regarding UNESCO, the order mandates a comprehensive review of U.S. membership, which must be completed within 90 days. This assessment will be led by the Secretary of State in coordination with the U.S. Ambassador to the UN.

President Donald Trump met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on Tuesday, where he proposed that the United States take control of the Gaza Strip and redevelop the war-torn territory.

During a press conference following their meeting, Trump suggested that the U.S. could relocate approximately 1.8 million Palestinians and completely rebuild the Gaza Strip. He envisioned transforming it into the “Riviera of the Middle East” under American administration.

“We’ll own it and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous unexploded bombs and other weapons on the site,” Trump stated while Netanyahu observed. “Level the site, and get rid of the destroyed buildings. Level it out, create an economic development.”

Netanyahu was the first foreign leader to visit Trump since he took office last month. Trump underscored their close alliance, describing the relationship between their countries as “unbreakable.”

Trump’s remarks align with his previous calls for neighboring countries to absorb Palestinians displaced by the war between Israel and Hamas. He has specifically pointed to Egypt and Jordan as potential hosts, though both countries have firmly rejected the idea. However, Trump expressed confidence that they would ultimately comply.

Trump did not specify how the U.S. might assume control of Gaza but did not rule out deploying American troops to assist in reconstruction efforts. He also announced plans to visit Israel and Gaza.

When Netanyahu took the podium, he commended Trump’s dedication to Israel. Addressing Trump’s idea for Gaza, Netanyahu remarked, “I think it’s something that could change history. And I think it’s worthwhile really pursuing.”

The meeting occurred as Israel and Hamas continue negotiations over the second phase of a ceasefire agreement. The first phase centered on the release of Israeli hostages and Palestinian detainees.

Trump administration officials stressed the importance of fully implementing Phase 1 to ensure the safe return of all hostages, including those who have died. They explained that Phase 2 would aim to conclude the war and secure the release of all remaining Israeli captives in Gaza.

However, Trump’s envoy cautioned that Phase 3—rebuilding Gaza—would present significant challenges. He described the idea of reconstruction within five years as “physically impossible,” estimating that it would require a timeline of 10 to 15 years due to the extensive devastation caused by the conflict.

Trump also expressed skepticism about the durability of the ceasefire.

“I have no guarantees that the peace is going to hold,” he admitted to reporters in the Oval Office on Monday.

When questioned about his vision for a U.S.-led Gaza redevelopment, Trump responded, “I envision the world people living there. The world’s people. I think you’ll make that into an international, unbelievable place.”

He also acknowledged that Palestinians would continue to inhabit the territory.

“You have to learn from history. History is – you just can’t let it keep repeating itself. We have an opportunity to do something that could be phenomenal,” Trump stated.

As part of his broader Middle East strategy, Trump signed two executive orders on Tuesday. The first order intensified pressure on Iran, a decision he admitted was difficult.

“I’m signing this and I’m unhappy to do it, but I have not so much choice because we have to be strong and firm,” he said, emphasizing his hope that the measure would not have to be enforced.

“To me, it’s very simple. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon,” Trump added, asserting the U.S. authority to block the sale of Iranian oil to other nations.

The second order withdrew the U.S. from the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and terminated funding for the United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA), which primarily assists Palestinian refugees.

Both Democrats and Republicans have criticized the UNHRC, accusing it of bias against Israel.

Additionally, the order included a consideration to withdraw from UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held a joint press conference late Tuesday following their meeting at the White House, during which Trump proposed that the United States “take over” the Gaza Strip while discussing a potential truce with Hamas.

Netanyahu praised Trump, referring to him as “the greatest friend Israel has ever had.”

Key highlights from the press conference include Trump’s suggestion that the US would assume control of Gaza, his vision for its redevelopment, and Netanyahu’s emphasis on Israel’s objectives in the ongoing conflict.

Trump stated that the United States would “take over” and “own” the Gaza Strip. “The US will take over the Gaza Strip, and we will do a job with it, too. We’ll own it,” he said.

He did not dismiss the possibility of deploying US troops to Gaza, saying, “As far as Gaza is concerned, we’ll do what is necessary. If it’s necessary, we’ll do that.”

Trump outlined plans for clearing unexploded ordnance, demolishing damaged structures, and developing infrastructure to generate jobs and housing.

He also reiterated his belief that Palestinians should relocate to other Middle Eastern countries, such as Egypt and Jordan, despite both nations and Palestinian leaders rejecting this notion.

