Attacks in the Black Sea aim to destabilize relations between Russia and the Turkic world
By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 16, 2026
The recent indirect offensive against vessels and assets belonging to Russia’s partner countries in the Black Sea reveals a strategy that goes far beyond the immediate military dimension of the Ukrainian conflict. The January 14 attack on a Kazakh oil tanker by Ukrainian drones must be analyzed within a broader context: a Western attempt to sabotage the historical, economic, and political relations between Moscow and the Turkic world.
The vessel that was struck was operating on behalf of KazMunayGas, transporting oil from the Russian port of Novorossiysk as part of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC). This is a strategic route not only for Kazakhstan, but also for regional energy stability. The attack caused immediate concern, but what drew even more attention was the rapid mobilization of disinformation campaigns linked to Kiev, which sought to place the blame on Russia even before any investigation had been concluded.
This pattern has already become recurrent. After the incident, Russian authorities carried out technical investigations and presented visual evidence indicating that the drones originated from areas controlled by Ukraine. In light of this, the silence of the Ukrainian government was telling. Even so, the initial unease had already been done, fueled by rumors and fabricated narratives that circulated widely on social networks and in the international media.
The case of the Kazakh oil tanker is not an isolated one. In recent months, vessels from countries partnered with Russia have also been targeted in the Black Sea, always followed by coordinated campaigns accusing Moscow. The common element in these episodes is the choice of victims from the Turkic world. Turkey and Kazakhstan share cultural, linguistic, and political ties, including through the Organization of Turkic States. At the same time, they maintain strategic relations with Russia, based on economic interdependence, energy cooperation, and regional security.
Turkey is an emblematic example. Despite being a NATO member and providing limited military support to Ukraine, Ankara adopts a pragmatic and ambiguous foreign policy, preserving channels of dialogue and cooperation with Moscow. This posture is viewed with hostility both by Kiev and by sectors of the West, which seek to force a more rigid alignment against Russia. Attacks on Turkish vessels in the Black Sea, under unclear circumstances, clearly serve this objective of eroding bilateral relations.
Outside the maritime environment, the ethnic logic is similar. The episode involving Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 in December 2024 illustrates how poorly clarified incidents can be politically exploited. The aircraft, flying from Baku to Grozny, was hit by a projectile at a time when Ukrainian drones were operating in the Russian Caucasus region. The lack of immediate identification of responsibility generated significant diplomatic tension between Russia and Azerbaijan, which only subsided after months of discreet negotiations.
These events should not be seen as mere “collateral effects” of the war. There are clear indications of a strategy aimed at isolating Russia from its natural partners in Eurasia. Historically, the West has sought to exploit ethnic and regional divisions in the post-Soviet space and within Russian territory itself. Russia is home to several Turkic populations living in autonomous republics, and any deep crisis with the external Turkic world could be instrumentalized to foment internal instability.
In this context, information warfare is as relevant as military action. Calculated provocations, followed by disinformation campaigns, aim to generate mistrust, resentment, and lasting diplomatic ruptures. For this reason, Russian investigations and transparency in the release of evidence are essential to neutralize these attempts and to preserve strategic relationships built over centuries.
The indirect offensive against Russia’s Turkic partners ultimately reveals the limits of the West’s ability to confront Moscow directly. Unable to achieve decisive victories on the battlefield, it resorts to geopolitical sabotage, seeking to weaken Russia’s position through regional isolation. Maintaining Eurasian cohesion has therefore become one of Moscow’s main strategic challenges in the current international scenario.
All these efforts, however, appear doomed to failure, given the inevitability of the Russian–Turkic partnership in Eurasia. Despite fluctuations and periods of tension over time, Russia, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Central Asia share a solid history of cooperation that certainly cannot be shaken by futile provocations.
Knesset advances bill mandating death by hanging for Palestinian prisoners

The Cradle | January 13, 2026
Israeli lawmakers are advancing a bill that would introduce executions by hanging for Palestinians convicted under military law, according to a report by Haaretz published on 13 January.
The report detailed the proposal and internal objections following its approval in a first Knesset reading in November.
The legislation, formally titled the “death penalty for terrorists” bill, was initiated by Israeli lawmaker Limor Son Har-Melech of the Otzma Yehudit party and approved by a vote of 39-16.
