The West’s condemnation of Belarus’s recent election, which secured Alexander Lukashenko a seventh term, is loud and clear. It’s difficult to ignore the overwhelming evidence suggesting the election was anything but free and fair. The sheer scale of the suppression of political opponents, with many jailed or forced into exile, casts a long shadow over the proceedings.
The Belarusian leader himself, in a press conference, offered a chilling justification for his opponents’ imprisonment. He claimed they had “chosen” their fate, painting a picture of individuals who willingly subjected themselves to confinement for their actions. His claim that no one is prevented from speaking out rings hollow in light of the numerous reports of political prisoners and a heavily restricted media landscape.… Continue reading
For $99, readers receive a full year of print and digital access to the Financial Times. This introductory offer includes home delivery of the newspaper six days a week, Monday through Saturday. Simultaneously, subscribers gain access to the FT Digital Edition on their chosen device. The offer represents substantial savings on the usual subscription rate. Further details on included content are available by selecting “What’s included.”
Read More
Zelenskyy’s recent statements confirm that the US has not halted military aid to Ukraine, a development that has surprised some and raised questions about the motivations behind it. It’s a situation filled with complex political maneuvering and a lot of speculation.
The assertion that aid continues is particularly interesting given the unpredictable nature of certain political figures involved. While some might expect an arbitrary cutoff of aid, the ongoing support suggests a more nuanced strategy at play. The potential for future shifts in support, however, remains a concern.
One possibility is that the continued aid isn’t entirely altruistic. The involvement of powerful lobbies and arms manufacturers suggests a significant financial stake in the conflict for certain American interests.… Continue reading
A 45-minute phone call between then-President-elect Trump and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen regarding the US’s proposed purchase of Greenland was described by European officials as “horrendous” and “very tough,” marked by Trump’s aggressive demands and threats of retaliatory measures. Frederiksen firmly rejected the proposition, stating Greenland is not for sale and belongs to the Greenlanders. Trump’s pursuit stemmed from Greenland’s rich natural resources, crucial for economic and strategic interests. This incident highlighted existing tensions regarding Greenland’s autonomy and its relationship with both Denmark and the United States.
Read More
The Danish Prime Minister’s surprise at President Trump’s seriousness regarding Greenland during their phone call underscores the absurdity of the situation. The sheer audacity of the proposal, to simply acquire another nation’s territory, is shocking enough, but the realization that it wasn’t a negotiation tactic or a joke, but a genuine desire, is what truly stunned her. It’s a testament to Trump’s consistent pattern of behavior that people were caught off guard, as his past actions should have prepared them for this eventuality.
This incident highlights the unpredictable nature of the Trump presidency. Many have consistently dismissed Trump’s statements as mere hyperbole or negotiation ploys, only to find that these were often literal expressions of his intentions.… Continue reading
President Trump’s recent phone call with Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen regarding Greenland was described as “horrendous” by sources. During the 45-minute conversation, Trump aggressively reiterated his demand for complete US control of Greenland, threatening punitive tariffs if Denmark refused. Despite Frederiksen offering increased military and economic cooperation, Trump rejected the proposal, focusing solely on outright acquisition of the territory. The incident is considered serious and potentially dangerous by European officials.
Read More
For a limited time, until February 27, 2025, readers can enjoy a 40% discount on a Standard Digital subscription. The introductory price is $319, reduced from $540. This offer provides access to the Financial Times’ in-depth and reliable news coverage. Subscribers can form well-informed opinions based on the FT’s trusted journalism.
Read More
Russia’s outright rejection of NATO peacekeeping troops in Ukraine, citing the risk of “uncontrollable escalation,” is a predictable yet frustrating response. Their argument hinges on the idea that a NATO presence would somehow destabilize the region further, despite the fact that Russia’s invasion is the very root of the instability. This feels less like a genuine concern for peace and more like a thinly veiled attempt to prevent any international oversight of their actions in Ukraine.
The claim of “uncontrollable escalation” rings hollow, considering the countless instances of Russia escalating the conflict itself. Their actions, from the initial invasion to ongoing attacks on civilian infrastructure, have consistently demonstrated a disregard for international norms and a willingness to stoke conflict.… Continue reading
Britain will not recognise Trump’s new name for the Gulf of Mexico. This is a simple matter of international norms and the recognition of established geographical designations. An executive order from one country, no matter how powerful, does not dictate the naming conventions used globally. The Gulf of Mexico has a long and established history under its current name, predating the existence of the United States as we know it, and the UK has no intention of altering its long-standing maps and records to reflect a unilaterally declared change.
Britain will not recognise Trump’s new name for the Gulf of Mexico because it’s frankly absurd.… Continue reading
A Danish politician’s blunt rejection of Donald Trump’s proposal to buy Greenland perfectly encapsulates the absurdity of the situation. The statement, a forceful “F— off,” delivered directly to the former President, resonated widely, not just for its audacity, but for its sheer effectiveness. It cut through the diplomatic niceties often used in international relations, delivering a message of absolute refusal that couldn’t be misinterpreted.
The response wasn’t just about the purchase of Greenland; it was about the disrespect inherent in the very proposition. Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark, is not a commodity to be bought and sold. Its people, its culture, and its sovereignty are not subject to the whims of a foreign power.… Continue reading
Matt Underwood 
John Q. Hosedrinker