Category: International Incident

Germany, Other NATO Allies Sending Troops to Greenland Amid Trump Threats

Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Canada are deploying military personnel to Greenland in response to Trump’s repeated threats to annex the Danish territory. Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson announced that Swedish Armed Forces officers arrived Wednesday as part of a multinational operation at Denmark’s request, framed as strengthening regional security under Operation Arctic Endurance. Germany confirmed deployment of over a dozen reconnaissance troops on Thursday, while France has also engaged diplomatically though without formal announcement.

Trump declared on Truth Social that U.S. control of Greenland is “vital” for national security and the “Golden Dome” missile defense system, stating “Anything less than that is unacceptable.” He has repeatedly threatened military action, saying he will acquire Greenland the “easy way” or “hard way” regardless of consent, and warned that U.S. military planners have prepared invasion scenarios for the NATO ally territory.

Greenland, a self-governing territory within Denmark’s kingdom since 1979, maintains Danish authority over foreign policy and defense. Both Danish and Greenlandic leaders have categorically rejected U.S. sovereignty claims, with Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen stating at a press conference: “If we have to choose between the United States and Denmark here and now, we choose Denmark.” The Danish government reaffirmed that “Greenland’s future is for Greenlanders alone to decide.”

NATO allies are framing the troop deployments as political solidarity with Denmark and Arctic security strengthening, directly contradicting Trump’s annexation demands. The Danish government stated the increased military presence aims to “train the ability to operate in Arctic conditions and strengthen the Alliance’s footprint” for European and transatlantic security. European leaders view the coordinated deployments as demonstrating NATO unity against Trump’s unilateral pressure.

The escalating conflict exposes fundamental divisions between Washington and European capitals over the legitimacy of U.S. global ambitions and threatens NATO cohesion. Trump’s assertion that he is constrained only by his “own morality” and not international law underscores the severity of the geopolitical rupture as diplomatic tensions continue ahead of scheduled U.S.-Danish meetings on Arctic security.

(Source: https://www.newsweek.com/greenland-germany-sending-troops-nato-donald-trump-threats-11361535)

Trump Links His Push for Greenland to Not Winning Nobel Peace Prize – The New York Times

President Trump sent a text message to Norway’s Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store on Sunday, stating that he is pursuing Greenland acquisition partly because Norway did not award him a Nobel Peace Prize. In the message, Trump claimed he had “stopped 8 Wars PLUS” and said that failing to receive the prize means he no longer feels obligated to prioritize peace, instead focusing on “what is good and proper for the United States of America.” Trump also disputed Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland, asserting “There are no written documents” supporting Danish claims and demanding “Complete and Total Control of Greenland” for global security.

The text message escalates Trump’s campaign to seize Greenland, an Arctic territory that has been part of the Danish Kingdom for over 300 years. Trump’s claim that lack of a Nobel Prize justifies shifting away from peace-focused policy to territorial acquisition contradicts his stated commitment to peaceful resolution. Trump has previously threatened to acquire Greenland through either an “easy way” or “hard way,” rejecting questions about financial incentives or local consent.

Trump has directed military planners to prepare an invasion plan for Greenland, with advisers accelerating efforts following operations against Venezuela. Trump has declared his commander-in-chief powers are constrained only by his “own morality,” rejecting international law as binding on military action.

World leaders have condemned Trump’s push to acquire Greenland, viewing it as a violation of international law and Danish sovereignty. The message to Norway’s prime minister reveals Trump’s willingness to weaponize personal grievances—in this case, not receiving an international peace prize—to justify geopolitical aggression and abandonment of stated principles.

(Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/19/world/europe/trump-norway-greenland-nobel.html)

Trump DOJ Memo Claims President Above International Law

A classified 20-30 page Justice Department legal opinion presented to Congress on Tuesday argues that President Trump faced no constitutional or international legal constraints when he ordered the military operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. The Office of Legal Counsel memo asserts Trump’s authority as commander-in-chief under Article II of the Constitution permitted the operation, codenamed Absolute Resolve, without prior congressional approval.

