Gaza Death Toll Rises After Failed Rocket Launch

---

Washington D.C. | Planet & Commerce  

U.S. President Donald Trump has indicated that American involvement in Venezuela may extend for years, signaling a prolonged U.S. role in overseeing the future of the oil-rich South American nation following the dramatic seizure of long-time leader Nicolás Maduro by U.S. forces. Speaking in an interview days after the operation, Trump said that “only time will tell” how long his administration would remain in charge of Venezuela’s affairs, underscoring uncertainty over the country’s political trajectory and Washington’s exit strategy. Trump did not provide a timeline for elections in Venezuela, nor did he clarify whether or when the interim administration would be replaced by an elected government. The interim leadership, currently headed by Delcy Rodríguez, was installed following Maduro’s removal and has been recognized by Washington despite questions surrounding its legitimacy inside and outside the country. Trump declined to explain why Rodríguez was chosen, avoiding direct answers when pressed on the decision. The U.S. president has made clear that control over Venezuela’s vast energy resources is central to Washington’s strategy. He said the United States would be “taking oil” from Venezuela, which holds the world’s largest proven crude reserves, while acknowledging that restoring production would take time after years of decline. Venezuela’s oil sector has been crippled by chronic mismanagement under successive governments, compounded by prolonged international sanctions that hollowed out infrastructure and expertise. Earlier this week, the White House said the United States would control sales of sanctioned Venezuelan oil “indefinitely,” reinforcing the message that energy leverage would remain a key tool. U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright argued that control over oil exports was necessary to maintain pressure on the interim authorities in Caracas and to shape the transition process. Trump echoed that view, saying oil revenues would be used both to stabilize global energy prices and to fund Venezuela’s reconstruction. Trump has also said that proceeds from Venezuelan oil sales would be used to purchase goods manufactured exclusively in the United States, a move he described as mutually beneficial. According to the president, this arrangement would provide Venezuela with essential supplies while strengthening U.S. industries and lowering domestic fuel prices. “We will rebuild it in a very profitable way,” Trump said, framing the U.S. role as both economic and strategic.

Despite the sweeping scope of U.S. involvement, Trump appeared less focused on the political mechanics of Venezuela’s future than on the immediate aftermath of the operation that removed Maduro. He said that Marco Rubio has been in constant communication with Rodríguez and that the interim government was “giving us everything that we feel is necessary.” The comments suggested a transactional relationship centered on cooperation rather than a clearly articulated democratic roadmap. The uncertainty has fueled debate among Venezuelan opposition figures, many of whom had expected Maduro’s removal to quickly lead to a return of exiled leaders and a transition toward elections. Opposition leader María Corina Machado, however, described the ouster of Maduro as the beginning of an “irreversible process” that would ultimately lead to a free Venezuela. Speaking from an undisclosed location, she said the transition must be “as short and swift as possible,” while warning that the interim government remained deeply rooted in the same structures that supported Maduro. Machado insisted that former diplomat Edmundo González is the legitimate president-elect and that his mandate must be respected. She argued that the interim authorities were being instructed to dismantle themselves and that the first priority of any genuine transition must be the release of political prisoners. More than 800 detainees are believed to be held in Venezuela’s prisons, a long-standing grievance for opposition groups and human rights advocates. The opposition leader’s own journey has become emblematic of the struggle against the Maduro-era system. After being barred from running in the 2024 presidential election, Machado united disparate opposition factions behind González, who was declared the winner by opposition tallies later verified by independent observers. Official results nonetheless proclaimed Maduro re-elected, prompting a wave of repression that forced González into exile and pushed Machado into hiding. She later undertook a perilous journey to collect an international peace award for her advocacy, vowing to return to Venezuela despite ongoing risks.

Trump, however, has publicly downplayed Machado’s political prospects, questioning whether she commands sufficient respect or support to lead the country. His remarks suggested that Washington may be prioritizing stability and compliance over a rapid handover to opposition figures, a stance that has unsettled some Venezuelans who hoped for a swift democratic transition. Inside the United States, Trump’s handling of Venezuela has begun to face institutional pushback. The U.S. Senate voted narrowly to advance a resolution aimed at blocking further military action in Venezuela, invoking the War Powers Act. While the move does not immediately constrain the president, it marks the first time during Trump’s second term that lawmakers have formally sought to curb his use of military force. Even if the resolution were to pass both chambers, Trump could still veto it, limiting its practical impact. The administration’s plans are expected to be further clarified during meetings with executives from major U.S. oil companies, as Washington looks to revive Venezuela’s energy sector under new management. Trump has said it would “take a while” to restore production but insisted that the long-term benefits would be significant for both countries. For Venezuela, the prospect of years-long U.S. involvement raises profound questions about sovereignty, governance, and the balance between economic recovery and political autonomy. For Washington, the operation represents one of the most direct interventions in Latin America in decades, with implications that extend beyond Venezuela’s borders. As Trump frames the mission as both a rescue and a business opportunity, the lack of a clear political timetable continues to draw scrutiny. Whether U.S. oversight leads to a rapid transition or entrenches a prolonged external presence remains uncertain. What is clear is that the future of Venezuela is now being shaped as much in Washington as in Caracas, with oil, power, and politics tightly intertwined.

