Over 50 global intellectuals signed a declaration supporting the Palestine Action hunger strikers and opposing genocide. Support justice-driven, accurate and transparent news — make a quick donation to Truthout today! More than 50 international authors and academics signed a declaration published Monday in support of hunger-striking activists allegedly linked to the banned Palestine Action movement, who are at imminent risk of death after refusing to eat for more than two months. The brief statement — “We oppose genocide, we support the Palestine Action prisoners” — was signed by prominent figures including historian Tariq Ali; novelist Sally Rooney; former Guantánamo Bay prisoner Moazzam Begg; journalists Owen Jones and George Monbiot; and professors Angela Davis, Judith Butler, Naomi Klein, and Ilan Pappé. Since then, more than 2,000 people have been arrested for supporting Palestine Action, often while simply holding signs. Eight accused Palestine Action activists are awaiting trial for allegedly breaking into and damaging a British military base and a facility run by Israeli arms maker Elbit Systems. The defendants are facing at least 18 months behind bars before trial. Three people — Heba Muraisi, Kamran Ahmed, and Lewie Chiaramello — are still striking, despite imminent danger of death. She said it: ‘I'm dying,'” Francesca Nadin said of her friend Muraisi — who is on the 71st day of her strike — during a Monday interview with the Guardian. Doctors have informed him that his heart muscles are shrinking and he is at risk of sudden cardiac arrest. “The hunger strikers' demands seem reasonable to me,” Monbiot wrote last week. “All these things, I believe, should be happening anyway. “Forcible feeding is never ethically acceptable,” the declaration states. In 1981, UK authorities allowed 10 imprisoned Irish Republican Army members, including former Member of Parliament Bobby Sands, to starve themselves to death in Northern Ireland. Their deaths occurred after between 46 and 73 days of refusing food. “Ministers won't even meet with hunger strikers, who are now at death's door.” Hallward added that British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy, Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper, and Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood “seem perfectly ready to let this country's most committed and courageous opponents of an ongoing genocide waste away and die.” Israel's US-backed war and siege on Gaza following the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023 has left more than 250,000 Palestinians dead, wounded, or missing in Gaza and most of the coastal strip in ruins. Around 2 million Gazans have been forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened. Hundreds of Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces since the current cease-fire took effect three months ago. Israel is facing a genocide case filed by South Africa at the International Court of Justice, the principal judicial body of the United Nations, where a panel of experts found last year that Israel was committing genocide. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant are also wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. On Monday, a court in Edinburgh held a hearing on a petition filed by human rights campaigner and former diplomat Craig Murray seeking to lift the ban on Palestine Action in Scotland, whose judiciary is independent from the rest of the UK. “We are dealing with human rights and liberties — some of the most fundamental in our society,” Cherry added. “If people don't have the right to express their views and assemble to express their views, they can't really take part in civil society properly and adequately. …We ask that you take just a second to read this message. We are up against a far-reaching, wide-scale attack on press freedom coming from the Trump administration. Since his inauguration last year, we've seen frightening censorship, a right-wing takeover of the news industry, and worsening financial conditions for progressive nonprofits across the board. We can only resist Trump's agenda by cultivating a strong base of support. The right-wing mediasphere is funded comfortably by billionaire owners and venture capitalist philanthropists. We need your help to sustain the fight against authoritarianism in 2026. Brett Wilkins is a staff writer for Common Dreams. Get the news you want, delivered to your inbox every day. Truthout will continue to publish fearlessly independent news with your support.

Iran has deployed new techniques to swiftly and decisively crush nationwide protests, signaling a tactical shift by a regime that now views domestic dissent as an extension of the summer war with Israel. What began as the regime's age-old riot-control methods quickly escalated into advanced techniques to suppress protests, combining cutting-edge military technology with sophisticated psychological operations, according to experts. Low-flying surveillance drones, signal jammers, a rapid-response propaganda apparatus, and the violent deployment of force were unleashed simultaneously by a regime keen to learn from each wave of unrest. Protesters were heavily surveilled with CCTV cameras on the streets, but even those who chose to protest from their homes by shouting anti-regime slogans from their windows were being watched. Iranian police distributed a video titled “Identifable Sounds” showing drones hovering outside apartment buildings to find people chanting against the regime. Set to ominous background music, the footage showed a drone operator peering into residential windows to identify people chanting “death to the dictator,” followed by scenes of security officials marking buildings with warning stickers, and in some cases, arresting residents. “We got information that someone in your building was chanting and it was coming from your apartment,” a member of the security forces tells a man in the blurred video posted by Iranian media outlets on social media. The post citing Iran's national police read, “Everything is under surveillance.” Another tactic involved a communications blackout at an unprecedented