“It (Gaza Strip) should not go through a process of rebuilding and occupation by the same people that have really stood there and fought for it and lived there and died there and lived a miserable existence there,” Trump said.

He added that the two million people in Gaza should “go to other countries of interest with humanitarian hearts.”

Trump further elaborated that he viewed US control over Gaza as a long-term strategy, emphasizing that Palestinians should move elsewhere. “This is not a decision made lightly,” he said. He claimed widespread approval for the idea, stating, “Everybody I’ve spoken to loves the idea of the United States owning that piece of land.”

He also suggested that Gaza could be transformed into a prime destination. “The Riviera of the Middle East. This could be something that could be so magnificent,” he said, envisioning Gaza as an international attraction open to people from around the world, including Palestinians.

Netanyahu commended Trump and his proposals, calling him “the greatest friend Israel has ever had” and indicating that Trump’s plan could “change history” and warranted serious consideration.

“I’ve said this before, I’ll say it again: you are the greatest friend Israel has ever had in the White House,” Netanyahu remarked. “And that’s why the people of Israel have such enormous respect for you.”

Netanyahu also emphasized that Israel’s mission in Gaza remains unfinished, urging Trump to support efforts to secure Israel’s future. He listed three main objectives: eliminating Hamas, ensuring the release of hostages, and preventing Gaza from posing further threats to Israel.

He expressed confidence that Trump’s “willingness to puncture conventional thinking” would help achieve these goals.

“Israel will end the war by winning the war. Israel’s victory will be America’s victory,” Netanyahu declared.

In Washington DC today, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio held his first meeting with India’s External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, during which the issue of “irregular immigration” was a prominent topic of discussion.

According to a readout provided by State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce, Rubio underscored the Trump administration’s commitment to working collaboratively with India to address this concern. “Rubio emphasised the Trump administration’s desire to work with India to advance economic ties and address concerns related to irregular migration,” Bruce stated.

The two leaders reaffirmed their shared dedication to strengthening the India-US partnership, Bruce added. They explored an array of topics, including regional matters and avenues to further enhance collaboration between the two countries in areas such as critical and emerging technologies, defence cooperation, energy security, and promoting a free and open Indo-Pacific region.

After the meeting, Jaishankar shared his thoughts on the discussions through a post on X. He expressed his satisfaction at meeting Rubio for their first bilateral engagement since Rubio assumed office as Secretary of State. “Reviewed our extensive bilateral partnership, of which Rubio has been a strong advocate. Also exchanged views on a wide range of regional and global issues. Look forward to closely working with him to advance our strategic cooperation,” Jaishankar wrote.

Jaishankar is currently in Washington DC on the invitation of the US government to attend the swearing-in ceremony of Donald Trump, who was inaugurated as the 47th President of the United States on Monday.

In addition to his bilateral talks with Jaishankar, Rubio also engaged in discussions with the foreign ministers of Australia and Japan—Penny Wong and Takeshi Iwaya, respectively. Following these discussions, the four nations issued a joint statement committing to regular meetings among their officials to prepare for an upcoming leaders’ summit, which is expected to take place in India later this year.

This meeting underscores the ongoing efforts to deepen the India-US strategic relationship while addressing global and regional challenges collaboratively.

In recent weeks, US President-elect Donald Trump has reignited discussions about Greenland, a semi-autonomous Danish territory in the Arctic. Known as the world’s largest island, Greenland is 80% covered by ice but holds significant untapped mineral resources. Trump initially expressed interest in purchasing the territory in 2019 during his presidency. However, his recent refusal to rule out economic or military measures to gain control of Greenland has amplified tensions between the US and Denmark.

Danish and European officials have firmly rejected the idea, emphasizing Greenland’s territorial integrity. This situation raises questions about the future of Greenland, its relationship with Denmark, and its aspirations for independence after three centuries under Danish control. The following explores four possible outcomes for Greenland’s fate.

Trump Loses Interest and Status Quo Prevails

Some analysts suggest that Trump’s statements might be strategic, aimed at pressuring Denmark to bolster Greenland’s security amid growing Russian and Chinese interests in the Arctic. Denmark recently announced a $1.5 billion military package for the Arctic, prepared before Trump’s remarks but viewed as coincidentally timed. Danish Defense Minister described the timing as an “irony of fate.”

Elisabet Svane, chief political correspondent for Politiken newspaper, believes Trump’s comments underline Denmark’s obligation to strengthen its Arctic defenses or allow the US to step in. Marc Jacobsen, associate professor at the Royal Danish Defence College, suggests Trump’s stance may be part of positioning himself before taking office. He also notes that Greenland is leveraging the moment to gain international recognition, a critical step toward independence.

