‘The scale of needs is so huge.’ As Gaza’s displaced Palestinians suffer from winter storms after surviving two years of genocidal war, UNICEF’s Jonathan Crickx explains how many clothes, blankets and tents are needed to save children from dying.
Published On 21 Dec 202521 Dec 2025
Share
This year, in the US-China trade war and the grand military parade, China demonstrated economic and military strength that forced the United States to back down. However, Beijing merely displayed its power; various parties discovered that this giant does not know how to wield it.
The US paused its economic attacks on China, but the Dutch government directly “took control of” a Chinese-owned company in the Netherlands—Nexperia—through public authority. The EU expanded anti-dumping measures against China, with France as the main driver behind anti-China economic policies.
The US publicly acknowledged that China’s rising military power in the Western Pacific can no longer be suppressed and adjusted its global strategy to focus on the Western Hemisphere. Yet Japan shifted the Taiwan issue from strategic ambiguity to strategic clarity, adopting a more confrontational posture and challenging China’s bottom line. Regional countries, in various ways, have called for “peace” in the Taiwan Strait—support that amounts to nothing less than opposing China’s unification and indirectly endorsing Japan’s position. Meanwhile, the Philippines, mired in internal chaos, continued to provoke China in the South China Sea.
Since China has the capability to confront the US, it should have the ability to punish Europe, Japan, and the Philippines for their unfriendliness toward China. But Beijing did not do so. When facing challenges from these parties, it only issued symbolic verbal protests or took measures that failed to eradicate the problems—putting on a full defensive posture but lacking concrete and effective actions. As a result, events often started with thunderous noise but ended with little rain, fizzling out in the end.
From Beijing’s appeasement toward Europe, Japan, and the Philippines, all parties have reason to believe that China is a giant that doesn’t know how to use its own power. This presents a strategic opportunity for the weak to overcome the strong—especially now, as the US contracts its global strategy and distances itself from its allies. Maximizing benefits from China’s side is the rational choice.
For example, with Japan: Beijing responded to Tokyo’s intervention in the Taiwan issue with high-intensity verbal criticism, but its actions were inconsistent with its words. Although it revisited the “enemy state clauses” at the UN, raised the postwar Ryukyu sovereignty issue, and even conducted joint military exercises with Russia 600 kilometers from Tokyo, these actions were far less intense than the rhetoric. Even the verbal criticism cooled down after a month.
The US maintained a low profile on the China-Japan dispute, adopted a cool attitude toward Tokyo, and even indirectly expressed condemnation—likely the main reason Beijing de-escalated. This shows that China’s original intent in handling the incident was to force the US to “decouple” from Japan on the Taiwan issue and isolate Tokyo, which maintains close ties with Taipei.
Influenced by official attitudes, the Chinese people once again mistook official rhetoric for commitments, believing Beijing would go to war if necessary to eradicate Japan’s interference in internal affairs. After all, unresolved deep-seated hatred—akin to a sea of blood—remains between China and Japan. Moreover, this year marks the 80th anniversary of China’s victory in the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression, with various events held throughout the year to engrave in memory the national humiliation of Japan’s invasion of China.
But after Trump indirectly criticized Japan for provoking unnecessary disputes, Beijing seemed satisfied and stepped down gracefully. Although the dispute has not ended and continues to develop, like its handling of Philippine provocations, China has placed disputes with neighbors into long-term games, effectively shelving the issues—and causing the Chinese people renewed frustration.
After this three-way interaction, the asymmetry between Beijing’s words and actions has likely become deeply ingrained. In the future, it will be much harder for Beijing to mobilize the 1.4 billion people’s shared enmity.
The key point: In this dispute, who—China, Japan, or the US—gained the greatest substantive strategic benefits? So far, it’s hard to say who won the first round. China appeared to come out looking the best, preserving the most face, yet Japan also gained, and the US obtained leverage for future talks with China.
In the first round of this dispute, China strategically established the legitimacy of denying Japan’s intervention in the Taiwan issue, narrowing Tokyo’s diplomatic space for anti-China actions via Taiwan. Japan’s right wing advanced toward national normalization, hollowing out its peace constitution to cope with US strategic contraction; additionally, the Liberal Democratic Party regained public support. The US demonstrated its influence in East Asia—even after “withdrawing” its military to the second island chain—and raised its bargaining chips at the US-China negotiation table.