scale. For days, Iran became nearly impossible to reach from the outside world. Even SpaceX's Starlink satellite internet terminals, used by Iranians to circumvent the restrictions, were jammed using what experts describe as military-grade technology. “I haven't seen anything like that at all. It was not regular jamming, they have some sort of military equipment,” Amir Rashidi, an Iranian cybersecurity expert and director at New York City-based Miaan group, a digital advocacy group, said. The country's decades-long push to nationalize its internet infrastructure – accelerated by intensifying international sanctions – has given the state far greater capacity to censor, throttle and control online activity. “You now see near total automation of the process… and it's almost an instantaneous process at that point,” Alp Toker, the founder of internet monitoring group Netblocks, told CNN. “They (the regime) haven't tried to jam Starlink before. Nationwide protests have continued in Iran for two weeks but escalated significantly on January 10. Iran has yet to take responsibility or admit that it killed protesters, instead claiming that protesters were killed by “rioters” employed by Israel and the United States. In past protests, that level of response would have taken the government weeks to activate. But the rapid mobilization of the Basij paramilitary force – which was also deployed on the streets to identify infiltrators during the war with Israel – signals a willingness of authorities to employ deadly violence as it grows increasingly paranoid of dissent and labels it as a foreign conspiracy. It's not a surprise that they have responded in a such an aggressive and heavy-handed manner as they're afraid,” Matthew Levitt, a counter terrorism expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “The regime is now fighting against its own people.” This appears to have shaped internal thinking about the country's strategic position and allowed the regime to portray protesters as agents of the enemy, while granting itself greater justification to unleash intensified violence against them. The regime's propaganda apparatus, operating through state-run and government-affiliated media outlets, has worked to instill fear, repeatedly warning citizens that they are under constant surveillance and cautioning against joining the protests. In an unusually grim move, state television aired a report from a morgue showing rows of body bags, apparently intended to deter potential demonstrators from joining. State media aired footage of dozens of blindfolded detainees lined up against walls, broadcast confessions, and released images of seized weapons, including what appeared to be axes and daggers carried by the protesters. Massive crowds filled public squares in state-sanctioned demonstrations to show unwavering support for the regime, as loyalists reacted with outrage to footage of violence against the Islamic Republic. It is possible, however, that protests could ramp back up following President Trump's renewed call on Tuesday for Iranians to keep demonstrating, coupled with his vow that “help is on the way.” They will pay a big price,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Trump has pledged to spend tariff revenues on various projects, including funding child care and helping farmers. If you think our work is valuable, support us with a donation of any size. President Donald Trump has promised numerous times that he would use some of the funds raised from his controversial tariffs to distribute a $2,000 “dividend” to American households — but in a recent interview with The New York Times, he appeared to have forgotten that pledge altogether. “You've promised $2,000 checks to Americans based off of your tariff revenues. When can they expect those?” Times journalist Katie Rogers asked the president. Donald Trump seems to forget that he promised Americans $2,000 rebate checks from his tariffs while speaking with reporters. Trump also bragged about payments he claimed were already paid for using tariff revenues, citing the $1,776 checks that were distributed to members of the U.S. military. However, that money did not, in fact, stem from tariff revenues, but was instead allocated by Congress through legislation last summer. Trump has made many other promises regarding what the tariff revenues will be used for, including claiming they may one day end the need for income taxes, an assertion experts say is highly unlikely. He has also stated that tariffs would be used to reduce the national debt, fund child care, support struggling farmers, and more. The Trump administration has previously said it was considering paying out $5,000 “dividends” to Americans, supposedly derived from cuts by the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). It's also likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will rule that Trump's widespread tariffs, based on his legally questionable declarations of national emergencies, are unlawful. Trump has dubiously stated that such a ruling could put the nation's security at risk. Even if tariff dividend checks could be sent out, the $2,000 wouldn't be enough to cover the costs the tariffs brought to many American families, as some estimates show that tariffs have cost households as much as $2,600 in additional costs per year. …We ask that you take just a second to read this message. We are up against a far-reaching, wide-scale attack on press freedom coming from the Trump administration. Since his inauguration last year, we've seen frightening censorship, a right-wing takeover of the news industry, and worsening financial conditions for progressive nonprofits across the board. We can only resist Trump's agenda by cultivating a strong base of support. The right-wing mediasphere is funded comfortably by billionaire owners and venture capitalist philanthropists. We need your help to sustain the fight against authoritarianism in 2026. He can be found on most social media platforms under the handle @thatchriswalker. Get the news you want, delivered to your inbox every day. Truthout will continue to publish fearlessly independent news with your support.