The opinion builds directly on a 1989 legal memo authored by William Barr, Trump’s current Attorney General, which claimed presidents possess “inherent constitutional authority” to order law enforcement operations in foreign countries even when doing so violates international law. The new memo treats that premise as settled and argues the Maduro operation did not constitute war in the constitutional sense, therefore bypassing the War Powers Act requirement for congressional authorization. An unclassified version released simultaneously states that international law “does not restrict the president as a matter of domestic law” regarding rendition operations.

The memo conceded that Trump personally justified the operation by stating control of Venezuelan oil reserves was the objective, though the administration maintains it was solely a law enforcement action targeting Maduro as the leader of a narco-trafficking organization. A White House official stated the operation was lawful and that “the Department of Justice routinely executes federal arrest warrants abroad,” framing the military-backed seizure as standard law enforcement practice.

Democratic lawmakers directly contradicted this characterization, arguing that removing a foreign head of state by military force constitutes an act of war regardless of law enforcement justifications. The administration has also used success in the Maduro operation to embolden plans for military actions against other targets, with officials accelerating preparations that extend beyond Venezuela.

The memo stipulated that any military support must remain proportional to the law enforcement objective and acknowledged that military commanders had not assessed Maduro’s actions as a direct or imminent threat to U.S. forces. Nevertheless, the opinion concluded the likelihood of armed resistance justified deploying U.S. military assets. The opinion was provided to lawmakers after the operation had already been executed, establishing legal justification retroactively rather than constraining executive action beforehand.

(Source: https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/13/politics/memo-maduro-capture-olc)

US seizes second vessel off Venezuelan after Trump’s blockade threat, reports say | The Independent

The United States Coast Guard seized the Panama-flagged tanker Centuries off the coast of Barbados in the Caribbean Sea, marking the second vessel confiscated in recent weeks as part of Trump’s blockade of Venezuelan oil. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem stated the Coast Guard would “continue to pursue the illicit movement of sanctioned oil that is used to fund narco terrorism in the region,” though legal experts dispute the justification for seizing unsanctioned vessels.

Jeremy Paner, a former U.S. Treasury Department sanctions investigator, directly contradicted Trump’s stated policy by confirming the Centuries had not been sanctioned by the United States. Paner stated the seizure of an unsanctioned vessel “marks a further increase in Trump’s pressure on Venezuela” and “runs counter to Trump’s statement that the U.S. would impose a blockade of all sanctioned oil tankers,” exposing the operation’s scope beyond its stated legal framework.

The Centuries carried 1.8 million barrels of Venezuelan crude bound for China under a false vessel name and was part of a shadow fleet designed to evade sanctions. Since Trump’s first tanker seizure last week, Venezuelan crude exports have collapsed sharply, with an effective embargo forcing loaded vessels to remain in Venezuelan waters rather than risk confiscation, despite many not being under U.S. sanctions.

Trump’s military campaign against Venezuela has killed at least 100 people through more than two dozen strikes on vessels in the Pacific and Caribbean, with announced plans for imminent land operations. Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro contends the military buildup aims to overthrow his government and seize the nation’s vast oil reserves, the world’s largest crude deposits.

The seizure strategy contradicts international law governing unsanctioned vessels and exposes economic objectives beyond counter-narcotics claims. If the blockade persists, the loss of nearly one million barrels daily will drive global oil prices higher, shifting market leverage and destabilizing energy markets while demonstrating Trump’s use of military and economic coercion to control foreign governments and resources.

(Source: https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/us-seizing-vessel-venezuela-trump-blockade-oil-tanker-b2888347.html)

Trump orders ‘total and complete blockade’ of sanctioned oil tankers coming to and leaving Venezuela | CNN Politics

President Donald Trump announced a “total and complete blockade” of oil tankers entering and leaving Venezuela on Tuesday via Truth Social, escalating military and economic pressure against Nicolás Maduro’s government. Trump stated that U.S. military assets surround Venezuela and demanded the country return oil, land, and assets to the United States, exposing the operation’s economic objectives beyond stated anti-drug efforts.

The blockade targets Venezuela’s primary economic lifeline amid existing international sanctions on its oil sector. Trump has repeatedly indicated that U.S. companies should regain access to Venezuela’s oil reserves—the world’s largest—if Maduro is removed from power. State-owned Petroleos de Venezuela controls the petroleum industry, though Houston-based Chevron operates under a sanctions carve-out that Trump revoked in March before conditionally reissuing it.