However, from a medium- to long-term perspective, Japan gains nothing worth the loss: the Ryukyu Islands will become a burden rather than an outer defense wall. The two major powers, China and the US, will orderly redraw their spheres of influence in East Asia; the US will gain a dignified pretext for abandoning Taiwan, while China will recover Taiwan at a lower cost.
Conversely, beyond the asymmetry between words and actions, there is also asymmetry between actions and strength. Beijing’s greatest loss is that the international community—especially its neighbors and Europe—has seen through China’s essence of appearing fierce but being timid inwardly. They have once again discovered that antagonizing China brings no adverse consequences; on the contrary, it can yield unexpected benefits—provided they give China the face it needs to achieve strategic gains.
For example, Vietnam: After the China-Japan dispute cooled, a Vietnamese warship transited the Taiwan Strait under the pretext of freedom of navigation without prior notification to China, signaling it is not a vassal of Beijing and aligning with Washington’s position.
Vietnam is a major beneficiary of the US-China confrontation, with massive Chinese goods rerouted through Vietnam to the US; transit trade has skyrocketed its economic growth. Thus, it firmly believes maximizing benefits lies in a neutral stance between China and the US. However, from a supply chain perspective, China is the supplier and the US the customer—the latter slightly more important. Factoring in China-Vietnam South China Sea disputes and China’s habitual concessions versus the lethal US carrot-and-stick approach, Vietnam naturally leans more pro-US.
Additionally, during the China-Japan dispute, Singapore’s prime minister publicly sympathized with Japan, while Thailand and Vietnam jointly called for peace in the Taiwan Strait—showing Southeast Asian nations, like Japan, hope to maintain the peaceful status quo in the Taiwan Strait and oppose military conflict in the region, which is equivalent to opposing China’s recovery of Taiwan. Of course, Northeast Asia’s South Korea holds the same view; some countries publicly state it due to internal and US factors, while others choose silence.
China’s neighboring countries all see the fact that the Philippines’ intense anti-China stance has gone unpunished. Despite deep internal political turmoil, Manila can still spare efforts to provoke China in the South China Sea—clearly a profitable path. Neighbors conclude: If China can concede on core interests, what can’t it concede?
On the other side of the globe, Europe has noticed this phenomenon too. The Dutch government rashly took over a Chinese enterprise, severely damaging China’s interests and prestige; Beijing’s response started strong but ended weakly—mainly to avoid impacting China-EU trade, even amid decoupling risks everywhere. No wonder Britain subsequently sanctioned two Chinese companies on suspicion of cyberattacks, unafraid of angering Beijing just before Prime Minister Starmer’s planned January visit to China.
In short, whether on the regional Taiwan issue or extraterritorial China-EU economic issues, China faces a broken windows effect. Although from a grand strategic view, all related events remain controllable for Beijing, appeasement only invites more trouble. It’s not impossible that China will eventually be unable to suppress public indignation and be forced to suddenly take tough measures—like at the end of the pandemic, when people took to the streets and Beijing immediately lifted lockdowns, rendering all prior lockdown justifications untenable overnight.
Indeed, China currently appears as a giant that doesn’t know how to use its power. But when a rabbit is cornered, it bites. When Beijing is forced to align actions with strength, the intensity will be astonishing; then, China will want more than just face.
There’s a saying: Attack is the best defense. But with its long history, this nation views offense and defense more comprehensively. The Chinese believe that when weak, attack is the best defense; when holding an advantage, defense is the best attack. As long as the opponent’s offense can be controlled within acceptable limits, persistent defense inflicts less damage than the opponent’s self-exhaustion in stamina. Conversely, when at a disadvantage, a full assault is needed to reverse it.
In other words, China doesn’t fail to know how to use power; it deems using power uneconomical. This explains why the West walks a path of decline while China continues rising—the latter accumulates power, and the former overdraws it.
President Trump is shrewd and pragmatic; he knows cornering China awakens the giant, so he eased US-China relations. But simultaneously, the US doesn’t mind—and even quietly encourages—its allies to provoke China, while positioning itself as a mediator to benefit. This is a reasonable tactic and the most effective offensive against China.