Ukraine's prime lithium deposit has been officially awarded to a U.S.-linked group of investors as the country courts U.S. President Donald Trump with business deals amid ongoing peace proposal talks. The winner of the competition, launched in August 2025, is Dobra Lithium Holdings — a joint venture between TechMet, a U.S. government-backed mining firm, and The Rock Holdings, Prime Minister Yuliia Svyrydenko wrote on Telegram on Nov. 12. For now, the specific terms of Dobra Lithium Holdings' proposal have not yet been made public. The announcement comes as President Volodymyr Zelensky leverages Ukraine's economic potential to win over Trump's support for Kyiv's 20-point peace proposal. As part of ongoing peace talks, Kyiv also announced an $800 billion "prosperity plan" to attract American and European investors over the next 10 years. TechMet was long seen as the competition's likely winner, in part due to it being backed by the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), a government agency established under Trump's first term. Lithium is a highly in-demand mineral for its use in the AI, robotics, defense, and energy sectors. The untapped Dobra deposit, located in the central Kirovohrad Oblast, has been touted as one of Ukraine's most promising mineral sites, containing between 80 and 105 million metric tons of lithium. If the project is successful, it could attract in total over $500 million in investments, Deputy Economy Minister Yegor Perelygin wrote on Facebook on Jan. 13. This includes $12 million for new geological surveys and audits within 2.5 years. If the surveys and audits show that the deposit is worthwhile for the company to commercially mine, then at least $167 million will be directed towards production and enrichment in another four to five years. Once Dobra Lithium Holdings is in its fifth year of lithium production, the government gets a much bigger share — 22% — after the company recoups its initial costs. "The (Dobra) project will provide an impetus for further attracting more investors," wrote Svyrydenko. He has written articles for a number of publications, including the Financial Times, bne IntelliNews, Radio Free Europe/Liberty, Euronews and New Eastern Europe. Previously, Dominic worked with StopFake as a disinformation expert, debunking Russian fake news in Europe. Ukraine's prime lithium deposit has been officially awarded to a U.S.-linked group of investors as the country courts U.S. President Donald Trump with business deals amid ongoing peace proposal talks. "We have information that Russia is ready to start the next wave of attacks with cruise missiles," Ukrenergo CEO Vitaliy Zaichenko, told the Kyiv Independent. "Effective immediately, any country doing business with the Islamic Republic of Iran will pay a Tariff of 25% on any and all business being done with the United States of America. This Order is final and conclusive," U.S. President Donald Trump said. Unidentified drones struck the Russian city of Taganrog early on Jan. 13, with reports indicating that a drone manufacturing facility was targeted, according to Russian Telegram channels. Russian forces carried out a combined missile and drone attack on a suburb of Kharkiv, killing at least four people and injuring six others, regional authorities reported on Jan. 13. America cannot leave that future in the hands of regimes that despise our values and seek to undermine our security," Congressman Randy Fine said.

Bill and Hillary Clinton refused to testify on Capitol Hill Tuesday in the House Oversight Committee's Jeffrey Epstein probe despite lawmakers' threat to hold them in contempt. “You will say it is not our decision to make. Now you have to make yours,” the Clintons wrote in an apparent challenge to Republican Chairman James Comer, who set a final deadline for appearances this week. Comer told reporters Wednesday the committee would meet next week to move forward with proceedings for Bill Clinton — leaving open the door that the former Secretary of State could still change her mind. This wasn't something that I just issued as chairman of the committee. This was voted on by the entire committee in a unanimous vote of the House Oversight Committee to subpoena former President Clinton and former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton,” Comer said. “Now Hillary Clinton supposed to show up tomorrow. The Clintons laid out their personal and legal qualms with the request in a series of letters, obtained by CNN, penned by themselves and their lawyers. The pair asserted in the letters that they were being unfairly singled out — noting seven other subpoenaed in-person appearances have been waived. Calling the panel's subpoenas “invalid and legally unenforceable,” they outlined what they said were unprecedented harms being pushed by the administration. “Every person has to decide when they have seen or had enough and are ready to fight for this country, its principles and its people, no matter the consequences. For us, now is that time,” they wrote. They added later: “Indeed, bringing the Republicans' cruel agenda to a standstill while you work harder to pass a contempt charge against us than you have done on your investigation this past year would be our contribution to fighting the madness.” “We've done so because Mr. Epstein's crimes were horrific,” they told Comer. “If the Government didn't do all it could to investigate and prosecute these crimes, for whatever reason, that should be the focus of your work – to learn why and to prevent that from happening ever again. There is no evidence that you are doing so.” The chairman has noted that Epstein visited the White House 17 times when Bill Clinton was president, and that he flew on Epstein's plane around 27 times after he was president. “To my knowledge, former President Clinton has never answered questions about Epstein, and we just had questions, because again, I think anyone would … admit they spent a lot of time together while Bill Clinton was president and post presidency, and again, no one's accused the Clintons of any problem. Comer and Clinton got into an exchange on social media on Tuesday, with Clinton arguing his position was about “right and wrong” and Comer responding with some of the photos DOJ released of Clinton as part of the Epstein files. One image shows a shirtless Bill Clinton in a jacuzzi next to another person whose face is redacted. There are additional photos of him swimming in an adjacent pool with Maxwell. These pictures show another woman swimming with Bill Clinton and Maxwell, but her face is redacted. Yet another showed Bill Clinton holding a drink and standing next to Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019 while in prison awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges. It's unclear where or when these photographs were taken. Bill Clinton has never been accused by law enforcement of any wrongdoing related to Epstein, and a spokesperson has repeatedly said he cut ties with Epstein before his arrest on federal charges in 2019 and didn't know about his crimes. “The White House hasn't been hiding these files for months only to dump them late on a Friday to protect Bill Clinton,” Angel Ureña, a spokesperson for Clinton, said in a statement in December when the photos were released. So they can release as many grainy 20-plus-year-old photos as they want, but this isn't about Bill Clinton.” In one photo, he is pictured with Epstein, Maxwell and another couple.