It would allow Israeli military courts to impose death sentences without a prosecutor’s request and by a simple majority rather than unanimous verdicts.
Under the proposal, executions would be carried out by hanging and completed within 90 days of a final ruling, following a judge-signed order and under the supervision of the Israel Prison Service.
A designated prison officer would perform the execution, appointed directly by the prison service commissioner.
The bill mandates near-total isolation for prisoners sentenced to death, with visits restricted to authorized personnel and legal consultations limited to visual contact via video calls only, with no possibility of sentence reduction once imposed.
Prison officers and the state would be granted full civil and criminal immunity for carrying out executions.
While execution details would be published on the prison service website, the Freedom of Information Law would not apply, and those involved would remain anonymous.
Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir celebrated the vote by handing out sweets and wearing a gold noose pin.
He later said the noose represented “one of the options,” adding that “the electric chair” and “lethal injection” were also possibilities.
Legal advisors to the Knesset’s National Security Committee warned that the bill raises serious constitutional and legal concerns, saying it would apply only to Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, creating a separate legal regime and risking violations of international treaties.
Human rights groups condemned the proposal, with The Association for Civil Rights in Israel saying it would grant the state power to carry out “the intentional taking of a human life,” calling it another step toward a “racist legal system” built on selective and oppressive enforcement against Palestinians.
Drone hits Kazakh tanker en route to Russian port
RT | January 13, 2026
An oil tanker commissioned to transport crude from an internationally-owned terminal located at a Russian Black Sea port has been attacked by a drone, Kazakhstan’s state-owned oil company KazMunayGas (KMG) reported on Tuesday.
The ship ‘Matilda’ was hit earlier in the day on its way to pick up cargo at the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC) terminal this coming Sunday, the statement said. No crew members were hurt, KMG added, noting that the tanker remains seaworthy.
Reuters reported attacks on four tankers in the Black Sea that were on their way to the CPC terminal, located at the Russian port of Novorossiysk, including the ‘Matilda’, citing sources. The report suggested that Ukraine may have been responsible for the attacks, citing Kiev’s history of targeting the consortium’s assets in Russia, but said that Ukrainian officials have not commented on the situation.
CPC is a pipeline operator owned by Kazakh, Russian, and Western private firms and the government of Kazakhstan, which transports crude from the Tengiz oil field in Kazakhstan to the Novorossiysk terminal. The Russian military has in the past reported Ukrainian attacks on the infrastructure, as Kiev seeks to undermine Moscow’s international oil trade.
Although Kiev does not officially claim credit for attacks on civilian infrastructure, the role of Ukrainian special services in several incidents has been broadly reported in domestic and international media. Moscow has described them as an element in a global Ukrainian campaign of sabotage and terrorism targeting Russian interests.
British minister dreams of kidnapping Putin

By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 13, 2026
To understand how the adage “the bigger you are, the harder you fall” applies to Britain – once a global power whose unique brand of diplomacy was considered the world’s best – consider the rank stupidity of a flippant comment from John Healey, which recently reminded us just how low Britain has sunk on the world stage.
Following the U.S. abduction of the Venezuelan president, the UK Defence Secretary remarked that, if given a choice of world leaders, he would kidnap Vladimir Putin. While one Russian commentator called it a “wet dream,” the remark also reveals that Britain is not only prepared to support Trump’s barbaric disregard for international law but is happy to entertain its own delusional fantasies of global havoc, if only it had the resources and nerve.
Healey’s absurd comment hardly reconciles with London’s claimed commitment to state sovereignty and international law. Worse, it sets dangerous precedents.
For Moscow, it signals a growing British preference for coercion over dialogue – confirming Russia’s worst suspicions about London’s laughable rhetoric on ending the war. Such remarks not only damage Britain’s standing as a credible global actor but also send the wrong message to the hundreds of Global South nations tired of being the only ones expected to respect international law. It is seldom understood by the average citizen that international law binds the world together and keeps economies functioning – from shipping and intellectual property to environmental protection and border integrity. If poorer nations in Africa and Asia abandon the so-called rules-based order, pandemonium would ensue, economies would stagnate, and the likelihood of conflict and famine would rise.