Xi Jinping once said China has great patience—implying that if patience is exhausted, the world will see a completely different China, one that uses power without regard for cost.
George Clooney plays the title character in Netflix’s “Jay Kelly,” a Clooney-esque movie star who is seemingly on top of the world — but is, in fact, at a crossroads. He’s finished his latest movie and is at a point in his career where he’s begun to worry that every project could be his last. His hope to spend the summer with his youngest daughter, Daisy, is squashed when he realizes she’s set to travel in Europe before heading off to college in the fall. (Jessica, Jay’s eldest daughter, barely speaks to him.) His mentor, a British director who cast him in his first movie, has recently died; on top of the looming sense of mortality is the guilt Jay feels for not attaching his name to the director’s final project in order to get the financing. And after the funeral, Jay runs into the former friend who brought him to that fateful audition as emotional support — and who remains bitter that Jay got the role and “stole his life.”
Instead of sitting down to process these conflicts, Jay decides to run away from them, dropping out of his next movie to follow Daisy to Europe. His professional entourage — a group that includes his longtime manager and friend Ron (Adam Sandler) and his no-nonsense publicist Liz (Laura Dern) — immediately springs into action, accompanying Jay on a chaotic trip abroad, with the final stop being an Italian film festival where Jay is set to receive a career achievement award.
“I did have an idea of an actor having a crisis of some sort, and it would be a journey forward and backward at the same time,” says writer-director Noah Baumbach of the spark that eventually became “Jay Kelly.” As Jay flees Hollywood, the city and its people continue to haunt him. Visions of himself as a young actor float in and out of his mind as he recognizes the mistakes he made by screwing over his friend and neglecting his older daughter. But no matter where he goes — even on board a crowded train from Paris to Tuscany — he’s instantly recognized as the A-list star that he is. Jay Kelly cannot escape himself no matter how hard he tries.
Laura Dern, George Clooney and Adam Sandler in “Jay Kelly.”
(Peter Mountain / Netflix)
Baumbach wrote “Jay Kelly” with British actor and screenwriter Emily Mortimer, who also appears in the film as Jay’s go-to makeup artist: “It really wasn’t until I brought Emily into it that it started to shape itself more into the movie you see,” Baumbach says.
One might assume that the pair’s years in the business (now in their 50s, Baumbach and Mortimer both got their start in the mid-1990s) informed their depiction of fame and stardom, but Baumbach is adamant that he didn’t set out to write a satire of their industry. “As Emily and I were focusing on the characters and the story, meaning started to reveal itself,” he explains. “Part of our job is to be open and aware of that.”
It tracks that a megastar like Jay would be surrounded by a close-knit circle of people managing his life, which led to Baumbach and Mortimer exploring those complicated relationships. One central storyline is the friendship between Jay and Ron, who have worked together for decades. Despite his devotion to his wife and kids, Ron’s top professional priority is Jay, and the inherently transactional nature of their relationship is a conflict that slowly bubbles up to the surface. There’s simply no getting around the fact that the person Jay is the closest to is also someone who takes 15% of his earnings.
Filmmaker Noah Baumbach.
(Sela Shiloni / For The Times)
It’s an awkward situation that many who work in the entertainment industry will recognize — but it’s also a humorous truth, the kind that underscores all of Baumbach’s films. “Jay Kelly” isn’t his first film set, at least in part, in Los Angeles. In “Greenberg,” Ben Stiller’s title character is a cantankerous and neurotic New Yorker who has fled west after a nervous breakdown. In the autobiographical “Marriage Story,” Adam Driver’s Charlie, a New York-based theater director, finds himself trapped in L.A. during his divorce from his actor wife, Nicole (Scarlett Johansson).
Baumbach, a Brooklyn native, calls his relationship with Los Angeles complex. “It’s a place I don’t always love being in,” he says — a bit of an understatement. But he’s more fascinated than repulsed by the city. “I was never drawn to be satirical about it. I think it’s such an interesting, strange place. [My films that] take place here do so for a reason. With ‘Greenberg,’ L.A. is a metaphor for loneliness. In ‘Marriage Story,’ Charlie is forced to fight for a home outside of where he feels his home is.” And at the end of the day, where else could a star like Jay reside? “I mean, Jay Kelly couldn’t have lived in New York, right?”