Yoon is on trial for insurrection charges, after trying to declare martial law in late 2024 South Korean prosecutors have demanded the death penalty for former president Yoon Suk Yeol over his failed martial law declaration in December 2024, in the first insurrection trial of a Korean head of state in three decades. Under South Korea's criminal code, insurrection ringleader charges carry just three possible sentences: the death penalty, life imprisonment with labour, or life imprisonment without labour. Prosecutors demanded life imprisonment with labour for the former defence minister Kim Yong-hyun, describing him as having “moved as one body” with Yoon throughout the conspiracy. The six-hour crisis ended when 190 MPs broke through military cordons to pass an emergency resolution, forcing Yoon to back down. A snap election brought Yoon's rival, Lee Jae Myung, to power. “If just one [cabinet member] had informed the outside world … the implementation of martial law would have been realistically impossible,” prosecutors said, condemning senior officials who “chose loyalty to Yoon and greed for power-sharing”, threatening people's lives and freedom. They cited Yoon's complete lack of remorse as a key aggravating factor, noting he has never properly apologised and instead blames the then-opposition while inciting supporters. Some of those supporters stormed a courthouse in violent protests following his arrest. South Korea has not executed anyone since 1997 and is classified as a “de facto abolitionist” state by human rights groups. He was briefly released in March after a court cancelled his detention, but was re-arrested in July and has been held since. The insurrection case represents just one piece of an unprecedented legal onslaught. Three concurrent special prosecutor probes into Yoon, his wife, and the alleged cover-up of a marine's death have indicted more than 120 people across the political and military establishment. Yoon faces eight separate criminal trials spanning charges from abuse of power to election law violations. Beyond the insurrection charge, he is accused of ordering drone infiltrations into Pyongyang airspace in late 2024 to provoke North Korea and create a pretext for martial law. His wife, Kim Keon Hee, faces her own reckoning on 28 January, when another Seoul court will rule on stock manipulation and bribery charges carrying a prosecutorial demand of 15 years imprisonment. Yoon's first verdict arrives on 16 January in his arrest obstruction case, where prosecutors have demanded 10 years imprisonment.

Experts say obscuring plane's military identity would constitute a war crime The 2 September attack on a small boat last year killed 11 Venezuelans, including two survivors from the first strike who were clinging to wreckage in the water when they were bombed a second time. The Venezuelan government denied that the dead men had been gang members, and Washington presented no proof they were involved in drug smuggling. Most international legal experts reject that and say the attacks amount to murder. Even if the claim of being at war is justified, specialists in the laws of war say the use of a plane disguised to look like a civilian aircraft, so that its targets would be caught off-guard, would represent the war crime of “perfidy” under international and US military legal standards. Bhuta said the use of civilian disguises in war would have a corrosive effect, for example making every airliner with civilian markings a potential target. “This is precisely the destructive slippery slope that a firm commitment to prohibition against perfidy is aimed to avoid,” he said. “Fundamentally, the debate about ‘war crimes' is a distraction – the whole operation is illegal, and the conduct of an extrajudicial execution by means of a plane with civilian markings is in fact reminiscent of a death squad operation,” Bhuta said. It provides the example of “feigning civilian status and then attacking”. The handbook for the military commissions, set up to judge terror suspects held in Guantánamo Bay prison camp, also has a section on “using treachery or perfidy”. The New York Times report said it was unclear what kind of aircraft was used, or how exactly it was disguised, but noted that the US military had modified civilian aircraft, such as Boeing 737s and Cessna turboprops, which have internal weapons bays and have been reported by plane spotters painted white with minimal markings. The report said that since the initial September airstrike, the US military has switched to using identifiably military aircraft, including drones, though added it was unclear whether those aircraft were at low enough altitude to be seen by their targets. The Pentagon did not respond to a request for comment, but told the New York Times that the US military used “a range of standard and non-standard aircraft” and that before any deployment “they go through a rigorous procurement process to ensure compliance with domestic law, department policies and regulations, and applicable international standards, including the law of armed conflict”. Craig Jones, an expert on the laws of war and a senior lecturer in political geography at Newcastle University, said that in the past, the US military's legal advisers in the judge advocate general (JAG) corps would have been consulted on the use of civilian disguise, to give a view on whether it was compliant with US and international law. “The problem now with the Trump administration is that he's sidelining all the JAGs, either shutting them out entirely, not listening to them, or getting rid of them,” Jones said. “We're left with a quite terrifying situation whereby those who are supposed to be ensuring compliance are not even part of the conversation – unless they are willing to ‘get to yes'.”

MOSCOW, January 13. /TASS/. The ruling elite in the European Union and Britain see a peace deal on Ukraine as a threat to themselves and actively hinder it, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said after a webinar of the Global Fact-checking Network, GFCN. TASS has obtained a transcript of what she said. "The UK and the EU are purposefully and systematically blocking political and diplomatic solutions to the Ukrainian crisis. Even the possibility of peace is viewed by the ruling elites of these countries and bureaucracy as a threat to their fading global dominance," she said. The diplomat highlighted London's role. "In 2022, Boris Johnson, the then Prime Minister, instructed [Vladimir] Zelensky in person not to sign a peace deal that had already been drafted and even initialed. The entire matter could've been settled then and there, in Istanbul, saving countless lives and ensuring security for both nations and years to come," Zakharova added.