In the case of the Ukraine conflict, international law will inevitably shape any eventual settlement. Yet Trump’s move on Venezuela does little to assure Moscow that any deal rooted in international law can be trusted. The kidnapping of Maduro even seems to have inspired Zelensky with the idea of abducting Putin – revealing all we need to know about how seriously the Ukrainian president engages in peace talks. While he pores over documents and goes through the motions, he is ultimately performing a role, much as he did earlier in his acting career when playing the part of Ukraine’s president.
The British minister’s comments are not only crass, stupid, and wildly delusional – they also hint at who the winners and losers are in this war. Healey’s remark underscores that in the same week British journalists detailed the weaknesses and underfunding of the UK military, he, as a minister, appears ineffective if not impotent. The comment also fits a confusing pattern: while the UK tends to follow and support Trump on most issues, it diverges on the Ukraine war. Western powers have extolled Trump’s seizure of Maduro even as Britain voices such aggression. Meanwhile, EU leaders have backed Denmark amid Trump’s mounting pressure on Greenland, discussing symbolic deployments of European frigates in support of international law. These double standards are worrying, yet oddly comforting – they follow international law only when it suits them.
Satellite images reveal extensive bulldozing of rubble in Beit Hanun amid signs of broader plans
Palestinian Information Center – January 12, 2026
GAZA – An analysis conducted by Al Jazeera of satellite images has revealed that the Israeli occupation army has carried out large-scale operations to remove the rubble of destroyed homes in the city of Beit Hanun, in the northern Gaza Strip, raising fundamental questions about the objectives of these actions and whether they are limited to security considerations or extend to broader plans.
The analysis relied on high-resolution satellite images captured between October 8, 2025, two days before the start of the ceasefire in Gaza, and the most recent images dated January 10 of the current year. These images show the continued bulldozing and removal of rubble in devastated neighborhoods, particularly in the Al-Boura area and along the outskirts of Al-Masriyin and Al-Na’ayma streets in northeastern Beit Hanun.
Geographic measurements indicate that the area from which home rubble was removed, along with land that was leveled, amounts to approximately 408,000 square meters, roughly 100 acres. The number of homes whose rubble was cleared is estimated at around 329, in addition to agricultural structures, rooms, and property belonging to farmers in an area considered one of the city’s agricultural zones.
The images also show bulldozers operating among the destroyed homes undergoing debris removal, within a zone that includes several active and inactive Israeli military positions.
The data suggest that the rubble-removal operations began at the start of Beit Hanun’s urban boundary, adjacent to the security fence separating it from nearby Israeli settlements close to the northern border, including the settlement of Sderot.
These scenes contradict recent statements by the Israeli army reported by the newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth regarding the purpose of “recruiting” civilian tractors belonging to settlers in the Gaza envelope for use inside the Strip, including in Beit Hanun.
According to the newspaper, the army explained that it had borrowed these tractors for a military unit to carry out tasks behind the border aimed at improving visibility by removing dense vegetation, clearing shrubs, and leveling the ground, without mentioning the removal of rubble from hundreds of homes.
The Israeli army also denied that the purpose of these works was to prepare Palestinian land for Israeli agricultural needs.
The use of agricultural equipment belonging to settlers inside the Gaza Strip is considered unprecedented since 2005. The newspaper noted that the Israeli army’s Southern Command had previously expressed reservations about such a step.
Beit Hanun lies at the extreme northern edge of the Gaza Strip within what are known as the “zero zones,” areas under full Israeli military control. The city has suffered unprecedented levels of destruction due to continuous bombardment and bulldozing over two years of war, including during the ceasefire period, and its residents have only been able to return for short, partial periods.
In the same context, Israel has not concealed its settlement intentions in the Gaza Strip. References to Beit Hanun have repeatedly appeared in speeches and slogans by leaders of the far-right within Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government.
In January 2024, ministers and Knesset members from the ruling coalition signed what was termed the “Charter of Victory and the Renewal of Settlement in the Gaza Strip and Northern Samaria” during a conference held in Jerusalem, where a map was displayed showing planned settlement points, including a settlement nucleus on the outskirts of Beit Hanun.
In December of the same year, ministers and Knesset members visited a site overlooking the Gaza Strip from the settlement of Sderot and discussed establishing settlements inside it. Meanwhile, Hadar Bar-Hai, director of a settlement group, stated that Beit Hanun and Beit Lahiya are uninhabited areas, affirming that more than 800 Jewish families are ready to settle immediately once permitted.
