military

New Delhi, India – Joint naval drills involving several members of the BRICS bloc, including China, Russia and Iran, have kicked off near South Africa’s coast with South Africa describing the manoeuvres as a vital response to rising maritime tensions globally.

The weeklong Will for Peace 2026 exercises, which started on Saturday, are being led by China in Simon’s Town, where the Indian Ocean meets the Atlantic Ocean. They will include drills on rescue and maritime strike operations and technical exchanges, China’s Ministry of National Defence said.

The drills involving warships from the participating countries come amid frayed ties between South Africa and the United States. Washington sees the bloc as an economic threat.

The BRICS acronym is derived from the initial letters of the founding member countries – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – with South Africa serving as the current chair. India and Brazil, however, opted out of the drills.

So why do the drills matter, and what is their aim? And why are some founding members not participating?

Who is participating in the drills?

China and Iran sent destroyers, Russia and the United Arab Emirates sent corvettes and South Africa deployed a mid-sized frigate.

Chinese officials leading the opening ceremony on Saturday south of Cape Town said Brazil, Egypt, Indonesia and Ethiopia were joining the drills as observers.

Speaking at the ceremony, South Africa’s joint task force commander, Captain Nndwakhulu Thomas Thamaha, said the drills were more than a military exercise and a statement of intent among the BRICS group of nations.

The host country described this as a BRICS Plus operation aimed at ensuring “the safety of shipping and maritime economic activities”. BRICS Plus is an expansion that enables the geopolitical bloc to engage with and court additional countries beyond its core members.

South African officials said all members of the bloc were invited to the drills.

Iran joined the group in 2024. The bloc was simultaneously expanded to include Egypt, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Why do the drills matter?

South Africa has previously carried out naval drills with China and Russia.

“It is a demonstration of our collective resolve to work together,” Thamaha said. “In an increasingly complex maritime environment, cooperation such as this is not an option. It is essential.”

The South African Department of Defence said in a statement that this year’s exercise “reflects the collective commitment of all participating navies to safeguard maritime trade routes, enhance shared operational procedures and deepen cooperation in support of peaceful maritime security initiatives”.

The ongoing exercises come amid heightened geopolitical tensions. They started just three days after the United States seized a Venezuela-linked Russian oil tanker in the North Atlantic, saying it had violated Western sanctions.

The seizure followed a US military operation that abducted President Nicolas Maduro from the capital, Caracas, with his wife, Cilia Flores and a pledge from US President Donald Trump to “run” Venezuela and exploit its vast oil reserves.

The Trump administration has also threatened military action against countries such as Cuba, Colombia and Iran and the semiautonomous Danish territory Greenland.

How does Trump see BRICS?

Trump has accused some BRICS members of pursuing “anti-American” policies.

While Washington’s relations continue to be sour with China and Russia, Trump has attacked Iran and imposed punishing tariffs on India, which it has accused of funding Russia’s war against Ukraine by buying Russian oil.

After taking office in January 2025, Trump had threatened all the BRICS members with an additional 10 percent tariff.

“When I heard about this group from BRICS, six countries, basically, I hit them very, very hard. And if they ever really form in a meaningful way, it will end very quickly,” Trump said in July before the annual summit of the developing nations. “We can never let anyone play games with us.”

In their joint statement from July, the BRICS leaders took a defiant tone and called out global concern over a “rise of unilateral tariff and non-tariff measures” without naming the US and condemned the military strikes on Iran.

Who opted out of the joint drills and why?

Two of the founding members of the BRICS alliance, India and Brazil, are not participating in the naval drills.

While Brasilia joined the exercises as an observer, New Delhi stayed away.

Since Trump returned to the White House, New Delhi has seen its stock crash in Washington.

India’s purchase of Russian oil is among the biggest flashpoints in their bilateral ties with a trade deal hanging in the balance.

For New Delhi, opting out of the drills is “about balancing ties with the US”, said Harsh Pant, a geopolitical analyst at the New Delhi-based think tank Observer Research Foundation. “But these so-called wargames are also not the BRICS mandate.”

BRICS essentially is not a military alliance but an intergovernmental partnership of developing nations focused on economic cooperation and trade aimed at breaking an overreliance on the West.

Pant told Al Jazeera that for China, Russia, Iran and to some extent South Africa, the joint military exercise “helps [a narrative] about positioning themselves vis-a-vis the US at this juncture”.

“India would prefer not to be tagged in the BRICS wargames,” Pant said, adding that New Delhi would also not be comfortable with the gradual evolution of BRICS’s foundational nature. “This is not really something that India can take forward, both pragmatically and normatively.”

On top of that, Pant argued, there are key differences between countries in BRICS Plus – like the UAE and Iran, or Egypt and Iran – for the bloc to become a formidable military alliance.

When did South Africa last host joint drills?

South Africa conducted Exercise Mosi, as it was previously called, twice with Russia and China.

The first Exercise Mosi, which means “smoke” in the Sesotho language, took place in November 2019. The second iteration, Exercise Mosi II, was held in February 2023, coinciding with the first anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

South Africa had faced heat from the West for hosting the joint drills then.

A third edition was scheduled for late 2025, but it overlapped with a Group of 20 summit that was held in South Africa in November. Washington did not send any delegates. The ongoing Will for Peace 2026, now rebranded, is the third edition of the drills.

What’s at stake for South Africa?

The exercises in South African waters will likely further raise tensions with Washington.

Since Trump took office again, South Africa-US ties have deteriorated over a range of issues, and Trump has imposed 30 percent tariffs on South African goods.

A part of the fallout is also rooted in the South African government’s decision to bring a genocide case against Israel, a top US ally, before the International Court of Justice in The Hague. It accuses the Israeli government of committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. In a preliminary ruling, the world court found it plausible that Israeli actions amounted to genocide.