This is Jared Goyette, blogging from a cold, blacked-out apartment in Kyiv on day 1,420 of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Russian troops have in recent days inched forward near small settlements in eastern and southern Ukraine, according to DeepState, a Ukrainian open-source analysis group. The latest reported advance was near two villages in northern Donetsk Oblast on Jan. 13: Shandryholove and Sviato-Pokrovske. In Shandryholove, a village with a listed population of 1,035 near the town of Lyman, DeepState's map shows Russian forces expanding their control and appearing to form a small pocket west of the settlement. The villages are part of a wider fight in northern Donetsk, where small map changes often reflect slow pushes along tree lines and local roads rather than a major breakthrough. On Dec. 18, Ukraine's Third Army Corps said Ukrainian forces counterattacked near the city, destroying what it described as an entire Russian regiment — roughly 2,000 troops on paper. Russian Belgorod Oblast Governor Vyacheslav Gladkov urged residents on Jan. 13 to be prepared to temporarily relocate as power and heating outages hit the border region near Ukraine, saying officials were drawing up contingency plans in case the situation worsens. "In no way am I saying that we need to abandon all our belongings and start moving to another region. What we need to do is understand the sequence of our actions in the event of a complex, emergency situation, when there might be no heat or electricity," Gladkov said in comments posted on Telegram. Gladkov said officials were considering moving residents to other municipalities that could accommodate large numbers of people, or relocating them to other regions if necessary. He also urged families to send children to relatives "where there is heat and electricity" if they have that option. The remarks come after Russian officials blamed Ukrainian strikes on Jan 9 for a large-scale power outage in the border region. On Dec. 14, Gladkov said a missile attack caused "serious damage" to local engineering infrastructure. He claimed that Ukrainian attacks on Nov. 8 cut power to more than 20,000 people, and on Oct. 5, he said an attack damaged energy facilities in the city and left nearly 40,000 residents without electricity. Earlier, on Sept. 28, Russian Telegram channels reported a HIMARS strike on a thermal power plant near Belgorod, and Gladkov later said the attack hit "critical infrastructure" and caused "significant power outages." Ukraine, meanwhile, has suffered far more severe and sustained power and heating cuts since Russia launched its campaign of strikes on energy infrastructure, including outages affecting hundreds of thousands in Kyiv and over 1 million people in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast this month alone, according Ukrainian officials. Since 2022-23, roughly half of Ukraine's power generation capacity has been occupied, destroyed, or damaged, the International Energy Agency has said. Unidentified drones hit three Greek-managed oil tankers in the Black Sea on Jan. 13 as the ships headed to load crude at a terminal on Russia's coast near Novorossiysk, Reuters reported. Two maritime security sources told Reuters a fire was reported on Matilda but quickly extinguished. The Kyiv Independent reached out to Ukraine's Security Services (SBU) but not receive a response by publication time. Ukraine's Security Service (SBU) has said it has used both Sea Baby naval drones and arial drones to strike Russian "shadow fleet" tankers and oil infrastructure in the Black Sea, including attacks on two sanctioned tankers off Turkey's coast on Nov. 28, 2025, and on the Caspian Pipeline Consortium's marine terminal near Novorossiysk the next day. Ukraine struck a key Russian factory involved in the production of strike and reconnaissance drones in Taganrog, Rostov Oblast, overnight on Jan. 13, sparking a huge blaze and a "series of loud explosions," Ukraine's Security Service (SBU) said. At least four people died and 15 others were injured in Russian attacks against Ukraine over the past day, local authorities said on Jan. 13. In Donetsk Oblast, Russian attacks killed two people and injured three others over the past day, Governor Vadym Filashkin said. In Kherson Oblast, Russian attacks killed one person and injured four others over the past day, Governor Oleksandr Prokudin said. In Odesa Oblast, a Russian overnight drone attack injured six people and damaged energy infrastructure and civilian sites, Governor Oleh Kiper said. In Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, a Russian missile-and-drone attack on Kryvyi Rih district's Zelenodolsk community injured a 69-year-old woman, Governor Oleksandr Hanzha said. Russia has lost around 1,220,950 troops in Ukraine since the beginning of its full-scale invasion on Feb. 24, 2022, the General Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces reported on Jan. 13. According to the report, Russia has also lost 11,544 tanks, 23,899 armored fighting vehicles, 73,887 vehicles and fuel tanks, 36,024 artillery systems, 1,600 multiple launch rocket systems, 1,270 air defense systems, 434 airplanes, 347 helicopters, 105,354 drones, 28 ships and boats, and two submarines.