There is, of course, show business, an industry that values make-believe and vanity and couldn’t possibly exist anywhere else. “Ron has the line, ‘Death is so surprising, particularly in L.A.,’” Baumbach says, reciting Sandler’s dialogue from early in the film. “[These characters are] living in a place that, for the most part, doesn’t change — and that helps support the collective illusion that we’re all going to live forever.”
Jay Kelly might not, but the movies will.
Call it an accident, call it the plan. But don’t stoop to the reprehensible gaslighting of calling it a lie: It is fact that federal agents have detained and arrested dozens, if not hundreds, of United States citizens as part of immigration sweeps, regardless of what Kristi Noem would like us to believe.
During a congressional hearing Thursday, Noem, our secretary of Homeland Security and self-appointed Cruelty Barbie, reiterated her oft-used and patently false line that only the worst of the worst are being targeted by immigration authorities. That comes after weeks of her department posting online, on its ever-more far-right social media accounts, that claims of American citizens being rounded up and held incommunicado are “fake news” or a “hoax.”
“Stop fear-mongering. ICE does NOT arrest or deport U.S. citizens,” Homeland Security recently posted on the former Twitter.
Tuesday, at a different congressional hearing, a handful of citizens — including two Californians — told their stories of being grabbed by faceless masked men and being whisked away to holding cells where they were denied access to phones, lawyers, medications and a variety of other legal rights.
Their testimony accompanied the release of a congressional report by the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations in which 22 American citizens, including a dozen from the Golden State, told their own shocking, terrifying tales of manhandling and detentions by what can only be described as secret police — armed agents who wouldn’t identify themselves and often seemed to lack basic training required for safe urban policing.
These stories and the courageous Americans who are stepping forward to tell them are history in the making — a history I hope we regret but not forget.
Immigration enforcement, boosted by unprecedented amounts of funding, is about to ramp up even more. Noem and her agents are reveling in impunity, attempting to erase and rewrite reality as they go — while our Supreme Court crushes precedent and common sense to further empower this presidency. Until the midterms, there is little hope of any check on power.
Under those circumstances, for these folks to put their stories on the record is both an act of bravery and patriotism, because they now know better than most what it means to have the chaotic brutality of this administration focused on them. It’s incumbent upon the rest of us to hear them, and protest peacefully not only rights being trampled, but our government demanding we believe lies.
“I’ve always said that immigrants who are given the great privilege of becoming citizens are also some of the most patriotic people in this country. I know you all love your country. I love our country, and this is not the America that we believe in or that we fought so hard for. Every person, every U.S. citizen, has rights,” Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach) said as the hearing began.
L.A. native Andrea Velez, whose detention was reported on by my colleagues when it happened, was one of those putting herself on the line to testify.
Less than 5 feet tall, Velez is a graduate of Cal Poly Pomona who was working in the garment district in June when ICE began its raids. Her mom and teenage sister had just dropped her off when masked men swarmed out of unmarked cars and began chasing brown people. Velez didn’t know what was happening, but when one man charged her, she held up her work bag in defense. The bag did not protect her. Neither did her telling the agents she is a U.S. citizen.
“He handcuffed me without checking my ID. They ignored me as I repeated it again and again that I am a U.S. citizen,” she told committee members. “They did not care.”
Velez, still unsure who the man was who forced her into an SUV, managed to open the door and run to an LAPD officer, begging for help. But when the masked man noticed she was loose, he “ran up screaming, ‘She’s mine’” the congressional report says.
The police officer sent her back to the unmarked car, beginning a 48-hour ordeal that ended with her being charged with assault of a federal officer — charges eventually dropped after her lawyer demanded body camera footage and alleged witness statements. (The minority staff report was released by Rep. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, the highest-ranking Democrat on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.)
“I never imagined this would be occurring, here, in America,” Velez told lawmakers. “DHS likes … to brand us as criminals, stripping us of our dignity. They want to paint us as the worst of the worst, but the truth is, we are human beings with no criminal record.”
This if-you’re-brown-you’re-going-down tactic is likely to become more common because it is now legal.