Trump accused Maduro of using “stolen oil” to finance terrorism, human trafficking, and criminal activity. White House chief of staff Susie Wiles told Vanity Fair that the administration’s military campaign aims to pressure Maduro to step down, contradicting earlier framing focused solely on narcotics interdiction. Venezuela’s government condemned the announcement as “a reckless and serious threat” and “a grave violation of International Law,” noting that blockades constitute acts of war under international treaties.

A 1961 Justice Department memo regarding Cuban tensions established that blockades are justified only when a state of war exists. Trump’s military operations in the region, including threatened ground invasions, follow Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s announcement of “Southern Spear,” a hemisphere-wide military operation targeting suspected drug operations.

The blockade represents an explicit shift from counternarcotics justification to resource seizure, with Trump signaling intent to restore American corporate control over Venezuelan petroleum assets previously nationalized in the 1970s. Venezuela’s oil is sold primarily to China due to existing U.S. sanctions imposed since 2005.

(Source: https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/16/politics/blockade-venezuela-sanctioned-oil-tankers)

Trump Receives FIFA Peace Prize Amid Controversy and Criticism

Donald Trump has been awarded the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize, a development that many view as an effort by the soccer organization to boost his fragile ego. The prize was presented during the World Cup draw in Washington, an event that Trump had anticipated since FIFA’s announcement of the award just weeks prior. This prize comes after Trump’s previous disappointment at being overlooked for the Nobel Peace Prize.

FIFA President Gianni Infantino personally presented the award to Trump, expressing support for his supposed contributions to peace. Critics note the absurdity of a peace prize being awarded to a figure who has been widely criticized for his divisive rhetoric and policies.

Trump touted his acceptance of the award, but the timing and nature of it sparked further debate about his relationship with FIFA and Infantino. It raises questions about the validity of an award granted in part to satiate political ambitions and create positive media coverage for Trump as he prepares for the upcoming World Cup co-hosted by the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.

The ties between Trump and FIFA have been emphasized through Infantino’s regular appearances with Trump at public events, showcasing a concerning closeness that many fear undermines the integrity of the sports organization. The FIFA president has gone as far as to validate Trump’s leadership style, ignoring the broader implications of endorsing someone frequently linked to authoritarianism.

This decision to award Trump a peace prize, particularly given his controversial legacy, is not only seen as a farce but as a troubling reflection of modern political alignments within influential global institutions like FIFA. The implications of such an endorsement cannot be ignored as the world awaits the next chapter of international competition in the face of a divisive political landscape.

(Source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/12/05/trump-fifa-peace-prize/87589592007/)

Trump’s Ukraine Plan is Admittedly a Russian Wish List

U.S. senators, including Mike Rounds and Angus King, disclosed that Secretary of State Marco Rubio informed them that the recent peace plan proposed by President Donald Trump for Ukraine is nothing more than a “wish list” from Russia, rather than a legitimate framework for negotiations. Rounds emphasized that this assessment pointed to the plan’s significant concessions to Moscow, which Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has consistently rejected.

Despite Rubio’s assertions contradicting the senators’ claims and alleging their misinterpretation of his statements, the confusion surrounding the Trump administration’s approach to the peace plan has deepened. The leaked 28-point plan elicited concerns that it merely rewarded Russian aggression while undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

Senators voiced that rather than advocating for legitimate peace negotiations, the plan might send a troubling message to other aggressors, essentially granting validation to their territorial ambitions. Rubio, under pressure, tried to clarify that the plan sought to be a productive starting point, yet many senators remained skeptical about its ethical grounding.

The unfolding situation highlights the increasing rift between Washington’s stance and the expectations of Ukrainian leadership. The implications of such a proposal raise serious questions regarding U.S. foreign policy and President Trump’s credibility on the international stage, particularly as nations observe the handling of this crisis.

As this scenario plays out, observers anticipate how both Ukraine and Russia will respond, while the Trump administration continues to navigate the backlash from U.S. lawmakers who view the peace plan as detrimental to international law and the sovereignty of nations.

Marco Rubio Confirms Leaked Ukraine Peace Plan Not Trump’s

U.S. Senators, including Mike Rounds and Angus King, reported that Secretary of State Marco Rubio informed them that the leaked 28-point peace plan for Ukraine is not a proposal from President Donald Trump but rather a “wish list” from Russia. Rounds clarified that the document was delivered to a U.S. representative, emphasizing that it did not originate from lawmakers but was leaked to the press.