MOSCOW, January 13. /TASS/. Roszarubezhneft (a state-owned structure that manages Russia's oil assets in Venezuela) will continue to strictly fulfill its obligations in close coordination with its international partners, and it intends to further develop its assets with the Venezuelan side, according to a company statement obtained by TASS. "The company will continue to strictly honor its obligations in close coordination with its international partners, focusing on the sustainable development of joint oil production projects, infrastructure, and an effective response to emerging challenges," the statement said. Based on the agreements reached and investments made, Roszarubezhneft intends to continue steadily developing its assets together with the Venezuelan side, "carry out joint projects and expand industrial and technological cooperation based on the principles of equality, mutual respect for property, and investment protection," the company noted. On January 3, US President Donald Trump announced a military operation in Caracas that resulted in the capture of Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro and his wife by American forces. On January 5, the couple appeared before the US Federal Court for the Southern District of New York, where they face charges of alleged involvement in drug trafficking. Both have pleaded not guilty. Vice President Delcy Rodriguez was sworn in as Venezuela's interim president on January 6. Meanwhile, Trump has said that Washington would "run" Venezuela in the interim.

Since its founding in 1922, Foreign Affairs has been the leading forum for serious discussion of American foreign policy and global affairs. The magazine has featured contributions from many leading international affairs experts. ANDREI KOLESNIKOV is a columnist for The New Times and Novaya Gazeta. Russia's Growing Resolve to Fight On in Ukraine A diplomat and adviser to several Soviet leaders, Falin was instrumental in improving relations between the Soviets and West Germany in the early 1970s. Looking back on his experiences, Falin wrote that “confrontation is not fate, but choice.” As he saw it, in the global face-off between superpowers, confrontation happened because one or both sides chose to fight; détente happened because they chose not to fight. In every case, he felt, what happened resulted from an absolutely conscious decision on the part of the respective leaders. Falin's insight may be particularly useful for grasping Russian President Vladimir Putin's approach to the war in Ukraine—and why U.S. President Donald Trump's yearlong effort to end it has continually fallen short. Indeed, the Trump administration has proceeded from the same false (but understandable) assumption as its predecessor that Putin acts rationally. In the winter of 2021–22, U.S. President Joe Biden thought he could persuade the Russian leader not to launch the “special operation” because its motives made no sense and achieving its goals would be too costly in human and economic resources. The Trump administration thus spent 2025 offering a series of apparently inviting options for Moscow, including ceding unconquered lands to Russia, prohibiting Ukraine's entry to NATO, and placing restrictions on Ukrainian forces. The president also courted Putin with a grand summit meeting in Alaska and numerous phone calls, all the while assuring the world that a deal was about to be reached—on his first day in office, or by Thanksgiving, or by Christmas. Trump even agreed with the Kremlin's implausible insistence that substantive negotiations, and even new presidential elections in Ukraine, can take place while fighting rages on. Putin, who has begun appearing in public in military uniform surrounded by generals, no longer hides his desire to “return” the Donbas to Russia by military rather than diplomatic means. The past year has made it clear that he has decided to continue fighting, regardless of the economic and human cost. This might be called the new “Putin doctrine.” Now that the United States has embarked on its own special operation, to capture Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, the second part of this doctrine may not be so successful: Moscow clearly wants to keep Caracas in its sphere of influence, but under the new circumstances, it can't. All Moscow could respond with was a barrage of statements from the Foreign Ministry in defense of Maduro's Venezuela and ironic remarks by Putin's ally, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev: now the United States has nothing to reproach Russia for—the Venezuelan operation is just as much an exercise of “might makes right” as the Ukrainian one. But Trump's special operation lasted all of a few hours, while Putin's has been going on for almost four years and has become a way of life for his political system. Putin was successful in imitating negotiations and turning their meaning upside down: all the major events of the year—the meeting in Anchorage, the telephone conversations with Trump, U.S. Special Envoy Steven Witkoff's political tourism—have looked like negotiations in reverse. But one of the key phrases in the Kremlin's wartime propaganda is “liberation of territories.” By now, it is clear that Putin measures his power both in spheres of influence and in territories under his control: if soft power does not achieve the desired results, then military force comes into play. But it looks as if Putin is not the only one. (In Trump's world, both political influence and wealth are sources of power, hence the inclusion of Japan in this group.) But instead of appeasing Putin—or as the NSS puts it, reestablishing “strategic stability with Russia”—such recognition of the Russian Federation merely encourages him to continue his military actions. Will it still be possible for Putin to manipulate him in 2026 in the same way as he did in 2025, through Witkoff and his counterpart, Kirill Dmitriev, Russia's special presidential envoy on foreign investment and economic cooperation? But there is another issue: the Putin doctrine is also a shadow, albeit a pale one, of the late Soviet-era foreign policy doctrine in which a superpower must exercise interests in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Venezuela was, in this sense, an area of interest for the Kremlin. And suddenly, another superpower has laid its hands on it. Trump further emphasized this possibility by seizing a Russian tanker for violating U.S. sanctions. Recognizing a changed dynamic could also reinforce Putin's desire to continue the war rather than end it on Trump's terms, however favorable they may be to Russia. And here arises a question that Western analysts have been asking for four years now: At what point will the economic cost of the war in Ukraine become so great that it finally forces the Kremlin to end it? Over the past year, Russia's value-added tax rate has been increased to 22 percent, the purchase of imported cars is now subject to tens of thousands of dollars in additional fees (the state calls these payments “recycling,” or disposal