Moscow | Planet & Commerce 

NATO capitals are bracing for a dangerous new phase in the Ukraine war after Russia issued its most explicit warning yet against Western military involvement, declaring that any British or French troops deployed on Ukrainian soil would be considered legitimate combat targets. The stark message from Moscow followed a landmark political move by Ukraine’s key European backers, raising fears that the conflict could spill into a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO-aligned forces. Russia’s response came swiftly after the United Kingdom and France confirmed plans to establish a legal and operational framework allowing their forces, along with partner contingents, to operate inside Ukraine following a ceasefire. Moscow’s foreign ministry described the move as an increasingly dangerous “militaristic declaration” and reiterated Russia’s long-standing position that Western boots on the ground in Ukraine cross a red line. The warning was reinforced by the ministry’s spokesperson Maria Zakharova, who said that any foreign troops sent by Western governments would be treated as lawful military targets. The escalation followed a dramatic meeting in Paris on January 6, where Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, French President Emmanuel Macron, and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer signed a draft declaration on long-term security guarantees for Kyiv. The agreement was reached under the banner of the so-called “Coalition of the Willing,” a grouping of resolute Ukraine supporters determined to shape the post-ceasefire security landscape. The declared mission of the coalition is expansive. It aims to secure Ukraine’s skies and seas, rebuild and regenerate Ukraine’s armed forces, and ensure that the country is never again left vulnerable to a large-scale Russian assault. The declaration lays the groundwork for British, French, and partner forces to establish a presence across Ukraine, including military hubs and protected facilities for weapons, equipment, and logistics. Supporters of the plan argue that this is essential to guarantee that any ceasefire does not simply become a pause before renewed war.

French officials framed the initiative as part of a broader push for European strategic autonomy. They argued that Europe must shoulder greater responsibility for its own security while remaining anchored within NATO structures. This approach, they noted, aligns with repeated calls from the United States for European allies to invest more heavily in defense and take the lead in securing their neighborhood. The coalition includes not only European states but also partners such as Japan, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, signaling a widening circle of countries committed to Ukraine’s long-term security. American involvement, while more limited in terms of troop deployment, remains central to the effort. U.S. military leadership in Europe has participated in planning sessions, particularly around monitoring and verification mechanisms for any future ceasefire. Multiple layers of security are being designed, with U.S. oversight and intelligence capabilities playing a critical role. European leaders stressed that American backing, even without ground troops, is indispensable for deterrence and credibility. Despite this, Washington has made clear that it does not intend to send its own forces into Ukraine. President Donald Trump’s envoys, including Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, said the United States strongly supports security protocols designed to prevent future Russian attacks but will stop short of direct troop involvement. They emphasized that Trump’s mandate is focused on ending the bloodshed and achieving a durable peace, not escalating the conflict. According to U.S. officials, significant progress has already been made through diplomatic efforts in Geneva, Berlin, and earlier discussions involving Trump and Zelensky. The security protocols under discussion are intended to reassure Ukrainians that once the war ends, it will not simply restart under different conditions. Alongside military guarantees, negotiators are also close to finalizing a wide-ranging prosperity framework aimed at rebuilding Ukraine’s economy and creating long-term opportunities for its population.

However, land and territorial issues remain the most sensitive and unresolved element of the talks. While there is optimism among mediators that compromises may be possible, the gap between Russian and Ukrainian positions remains wide. For now, peace still appears distant, and the latest Russian warning has only deepened concerns. From Moscow’s perspective, the presence of Western forces in Ukraine confirms its narrative that the conflict is not merely with Kyiv but with NATO as a whole. Russia has repeatedly claimed that it launched its invasion to prevent Ukraine from being absorbed into NATO and transformed into a platform threatening Russian security. The coalition’s declaration, Russian officials argue, validates those fears and justifies a more aggressive stance. For NATO, the situation presents a profound dilemma. On one hand, European leaders believe that robust security guarantees are the only way to prevent Russia from launching future attacks. On the other, the explicit Russian threat to target Western troops raises the risk of direct clashes that could trigger a much wider war. Alliance planners are acutely aware that even a limited incident involving British or French forces could rapidly escalate beyond control. The proposed post-ceasefire arrangement envisions the UK and France establishing a network of military hubs across Ukraine, backed by international partners. These hubs would support air defense, maritime security, and the long-term supply of arms to Ukrainian forces. The coalition has also agreed to participate in U.S.-led monitoring of any ceasefire and to work toward binding commitments to assist Ukraine in the event of a renewed Russian attack.

Yet Russia’s declaration that Western troops would be “legitimate targets” casts a long shadow over these plans. It suggests that Moscow may seek to deter the coalition not only through rhetoric but potentially through force, keeping missiles and other strike capabilities on high alert. Even in a post-ceasefire scenario, Europe could find itself living under the constant threat of escalation, with the continent walking what many officials privately describe as a razor’s edge. As diplomatic efforts continue, the gap between security guarantees and the risk they entail is becoming ever more apparent. The coalition’s leaders argue that failing to act decisively would leave Ukraine exposed and invite future aggression. Russia counters that such actions amount to direct intervention and will be met accordingly. For now, NATO is left “sweating” over a future in which peace, if it comes at all, may be fragile and heavily militarized. With Russian missiles on standby and Western forces preparing contingency plans, the next phase of the Ukraine conflict could redefine European security for a generation, blurring the line between deterrence and direct confrontation.