At the Halifax International Security Forum, Rounds noted that the plan allows for the opportunity for both sides to respond but is not a recommendation from the U.S. government. King echoed this sentiment, asserting that the proposal represents Russian interests and not the formal position of the U.S. administration.

In response, Rubio defended the plan’s credibility via social media, claiming it was authoritatively drafted in consultation with the U.S. and based on input from both Russia and Ukraine. However, recent reports from Axios indicated that the Trump administration has secretly collaborated with Russia to create this peace framework.

The plan reportedly entails significant territorial concessions from Ukraine, including substantial reductions in military strength. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has indicated hesitations about the proposal, and Trump’s comments to reporters suggested a lack of strong backing for the deal, implying it was not a final offer.

This incident underscores ongoing tensions and skepticism regarding Trump’s influence in shaping foreign policy, particularly in relation to Russia’s intentions in the Ukraine conflict, reflecting fears of authoritarian governance under his administration.

American troops have controversially landed on Mexican territory

American troops have controversially landed on Mexican territory, escalating tensions following Donald Trump’s alarming rhetoric about military action against Mexico. The incident occurred at Playa Bagdad, where US personnel erroneously placed signs asserting the area was a “restricted zone” belonging to the Department of Defense. This provocative action drew swift reactions from Mexican security forces, who promptly intervened to remove the signs.

The Pentagon has since issued a statement acknowledging the mistaken landing, attributing the confusion to shifting water depths affecting the perceived international boundary. Though the US military attempted to downplay the incident, the Mexican government is taking the matter seriously, with President Claudia Sheinbaum declaring that an investigation by the International Boundary and Water Commission will be initiated to clarify the situation.

Sheinbaum’s government strongly rebuked the notion of US strikes on drug cartels operating within Mexico, emphasizing that such actions would be considered violations of Mexican sovereignty. Despite Trump’s claims of readiness for military intervention to combat drug trafficking, Sheinbaum warned that any such operations would not be tolerated and would be met with firm resistance.

As tensions remain high, both nations are grappling with the implications of this military misstep. The United States has seen a rise in military mobilization in the region, marking the largest deployment since the Cold War, which raises further questions about the future of US-Mexico relations under Trump’s aggressive posture.

This series of events underscores the precarious nature of diplomacy between the two countries, particularly as Trump continues to advocate for more stringent measures against drug smuggling, simultaneously risking a potential diplomatic crisis that could alter the dynamics of North American security.

Trump Urges Zelenskyy to Cede Territory to Russia Amid Tensions

In a recent closed-door meeting, U.S. President Donald Trump reportedly pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to concede significant territory to Russia. This exchange escalated into a vulgar shouting match, during which Trump cursed aggressively, according to sources familiar with the discussion. Insiders reveal that Trump warned Zelenskyy that if Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted to take more territory, he would destroy Ukraine, creating an environment of high tension.

During the meeting, Trump suggested that Zelenskyy surrender parts of the Donbas region in Eastern Ukraine, which remains under Ukrainian control, as a deal in exchange for Russia relinquishing claims to smaller regions near Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. The conversation was marked by Trump’s display of frustration, reportedly throwing maps of Ukraine around the room while insisting on these territorial concessions.

Zelenskyy’s response to Trump’s demands was reportedly one of strong disapproval. The Ukrainian president was described as “very negative” following the heated discussion, reflecting a broader sentiment among Ukrainian officials that yielding the Donbas region without conflict would be unacceptable to their society. This cautious stance was echoed by Oleksandr Merezhko, who noted that Putin is aware of these feelings among Ukrainians.

The implications of this meeting have caused concern among European leaders, who remain pragmatic yet pessimistic about moving forward in the situation. Discussions about next steps are ongoing, but the mood has soured due to Trump’s confrontational approach and the unrealistic demands presented to Ukraine.

This latest episode highlights the complexities and ongoing tensions in international diplomacy involving Ukraine and Russia, with Trump’s tactics raising questions about the U.S. role in the region. As diplomatic challenges persist, the reaction from Kyiv and its allies remains critical in shaping future interactions and negotiations.

1 2 3 … 8