fees), and the government has introduced a so-called technology fee on smartphones, computers, and everything that has an electronic base. At the same time, the state has cut back social spending, as defense and military outlays swallow up an ever-greater share of public expenditure. Meanwhile, utility bills are rising and in some cases doubling. At grocery stores, the prices of some goods, including frozen fish, beef, and rye bread, have risen by 20 percent or more; car sales have plummeted. Many enterprises, including the AvtoVAZ car factory, have switched to a four-day workweek. It should be underscored that, as before, these indicators may matter little to Putin: in his view, everything is more or less normal or fixable. Even Russia's demographic crisis—a rapid population decline driven by a combination of long-term trends, pervasive uncertainty in society that has put downward pressure on the birth rate, and emigration and military losses—is not a significant problem. And it has felt it necessary to invest heavily in those who participate in the war and their families. This includes not only large payments for joining the armed forces but also a variety of new rewards for veterans and members of their families, including free admission to universities and other preferential treatments. And this stagnation—as an average indicator for the entire economy—has been made possible only by the continued growth of defense and military sectors, such as the production of ready-made metal products, electronics, and optics. Although the stimulus effect of wartime spending is fading, inflation remains consistently high. Moreover, many Russian economists have warned that increasing the value-added tax rate can have only a short-term effect on revenue: high taxes depress economic activity and reduce consumer spending power, pushing more Russians into the shadow economy. In 2021, the last year before the war began, foreign direct investment in Russia was worth more than $40 billion; three years later, it had shrunk to $3 billion—a collapse of more than 90 percent. Of course, these stark trends as well as the total degradation of economic relations with Europe would seem to make the deals that Trump has offered Russia in exchange for a cease-fire all the more valuable. But whether the prospect of a deal with Trump remains for Putin in 2026 if he insists on continuing to achieve his goals by military means is a big question. Russian authorities are no longer shy about saying that they need money specifically for the war. As Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, paraphrasing Tsar Alexander III, recently put it, “Russia's allies are its army, its navy, and its stable finances.” In other words, “stable finances” are necessary to fund the military. And the Kremlin will need even more money if and when huge masses of people return from the front: dealing with Russia's now vast population of war veterans will involve social support, psychological assistance, medical treatment, and job creation. The scale of the problem is enormous, not to mention the fact that ordinary Russians, many of whom have become accustomed to seeing “our boys” as heroes, are also afraid of them. Previously, oil could take care of Russia's economic problems and provided income for the state; now, people have become the new oil. The Kremlin assumes that since Russians have adapted to war, they will also adapt to stagnation and tighten their belts so that the country can achieve victory. This has become a very unfavorable version of the social contract that has supported the Putin regime for all these years. Before the war, it was simply this: support the authorities without interfering in politics and you will have at least relative economic prosperity. Already, the regime has begun preparing them, including by guiding public opinion. In a recent poll, the pro-Kremlin pollster VCIOM asked: “Do you agree with the statement: ‘I feel responsible for my country and am ready to save money and limit my needs for the sake of its defense'?” Of course, for ordinary law-abiding Russians, even those who are largely indifferent to things beyond their daily lives, embracing the idea of responsibility for one's country is the socially acceptable behavior. About 69 percent of respondents to the survey answered yes. Meanwhile, the Kremlin has tried to tighten information and communication flows even further. In recent months, it has imposed new restrictions on WhatsApp, Telegram, and VPNs and aggressively pushed Russians to switch to the state-run messenger app Max, modeled on China's WeChat. (According to data from the independent polling agency the Levada Center, in August 2025, 70 percent of Russian respondents used WhatsApp and 62 percent used Telegram, whereas the Max messenger app was used by five percent.) At the end of 2025, in St. Petersburg and other cities, a wave of street musicians performed antigovernment and antiwar songs, attracting large audiences. The Kremlin is building an imaginary empire—if not very successfully, given that it is clear that Putin's Russia lacks the soft power to consider the South Caucasus and Central Asia as its own. But Russia is the local hegemon, and Putin knows he must compete with Trump for influence in the five Central Asian countries. Thus, as soon as the five Central Asian presidents visited Washington, Putin hosted a luxurious reception in Moscow for Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev and then took the time to fly to Kyrgyzstan. But Putin is fine with this competition—it does not contradict the idea of Trump's Core 5. In this context, it is important to understand the internal Russian sources of global problems. Putin's Russia exports not only energy resources but also disorder. Until the country becomes if not democratic, then at least rationally organized, it will remain a chaos agent on the international stage. That is why, even if a peace deal is reached in Ukraine, the West will not be able to make Putin's Russia go away. Regardless of what happens, the Kremlin will not stop fighting at home. Russia exports chaos, but so does Trump's United States, and with no less vigor. But it is also as yet unclear what would be required for them to choose differently. How Four Years of War Have Remade Society Why Ukraine's Campaign Against Moscow's Energy Sector Is Working How the Shadow Fleet Enables Russia's Hybrid Warfare in Europe Neither America Nor China Can Achieve True Tech Dominance What Kind of Change Is Coming to Iran? Trump, Venezuela, and a Century-Old Vision of American Power How the Assault on Venezuela Threatens Trump's Promise Our editors' top picks, delivered free to your inbox every Friday. * Note that when you provide your email address, the Foreign Affairs Privacy Policy and Terms of Use will apply to your newsletter subscription. Our editors' top picks from the week, delivered on Friday. * Note that when you provide your email address, the Foreign Affairs Privacy Policy and Terms of Use will apply, and you will receive occasional marketing emails.