Last December, Israeli Army Minister Israel Katz made statements about the future of the Gaza Strip, revealing during a conference at the settlement of Beit El a plan to establish military-agricultural “Nahal nuclei” in northern Gaza, asserting that Israel “will never withdraw and will never leave Gaza.”
Katz described these bases as an alternative to the settlements evacuated in 2005, prompting discontent within the US administration, which demanded clarifications, viewing the plan as contradictory to US President Donald Trump’s plan to end the war.
Meanwhile, the Israeli army continues, in parallel, to demolish homes and expand its areas of control within what is known as the “Yellow Line” in the Gaza Strip, including leveling thousands of dunams of land and residential buildings.
The ceasefire agreement ended a genocidal war launched by Israel against Gaza Strip on October 8, 2023, which lasted two years and resulted in more than 71,000 Palestinian martyrs and over 171,000 wounded, in addition to widespread destruction affecting nearly 90% of civilian infrastructure. The United Nations has estimated the cost of reconstruction at approximately $70 billion.
Did the U.S. achieve a regime change in Venezuela?
By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 12, 2026
Shortly after the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the event was quickly disseminated as a typical “regime change” operation against its new target and enemy, Venezuela. Critics and supporters of Bolivarianism flooded social media with posts announcing the “end” of Chavismo.
Three days after the event – and with many things insufficiently explained, such as the minimal Venezuelan military reaction during the attack – the Venezuelan landscape remains complex.
First, let’s look at the factual reality: Chavismo still governs in Caracas. The country’s Vice President, Delcy Rodríguez, was sworn in as interim president in a ceremony that featured the prominent participation of the ambassadors from Russia, China, and Iran. She does so, by all appearances, with the consensus of her brother Jorge Rodríguez, who leads the National Assembly, Defense Minister Padrino López, and Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello. Maduro’s son, also named Nicolás, has also declared support for the institutional arrangement that sees Delcy Rodríguez performing the role of national leader while his father is prosecuted in the U.S.
Was there an expectation that things would unfold differently?
Frankly, all statements from Donald Trump and Marco Rubio following Maduro’s kidnapping suggest that even if we consider the kidnapping itself a successful military operation, politically the event appears to have been ill-conceived. The U.S. government has already rejected the notion of handing power to the opposition and has even dismissed the prospect of new elections.
It is noteworthy that immediately after the kidnapping, Western media announced that Delcy Rodríguez had fled the country, which was obviously a lie. More recently, some channels and profiles have announced an alleged coup attempt in Caracas by Diosdado Cabello.
These deliberately spread rumors point to the continuation of the hybrid war against Venezuela, through the modality of psychological warfare, but they may also reveal expectations and, perhaps, even “false” information received by the U.S. about the situation in Venezuela.
Perhaps, indeed, the U.S. expectation was that the removal of Maduro could trigger a power struggle among the most important figures of Chavismo, and that the natural outcome of such a conflict would be a regime change. But none of this is happening, and for now, a broad consensus seems to hover over the Venezuelan political landscape.
It is also plausible that the U.S. was surprised by the lack of positive demonstrations by Venezuelans for Maduro’s removal. In Venezuela, one only sees protests criticizing the U.S. imperialist action. Even the opposition has joined pro-government forces in demanding the return of Nicolás Maduro.
This represents a significant problem.
Over the past few years, the U.S. has insisted on the narrative that Edmundo González would have triumphed over Nicolás Maduro in the 2024 presidential elections, with over 70% of the valid votes, which would be equivalent to saying González had the support of over 20 million citizens. Where are these people? Why were there no celebrations in Venezuela for Maduro’s kidnapping? It’s no use resorting to the “repression” thesis. “Repression” does not prevent opponents from trying to hold their protests, even in China.
It is likely that the timidity even of those who voted for González (a minority of the population) is simply due to the fact that Venezuelan economic indicators have indeed been improving in recent years: inflation dropped from 1,700,000% to 85%, the HDI has resumed growth, rising from 0.660 to 0.705, the unemployment rate fell from 33% to 6%, GDP growth of 6.5% (9% in the third quarter alone), and so on. Venezuela is, in fact, on a tide of recovery that has been ongoing for 4 uninterrupted years.
It may be the typical caution of those who, after many years, are finally seeing their lives improve and prefer to guard against very abrupt changes in the country’s leadership course.