In Noem vs. Vasquez Perdomo, a September court decision, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that it was reasonable for officers to stop people who looked foreign and were engaged in activities associated with undocumented people — such as soliciting work at a Home Depot or attending a Spanish-language event, as long as authorities “promptly” let the person go if they prove citizenship. These are now known as “Kavanaugh stops.”
Disregarding how racist and problematic that policy is, “promptly” seems to be up for debate.
Javier Ramirez, born in San Bernardino, testified as “a proud American citizen who has never known the weight of a criminal record.”
He’s a father of three who was working at his car lot in June when he noticed a strange SUV idling on his private property with a bunch of men inside. When he approached, they jumped out, armed with assault weapons, and grabbed him.
“This was a terrifying situation,” Ramirez said. But then it got worse.
One of the men yelled, “Get him. He’s Mexican!”
On video shot by a bystander, Javier can be heard shouting, “I have my passport!” according to the congressional report, but the agents didn’t care. When Ramirez asked why they were holding him, an agent told him, “We’re trying to figure that out.”
Like Velez, Ramirez was put in detention. A severe diabetic, he was denied medication until he became seriously ill, he told investigators. Though he asked for a lawyer, he was not allowed to contact one — but the interrogation continued.
After his release, five days later, he had to seek further medical treatment. He, too, was charged with assault of a federal agent, along with obstruction and resisting arrest. The bogus charges were also later dropped.
“I should not have to live in fear of being targeted simply for the color of my skin or the other language I speak,” he told the committee. “I share my story not just for myself, but for everyone who has been unjustly treated, for those whose voice has been silenced.”
You know the poem, folks. It starts when “they came” for the vulnerable. Thankfully, though people such as Ramirez and Velez may be vulnerable due to their pigmentation, they are not meek and they won’t be silenced. Our democracy, our safety as a nation of laws, depends on not just hearing their stories, but also standing peacefully against such abuses of power.
Because these abuses only end when the people decide they’ve had enough — not just of the lawlessness, but of the lies that empower it.
CHARLOTTE Church has confessed she ‘stinks’ after shunning deodorant and even admitted she no longer shaves.
The frank confession from Charlotte, 39, came during an appearance on the Walking The Dog podcast.
When host Emily Dean commented on how “lovely” she smelt, Celebrity Traitors star Charlotte was caught off guard.
She candidly said: “Do I? That’s surprising. I never smell nice.
“I don’t wear any deodorant or anything, so I generally stink. I don’t shave anymore. I don’t shave anything.”
The former classical music singer went on to explain her reasons for shunning the product and revealed she loves showing off her hairy legs.
She said: “I stopped shaving probably about 18 months ago, maybe even longer than that, maybe two years.
“And I stopped wearing deodorant… I just started thinking, do you know what? This underarm area, there’s so many receptors there, lymph and all sorts of stuff going on there.
“I’m just not sure about sticking all of this chemical stuff in these pores, because your skin is so… you know, it’s the largest organ in the body.
On the subject of shaving, Charlotte continued: “Each to their own.
“Do you know what I mean? Crack on and have a lovely time and do whatever feels good – dye it, shave it, whatever – but for me I’m just like ‘Nah!’
“I sort of love it, I love the contradiction of it. So I love wearing dresses, beautiful dresses, with my really hairy legs and heels and nails. It’s so confusing for people.”
It’s Charlotte’s latest very honest confession, after she said Alison Hammond “p***** her off” during an appearance on This Morning.
She spoke about the moment on Elizabeth Day’s podcast after clips from her appearance went viral on social media.
During the segment, Charlotte was invited on to This Morning to lead a five-minute sound bath session.
However, unfortunately for Charlotte, Alison found it all a bit too much and found herself laughing and cringing through the entire segment as Charlotte did her best to carry on.
When asked by Elizabeth if she was left “bothered” by Alison’s reaction to her doing a sound bath, Charlotte said: “Oh, that p****d me right off.
“That p****d me right off.”
Elizabeth then added: “Yeah. I felt for you.”
Charlotte continued: “I’ve met Alison Hammond a number of times and she’s a wonderful woman.”
In a further candid confession, Charlotte added: “That really did actually touch quite a deep wound for me.
“I was like, ‘ugh I really like you, Alison, but f*** you’.”