Functional pediatrician Dr. Joel “Gator” Warsh will explore today's most common childhood chronic diseases—such as obesity, eczema, and ADHD—offering insights on prevention and reversal to help create a healthier future for kids. A few months ago, a 13-year-old girl came into my office with chronic stomachaches, headaches, poor sleep, and constant worry. Her mother had tried everything—eliminating gluten, adjusting schoolwork, adding supplements—but nothing seemed to calm her daughter. When I asked what a typical day looked like, the picture was painfully familiar. She woke up before 6 a.m., rushed to school for eight hours of nonstop academic pressure, moved straight into after-school activities, then tackled homework until 9 or 10 p.m. She used screens until bedtime. No real downtime—ever. Her nervous system was never allowed to reset. Her body was sending signals, but no one had ever helped her understand them.

A worker at the construction site of the Federal Reserve headquarters, after U.S. President Donald Trump renewed his threat to bring a lawsuit against Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell over Mr. Powell's management of renovations of the building, in Washington, on Monday.Kevin Lamarque/Reuters Former U.S. Federal Reserve leaders and some sitting Republican politicians lined up behind the beleaguered Fed Chair Jerome Powell on Monday, calling the Trump administration's criminal investigation into the central bank's leader an example of coercion reminiscent of an emerging market economy. Financial markets largely shrugged off concerns about eroding Fed independence, while some economists and former central bankers warned against complacency and suggested that a loss of confidence in the Fed could bleed across the border into Canada and rattle global markets. On Sunday evening, Mr. Powell released an extraordinary video explaining that the U.S. Department of Justice had served the central bank with subpoenas threatening a criminal indictment. Fed Chair Jerome Powell issued a video statement in which he bluntly characterized the threat of criminal charges against him as simple 'pretexts' to undermine the Fed's independence when it comes to setting interest rates. U.S. President Donald Trump has spent months harrying him and his colleagues in an effort to exert more control over the independent central bank and push it to lower interest rates. “The reported criminal inquiry into Federal Reserve Chair Jay Powell is an unprecedented attempt to use prosecutorial attacks to undermine that independence,” the statement said. “This is how monetary policy is made in emerging markets with weak institutions, with highly negative consequences for inflation and the functioning of their economies more broadly.” Three sitting Republican senators – Thom Tillis, Lisa Murkowski and Kevin Cramer – also expressed concern about the administration's move, suggesting that Mr. Trump may face opposition from his own party if he attempts to ram through a nominee to replace Mr. Powell, whose term as chair ends in May, or tries to stack the Fed board with cronies. Ms. Murkowski, a senator from Alaska, said in an online statement that she spoke with Mr. Powell on Monday and viewed the criminal investigation as “nothing more than an attempt at coercion.” His administration has also launched a criminal investigation into Fed governor Lisa Cook, who sits on the 12-member Federal Open Market Committee that sets U.S. interest rates. These apparent attempts to intimidate Fed officials and exert more control over monetary policy have raised concern among economists, who widely regard a central bank's ability to set interest rates independent of political pressure as essential for maintaining low and stable inflation. “History shows that central banks with operational independence are more successful at delivering price stability for their citizens,” Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem said in a statement on Monday. “I reiterate my full support for Federal Reserve Board Chair Jay Powell, who reflects the very best in public service. Chair Powell is doing a very good job under difficult circumstances, guiding the Fed to take monetary policy decisions based on evidence, not politics,” Mr. Macklem said. Financial markets appeared largely unmoved on Monday by the drama unfolding in Washington. Gold jumped, as usually happens amid uncertainty, and the U.S. dollar weakened against other currencies. “If you didn't know about the announcement, you would think the market moves were just part of a normal daily volatility,” Beata Caranci, chief economist at Toronto-Dominion Bank, said in an interview. While there's no doubt Mr. Trump will replace Mr. Powell with a more dovish chair amenable to his vision for lower interest rates, the chair is only one of 12 voting members on the committee that sets rates, and may have a hard time winning over other members to an inflationary policy. Likewise, a more dovish Fed might be checked by financial markets, said Avery Shenfeld, chief economist at Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. If investors begin to expect higher inflation, they'll push up long-term bond yields, countering Mr. Trump's desire for lower mortgage rates. “Because if long-term interest rates start to climb on fear of inflation, it's going to be a big stop sign in front of the Fed. The past two decades have several examples of central banks losing their independence to populist governments and pursuing reckless inflationary policies to finance government spending, most notably in Argentina and Turkey. But if it's lost, it can happen very suddenly and that could be a pretty major shock for Canada and for the world in general,” he said. Authors and topics you follow will be added to your personal news feed in Following.