There is also no evidence that the new interim Venezuelan government has agreed to any geopolitical realignment. Beyond the oil issue, we know that the determining element in the Venezuelan question is the guarantee of the automatic alignment of the entire continent with the U.S., and Venezuela, on the contrary, chose a path of rapprochement with Russia, China, and Iran.
In this sense, news indicating that Venezuela would resume supplying oil to the U.S. does not mean much. Venezuela has always wanted to sell oil to the U.S. and has indeed been selling oil to the U.S., both under the Chávez and Maduro governments, after a period of interruption due to sanctions.
The real question is whether the U.S. will manage to convince Venezuela to stop selling oil to its allies, as well as to break military ties and diplomatic alignments. Only then could one speak of a U.S. victory.
For now, however, we are facing a classic U.S. modus operandi: lots of pyrotechnics, little substance, zero prognostication.
Pirates of the Caribbean
By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 12, 2026
So many things are happening in such a short space of time that it is difficult to keep track of them all. Certainly, one of the most “entertaining” is the return of piracy, which the United States of America inaugurated at the beginning of 2026.
We are talking about a new and particularly controversial phase of their economic and strategic pressure policy: the direct seizure of oil tankers on the high seas, believed to be involved in the transport of crude oil on behalf of states subject to unilateral U.S. sanctions, in particular Russia, Venezuela, and Iran. This practice, which Washington presents as a legitimate enforcement activity against illegal trafficking, is raising profound questions about international maritime law and the balance between state sovereignty, freedom of navigation, and the use of force.
From the Caribbean to the icy North Seas, the most emblematic case is that of the oil tanker Mariner, seized a few days ago after a long chase in the North Atlantic by the U.S. Coast Guard, while the ship was being joined by Russian naval forces. According to U.S. authorities, the ship was part of the so-called shadow fleet, an informal network of oil tankers that operate through frequent changes of name, flag, and management company in order to evade sanctions regimes. This operation is accompanied by other significant seizures or interceptions, including the tankers Sophia, Skipper, and Centuries, stopped in various maritime areas on similar charges of sanctioned oil trafficking and fraudulent use of flags of convenience. In short, a cinematic-style raid. Donald “Sparrow” Trump has found a new hobby.
As for the Mariner, to be fair, it is a VLCC oil tanker built in 2002. Its gross tonnage is over 318,000 tons, making it one of the largest types of oil tankers used in the global crude oil trade. In terms of age and technical characteristics, it is an ordinary working ship, designed to operate for 25-30 years, provided it passes inspections. Since its construction, the ship has not had a stable “nationality.”
Over the course of more than twenty years, it has changed its name, flag, and owners several times, a practice typical of tankers operating in sanctioned and semi-sanctioned segments of the market. The ship was successively named Overseas Mulan, Seaways Mulan, Xiao Zhu Shan, Yannis, Neofit, Timimus, Bella 1, and finally Marinera. Each name change was accompanied by a change of jurisdiction or management company. The flags also changed regularly. The ship flew the flags of the Marshall Islands, Liberia, Palau, and Panama. According to international databases, there was a period when the ship flew the flag of Guyana, indicating an incorrect or unconfirmed registration. This episode was subsequently used as a formal pretext for intervention by the U.S. Coast Guard.
After the persecution began, the ship obtained temporary registration under the flag of the Russian Federation with Sochi as its port of registry, as recorded in official ship registers. The history of the ship’s ownership and management also indicates its commercial rather than state nature. Over the years, the ship has been managed by companies registered in Asia and offshore jurisdictions, including structures linked to Chinese and Singaporean operators. Between 2022 and 2023, the owner and manager of the ship was Neofit Shipping Ltd, then Louis Marine Shipholding ENT. Since the end of December 2025, the owner and commercial operator of the ship has been the Russian company Burevestmarin LLC. This is a private entity, not linked to state-owned oil companies and not part of any “state fleet.”
In recent years, the ship has been used in the classic sanctions evasion scheme linked to the Iran-Venezuela-China routes. A crucial turning point came in mid-December 2025, when the United States announced an effective maritime blockade of Venezuela. The tanker, then called Bella 1, had left the Iranian port in November and was approaching the Venezuelan coast just as these measures were introduced. The attempt to enter the port was interrupted by the U.S., after which the ship set course for the Atlantic Ocean. The composition of the crew also clearly shows the commercial nature of the ship. Most of the sailors on board are Ukrainian citizens, while there were also Georgian citizens and only two Russians on board. The Mariner proved to be a convenient demonstration target for the U.S. as part of its new strategy of forcibly disrupting Venezuelan oil routes.