Even if Trump eventually loses interest, as Jacobsen predicts, his remarks have spotlighted Greenland’s strategic importance. Meanwhile, Greenland’s push for independence persists. “The Greenland PM is calmer in his comments—yes, we want independence, but in the long run,” notes Svane.

Greenland Secures Independence and Aligns Closer with the US

Independence is a widely supported goal among Greenland’s 56,000 residents, and experts agree that Denmark would respect a referendum favoring it. However, financial concerns remain a significant barrier. Greenland relies on Danish subsidies to fund healthcare and welfare services. Without guarantees to maintain this financial support, independence could seem unattainable.

“The Greenland PM may call for a referendum, but he will need a compelling narrative to secure Greenland’s economy and welfare system,” says Ulrik Gad, a senior researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies.

One potential compromise is a free association arrangement, akin to the US’s relationships with the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau. While Denmark has historically opposed this status for Greenland, current Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen may be open to negotiation. Dr. Gad suggests Denmark’s understanding of its colonial legacy has evolved.

“Danish understanding of Greenland’s historical experience is far better than it was 20 years ago,” he observes, adding that maintaining a looser connection with Greenland might be preferable to losing all influence in the Arctic.

Even with Danish ties severed, Greenland would likely remain under US influence. The US gained strategic control of Greenland during World War II and views it as critical to national security. A 1951 agreement affirmed Denmark’s sovereignty while granting the US broad privileges on the island. Dr. Gad confirms, “Greenland officials now understand the US will never leave.”

Trump Increases Economic Pressure

Some speculate that Trump could use economic leverage to coerce Denmark into concessions over Greenland. A sharp increase in tariffs on Danish or European Union goods is one potential move. Trump’s threat of universal 10% tariffs on US imports could disrupt European economies, forcing Denmark to reconsider its stance.

Danish governments have prepared for such scenarios. Jacobsen points out that US tariffs could significantly impact Danish industries like pharmaceuticals. Denmark exports essential products such as hearing aids, insulin, and Novo Nordisk’s diabetes drug Ozempic to the US. Any resulting price hikes could be unpopular with American consumers.

Benjamin Cote, of international law firm Pillsbury, notes that invoking the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) is one option for raising tariffs. Still, analysts believe economic measures targeting Danish goods would provoke backlash within the US.

Military Action: The Extreme Option

While military intervention might seem improbable, Trump’s refusal to rule it out has raised concerns. The US already maintains military bases and troops in Greenland, making a potential takeover logistically straightforward. “The US has de facto control already,” says Jacobsen.

Nevertheless, such an action would spark an international crisis. Elisabet Svane warns that invading Greenland would violate NATO’s collective defense clause under Article 5, creating an unprecedented conflict within the alliance. “If they invade Greenland, they invade NATO. That’s where it stops,” she asserts.

Dr. Gad draws parallels between Trump’s rhetoric and the territorial ambitions of China’s Xi Jinping regarding Taiwan or Russia’s Vladimir Putin regarding Ukraine. “He’s saying it’s legitimate for us to take this land. If we take him seriously, this is a bad omen for the Western alliance,” he cautions.

Why Greenland Matters

Trump’s interest in Greenland underscores its strategic and economic significance. The island’s location is vital for Arctic security, and its untapped resources, including rare minerals, add to its appeal. However, Greenland’s population and Danish officials remain united against a sale or forced acquisition.

As the world watches this unusual geopolitical clash unfold, the outcome will hinge on Greenland’s aspirations, Denmark’s strategies, and Trump’s next moves. Regardless of the immediate resolution, Greenland’s future has undeniably taken center stage in international discussions.

Hi Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s unexpected resignation on Monday signals a dramatic shift in the country’s political landscape. Trudeau’s departure underscores growing dissatisfaction with the Liberal Party, which has been a dominant force in Canadian politics for decades, as the country approaches elections later this year. His decision leaves the party scrambling to regroup and counter the surging popularity of the opposition Conservatives.

Trudeau announced his resignation during a press conference, stating, “I’m a fighter, every bone in my body has always told me to fight.” However, he acknowledged that internal challenges were undermining his ability to lead effectively. “This country deserves a real choice in the next election, and it has become clear to me that if I’m having to fight internal battles, I cannot be the best option in that election,” he added.

Why Did Trudeau Step Down?