The owner’s attempt to hide under the Russian flag was a logical commercial move, but it did not change the intentions of the U.S. Russia was formally involved in the situation as the flag state and because of the presence of Russian citizens in the crew. The ship was not of strategic value to Russia and was not part of its oil logistics. Any escalation around a private tanker, which had been operating for decades on gray routes, would have made no rational sense.
From Washington’s point of view, the legitimacy of such actions rests on two main pillars. The first is the extraterritorial application of U.S. sanctions: seized tankers are considered assets directly involved in violations of Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) regulations and are therefore subject to confiscation. The second pillar is the doctrine of the stateless vessel, according to which a ship that cannot credibly prove its nationality—due to irregular registrations, false flags, or contradictory documentation—loses the legal protection guaranteed by the flag state and can be stopped by any other state on the high seas.
Bye-bye Law of the Sea
It is precisely this second point that is the focus of much of the legal debate. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) establishes that, on the high seas, a ship is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the flag state. Exceptions to this principle are limited and strict: piracy, slave trade, unauthorized radio transmissions, absence of nationality, or express authorization from the UN Security Council. The extension of these exceptions to the application of unilateral sanctions, not approved by the United Nations, is a highly contested interpretation.
Russia and China have reacted harshly to the seizures, calling them a blatant violation of international law and, in some cases, an act comparable to state piracy. Moscow argues that the seized tankers were flying regular flags and that the use of force against commercial vessels in peacetime, outside a UN mandate, constitutes a breach of the maritime legal order. Beijing, for its part, has emphasized the illegitimate nature of unilateral sanctions and the risk that such practices create dangerous precedents, normalizing the armed interdiction of commercial shipping.
The implications of this new phase are significant. On the legal front, there is growing tension between a law of the sea based on the neutrality of routes and freedom of navigation, and a power practice that tends to transform economic sanctions into instruments of military coercion. On the geopolitical front, there is a risk of maritime escalation, with possible countermeasures by the affected states and a progressive militarization of global energy routes.
On the other hand, all this is consistent with what the U.S. administration is doing: creating rapid chaos that distracts the world, while surgically targeting certain elements within the American system and, on the other hand, applying the Donroe Doctrine and establishing control over the Western Hemisphere.
The seizure of oil tankers is not just an isolated episode of conflict between states, but a sign of a deeper transformation of the international order. The U.S. has set out with conviction and has no intention of stopping. If this practice were to become established, international maritime law would risk being very quickly stripped of its fundamental principles, leaving room for a logic of force in which naval supremacy replaces shared legality. The issue, therefore, is not only about the seized ships, but the entire future of global maritime governance.
The U.S. has said it: Venezuela is American property and from now on will be its new backyard. Greenland will be next.
Piracy elevated to the rank of military strategy and international relations.
And remember: in just 11 months of government, since the beginning of his second term, Donald Trump has bombed seven sovereign countries: Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Yemen, Iran, Nigeria, and Venezuela. He has kidnapped one head of state (Maduro) and threatened to kill three others: Khamenei, Petro, and Rodriguez. He has threatened to invade five countries: Iran, Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia, and Greenland (i.e., Denmark). He has done everything in his power to prevent the international community from passing resolutions against Israel and its prime minister Netanyahu during and after the massacres in Gaza.
Anyone with a modicum of common sense, who is not misled by political preconceptions, can draw the most basic conclusions from these actions.
35,000 ‘Partially or Completely’ Deaf in Gaza Due to Israeli Bombings – Report

The Palestine Chronicle | January 9, 2026
An estimated 35,000 children and adults “have partially or completely” lost their hearing due to bombings during Israel’s two-year genocidal assault on the Gaza Strip, according to a Le Monde report, citing a survey by a local non-profit organization.
“Hearing loss can result from injuries to the head or neck, brain trauma causing ruptured eardrums and damage to the auditory system. But it can also be caused by exposure to sound waves, even if a person was not physically injured,” Dr. Ramadan Hussein, an audiologist working with the Atfaluna Society for the Deaf, reportedly said.
“These hearing disorders are, most often, irreversible,” he stressed.
‘Power of Explosion’
One such child whose hearing was affected by the bombings is a 12-year-old girl by the name of Dana. She was resting in her room in Gaza City when an Israeli missile hit the building just across from hers, the report said.
Dana’s father stressed that the explosion “was extremely violent”, with the door to her room torn off and the windows blown out. Although she survived the blast, Dana lost her hearing.
Specialists at the Atfaluna organization confirmed that Dana is suffering from “a very severe hearing loss”.
They said that “Because of the power of the explosion, the auditory nerve was severely damaged, perhaps even completely destroyed.”
Five-Day-Old Baby
In another case, a baby who was just five days old was thrown and buried under the sand when an Israeli missile struck one meter from his family’s tent in the al-Mawassai area of Khan Yunis, the report said.
His mother, Safa al-Qara, said, “We found him thanks to his feet sticking out. He was in a terrible state; we thought he was going to die.” Four months after his birth, his mother noticed that “something was wrong.”
She said that only movement “got his attention, not sounds.” He was subsequently diagnosed with a zero level of hearing.
The report stated that he urgently requires a hearing aid or cochlear implant to avoid sever developmental delays – an impossible task in the besieged enclave with Israel having blocked the entry of some medical equipment and medicines.
“For nearly a year, not a single hearing aid has entered the Gaza Strip,” Dr. Hussein warned, adding that “even those who already have them will soon be unable to use them, because batteries are also banned.”
Infrastructure Destroyed
In addition to the shortages, laboratories to make custom ear molds and much of the infrastructure needed to treat hearing disorders has been destroyed by Israel’s ground offensive, the report stated. Many specialists in this field have also already left the enclave due to the genocidal war.
Dr. Hussein warned that “Forced displacements, continuous bombings, famine and the lack of medicine affect pregnant women and fetuses and can lead to the birth of children with disabilities, including hearing loss.”
At the same time, with the worsening conditions in displacement camps, malnutrition and the lack of primary care, there is the risk of infections.
Fady Abed, the director of Atfaluna, warned that even minor infections, “like ear infections, can cause permanent hearing loss if not treated in time,” the report stated.
Staggering Death Toll
Starting on October 7, 2023, the Israeli military, with American support, launched a genocidal war against the people of Gaza. This campaign has so far resulted in the deaths of over 71,300 Palestinians, with more than 171,000 wounded. The vast majority of the population has been displaced, and the destruction of infrastructure is unprecedented since World War II. Thousands of people are still missing.
In addition to the military assault, the Israeli blockade has caused a man-made famine, leading to the deaths of hundreds of Palestinians—mostly children—with hundreds of thousands more at risk.
Despite widespread international condemnation, little has been done to hold Israel accountable. The nation is currently under investigation for genocide by the International Court of Justice, while accused war criminals, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, are officially wanted by the International Criminal Court.
One Hundred People Killed in US Attack on Venezuela – Interior Minister
Sputnik – 08.01.2026
CARACAS – One hundred people were killed in the US attack on Venezuela, the Latin American country’s Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello said.
“Venezuela was the victim of a barbaric, treacherous attack… so far there are 100 dead and a similar number of wounded,” Venezuela’s Interior, Justice and Peace Minister Diosdado Cabello said, adding that among those killed were civilians — including “people who were in their homes.”
Cabello also said the current priority is the return of President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores, and stated that both suffered injuries during their kidnapping.
He described the aggression as a shock to a population that “was in no situation that required a military attack,” saying it has left “a wave of terror.”
Venezuela to Buy Only US-Made Products Under New ‘Oil Deal’ – Trump
Sputnik – 08.01.2026
WASHINGTON – US President Donald Trump said Venezuela would only purchase American-made products as part of a “deal” with Washington to sell the Latin American country’s oil.
“I have just been informed that Venezuela is going to be purchasing ONLY American Made Products, with the money they receive from our new Oil Deal. These purchases will include, among other things, American Agricultural Products, and American Made Medicines, Medical Devices, and Equipment to improve Venezuela’s Electric Grid and Energy Facilities. In other words, Venezuela is committing to doing business with the United States of America as their principal partner,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
He said it is a “wise choice,” and a good thing for Venezuelans and Americans.