Trudeau’s resignation comes amidst a backdrop of economic challenges, including a rising cost of living, escalating anti-immigrant sentiment, and economic uncertainties fueled by President-elect Donald Trump’s antagonistic policies. Public discontent has been growing over Trudeau’s handling of these issues, further amplified by his strained relationships within the Liberal Party.

Facing the prospect of a no-confidence vote from opposition parties, including the Conservatives and the New Democratic Party, Trudeau prorogued Parliament until March 24. This move temporarily halts parliamentary sessions and aligns with the deadline for the annual budget and the start of a new legislative session. Despite stepping down as party leader, Trudeau intends to remain in charge until a successor is chosen.

The Trump Effect

President-elect Donald Trump’s victory in November’s U.S. election added to Trudeau’s challenges. Trump’s threats to impose a 25% tariff on Canadian exports unless Ottawa addressed illegal immigration and drug trafficking exacerbated tensions. Trudeau’s conciliatory approach, including a visit to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence, drew criticism from opponents who viewed him as weak.

Trump’s rhetoric further inflamed the situation. He mocked Trudeau by referring to Canada as America’s “51st state” and called him a “governor.” Following Trudeau’s resignation, Trump suggested that merging with the U.S. could eliminate tariffs and significantly reduce taxes for Canadians. Despite Trump’s claims that many Canadians support such a merger, a December poll indicated that only 13% of Canadians shared this sentiment.

Who Will Lead the Liberals?

Trudeau’s resignation has triggered a race within the Liberal Party to find a new leader. Christopher Sands, director of the Wilson Center’s Canada Institute, speculated that the Liberals might expedite the leadership transition to present a stable front before Trump’s inauguration on January 20. This could also provide the party additional time to promote their new leader ahead of the general elections, expected by October 20.

Among the potential candidates is Chrystia Freeland, a former finance minister and deputy prime minister, who resigned in mid-December over disagreements with Trudeau’s spending policies. Freeland criticized Trudeau’s failure to address Trump’s tariff threats effectively, positioning herself as a candidate of change. “The fact that she resigned and triggered the crisis that led to Trudeau going is politically brilliant,” Sands noted.

Other contenders include Mark Carney, a former Bank of Canada governor and close Trudeau ally; Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly; Industry Minister François-Philippe Champagne; and Transport Minister Anita Anand. Anand, praised for her leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic and the acquisition of F-35 fighter jets, is seen as a rising star in the Liberal Party.

Conservatives Poised for Victory

The opposition Conservative Party, led by Pierre Poilievre, is in a strong position to challenge the Liberals. Recent polling data shows the Conservatives holding a 24-point lead over the Liberals, highlighting growing voter frustration with the incumbent government.

Poilievre, often compared to Trump for his confrontational style and populist rhetoric, has capitalized on public dissatisfaction. His campaign includes eliminating the carbon tax implemented by the Liberals to promote environmentally friendly practices. “Ax the tax,” Poilievre declared in a video following Trudeau’s resignation.

Economic concerns, immigration, and crime have emerged as key issues for Canadian voters. Christopher Sands summarized Trudeau’s leadership struggles by saying, “Trudeau was great at making sunny announcements, but terrible at delivering results.”

Budget Battles and Economic Challenges

The upcoming budget season, set to culminate in April, presents additional hurdles for Canada’s government. Opposition parties could use the budget process to force a no-confidence vote, potentially triggering early elections. The new Liberal leader will need to navigate economic pressures, including Trump’s tariff threats and criticisms over Canada’s failure to meet NATO’s 2% defense spending target by 2032.

A significant majority of Canadians—86%, according to a survey by the Angus Reid Institute—expressed concern over Trump’s trade threats. Half of the respondents favored a firm stance against U.S. demands, even if it resulted in tariffs. These sentiments reflect broader apprehensions about Canada’s economic trajectory under the shadow of Trump’s administration.

A Bloomberg/Nanos Research survey conducted in late December revealed declining economic confidence among Canadians. The positivity index dropped from 49.96 to 49.08 in the final week of the year, signaling a shift to negative sentiment. Canadians are increasingly pessimistic about their economic future and the potential impact of Trump’s presidency.

A Pivotal Moment for Canada

Trudeau’s resignation marks a critical juncture for Canada’s political and economic future. The Liberal Party faces the daunting task of regaining public trust and countering the Conservative Party’s growing influence. With economic uncertainties, strained U.S.-Canada relations, and internal party divisions, the Liberals’ ability to navigate these challenges will determine their fate in the upcoming elections. Meanwhile, Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives are poised to capitalize on voter discontent, setting the stage for a fiercely contested election season.