China Slams U.S. Pressure on Venezuela and Vows to Deepen Trade Ties
teleSUR | January 8, 2026
On Thursday, He Yadong, a spokesperson for China’s Commerce Ministry (MOFCOM), questioned the United States for attempting to restrict Venezuela’s international economic relations and reaffirmed his country’s willingness to maintain trade ties with the South American nation.
“The hegemonic actions of the U.S. seriously violate international law, infringe on Venezuela’s sovereignty, and threaten peace and security in Latin America. China firmly opposes such actions,” He said.
“Economic and trade cooperation between China and Venezuela is conducted between sovereign states and is protected by international law and the laws of both countries. No other country has the right to interfere.”
“Regardless of changes in Venezuela’s political situation, China’s willingness to continuously deepen bilateral economic and trade relations remains unchanged,” the MOFCOM official stressed.
“China’s economic and trade cooperation with Latin American countries has always adhered to the principles of mutual respect and win-win outcomes. China does not seek spheres of influence, nor does it target any specific party. Economic complementarity serves as a solid foundation for China–Latin America cooperation, with openness, inclusiveness and mutual benefit as its defining features.”
“China will continue to work with Latin American countries to address international uncertainties through unity and collaboration, promote economic and trade cooperation on the basis of equality and mutual benefit, and achieve shared development,” He concluded.
The remarks by the MOFCOM spokesperson come after the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump informed Venezuela that it must end its relations with China, Russia, Iran and Cuba as part of a series of demands before it can extract and market its oil.
US to ease Venezuela oil sanctions after Maduro kidnapping: CNBC
Al Mayadeen | January 7, 2026
The United States is preparing “to recalibrate” its unilateral sanctions regime on Venezuelan oil, CNBC reported. Washington says the move would allow crude exports to continue without a fixed end date, a claim Caracas and several international observers reject as part of a coercive campaign to seize control over the country’s strategic resources.
The reported policy shift comes amid extraordinary tensions following the kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro by US forces, an operation carried out without an extradition process, a United Nations mandate, or consent from Venezuelan institutions. Caracas has described the act as a grave breach of sovereignty and international law, while allied governments have warned it marks a dangerous escalation from sanctions enforcement to outright military intervention.
Against this backdrop, US President Donald Trump is expected to meet executives from major American oil companies on Friday to discuss what the White House has described as the “future” of Venezuela’s energy resources. Fox Business, citing a senior US official, said the talks will focus on managing Venezuelan oil flows as sanctions are selectively eased.
Oil Coercion Campaign
The discussions follow reports that US authorities have instructed Venezuela’s what it blatantly described as “interim leadership” to prioritize American buyers and partner exclusively with US firms in oil production, while simultaneously demanding that Caracas cut economic and security ties with key allies, including China, Russia, Iran, and Cuba.
Beijing has condemned the demands as “typical bullying,” warning that Washington is attempting to reshape Venezuela’s foreign relations and economic model through force and pressure.
Trump earlier claimed that Venezuela’s interim authorities had agreed to supply the United States with between 30 million and 50 million barrels of oil, pledging that the proceeds would be used for the benefit of both countries.
“We’re talking about 30 to 50 million barrels of oil being turned over,” Trump said. “We’re going to use the money for the benefit of the people of both countries.”
Caracas and its allies reject that framing, arguing that any such transfers, announced in the aftermath of military pressure, maritime interdictions, and the kidnapping of the country’s head of state, amount to resource extraction under duress, regardless of claims that transactions would occur at “market prices.”
Venezuelan officials note that Washington has simultaneously enforced seizures of tankers, restricted access to non-US buyers, and threatened senior political and military figures with similar treatment, narrowing Caracas’ options while portraying the outcome as voluntary trade.
Sovereignty Under Assault
The White House has yet to release full details on the scope or conditions of the sanctions rollback. Critics, however, say the sequence of events, including military escalation, leadership seizure, recognition of an interim authority, threats against remaining officials, and rapid moves to redirect oil exports, reflects a longstanding US strategy of using sanctions and force to assert control over energy assets in resource-rich states.
For Venezuela, which holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves, officials insist that oil belongs to the Venezuelan state and its people. They argue that Washington’s actions represent an escalation from economic warfare to outright aggression, setting a precedent that threatens international norms governing sovereignty, non-intervention, and the prohibition on the use of force to secure economic advantage.