When South African President Cyril Ramaphosa visited the White House in May, hoping to mend ties, Trump falsely claimed that white South African farmers were facing systematic killings.

Ramaphosa rejected the claims. None of South Africa’s political parties says there is a “white genocide” happening in the country as the Trump administration claims.

Hosting the wargames at a time of global geopolitical upheaval has its own risks, given that the US sees some of the participants as a military threat.

Ramaphosa’s government also faces criticism from one of its largest coalition partners, the liberal Democratic Alliance (DA). A DA spokesperson, Chris Hattingh, said in a statement that the bloc has no defensive role or shared military plans to warrant such exercises.

The party said BRICS had “rendered South Africa a pawn in the power games being waged by rogue states on the international stage”.

Tehran has warned it will retaliate against US military bases and Israel if Iran is attacked. Iran’s parliamentary speaker was addressing US President Donald Trump, who has threatened Iran’s leadership against using force on demonstrators.

Polls have opened in 100 townships across the country, with the military claiming 52 percent turnout in the first round.

Myanmar has resumed voting in the second phase of the three-part general elections amid a raging civil war and allegations the polls are designed to legitimise military rule.

Polling stations opened at 6am local time on Sunday (23:30 GMT on Saturday) across 100 townships in parts of Sagaing, Magway, Mandalay, Bago and Tanintharyi regions, as well as Mon, Shan, Kachin, Kayah and Kayin states.

Many of those areas have seen clashes in recent months or remain under heightened security.

Myanmar has been ravaged by conflict since the military ousted ⁠a civilian government in a 2021 coup and arrested its leader, Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, leading to ​a civil war that has engulfed large parts of the impoverished nation of 51 million people.

Aung San Suu Kyi’s ‍National League for Democracy party, which swept the last election in 2020, has been dissolved along with dozens of other antimilitary parties for failing to register for the latest polls.

The election is taking place in three phases because of the ongoing conflict. The first phase unfolded on December 28 in 102 of the country’s 330 townships, while a third round is scheduled for January 25.

Some 65 townships will not participate due to ongoing clashes.

The military claimed a 52 percent voter turnout after the December 28 vote, while the pro-military Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), which analysts say is a civilian proxy for the military, said it won more than 80 percent of seats contested in the lower house of the legislature.

“The USDP is on track for a landslide victory, which is hardly a surprise given the extent to which the playing field was tilted in ​its favour. This included the removal of any serious rivals and a set of ‌laws designed to stifle opposition to the polls,” said Richard Horsey, senior Myanmar adviser for Crisis Group.

Myanmar has a two-house national legislature, totalling 664 seats. The party with a combined parliamentary majority can select the new president, who can pick a cabinet and form a new government. The military automatically receives 25 percent of seats in each house under the constitution.

On Sunday morning, people in Yangon, the country’s largest city, cast their ballots at schools, government offices and religious buildings, including in Aung San Suu Kyi’s former constituency of Kawhmu, located roughly 25km (16 miles) south of the city.

As she exited her polling station, 54-year-old farmer Than Than Sint told the AFP news agency she voted because she wants peace in Myanmar, even though she knows it will come slowly given the fractured country’s “problems”.

Still, “I think things will be better after the election”, she said.

Others were less enthusiastic. A 50-year-old resident of Yangon, who asked to remain anonymous for safety reasons, said, “The results lie only in the mouth of the military.”

“People have very little interest in this election,” the person added. “This election has absolutely nothing to do with escaping this suffering.”

The United Nations and human rights groups have called the elections a “sham” that attempt to sanitise the military’s image.

Tom Andrews, the UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, said earlier this week that the election was “not a free, fair, nor legitimate election” by “all measures”.

“It is a theatrical performance that has exerted enormous pressure on the people of Myanmar to participate in what has been designed to dupe the international community,” Andrews said.

Laws enacted by the military ahead of the vote have made protest or criticism of the elections punishable by up to 10 years in prison. More than 200 people currently face charges under the measure, the UN said, citing state media.

Separately, at least 22,000 people are currently being detained in Myanmar for political offences, according to the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners.

Reporting from Washington — President Trump announced Saturday that he’s picked a battle-hardened commander who oversaw troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to be the nation’s next top military advisor.

If confirmed by the Senate, Gen. Mark Milley, who has been chief of the Army since August 2015, would succeed Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Dunford’s term doesn’t end until Oct. 1. Trump said the date of transition is yet to be determined.

Trump tweeted the news, saying “I am pleased to announce my nomination of four-star General Mark Milley, Chief of Staff of the United States Army — as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, replacing General Joe Dunford, who will be retiring. I am thankful to both of these incredible men for their service to our Country!”

Dunford is a former commandant of the Marine Corps and commander of coalition troops in Afghanistan. Milley commanded troops during several tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Trump’s decision, which he announced before leaving Washington to attend the annual Army-Navy football game in Philadelphia, caught some in the Pentagon by surprise Friday. Normally an announcement on a new chairman wouldn’t be expected until early next year. The officials said the Air Force chief, Gen. David Goldfein, was also a strong contender for the job, but they indicated that Milley has a very good relationship with the president.

Trump hinted earlier Friday that he would make an announcement Saturday, when he attends the game and is expected to perform the coin toss to decide which team gets the ball first. “I can give you a little hint: It will have to do with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and succession,” he said.

Milley is known as a charismatic, outgoing leader who has not been afraid to offer candid and sometimes blunt assessments to Congress. Last year, he admonished the House Armed Services Committee for its inability to approve a defense budget, slamming it as “professional malpractice.” And in 2016, he told lawmakers, in answer to a direct question, that women should also have to register for the draft now that they are allowed to serve in all combat jobs.

As the Army’s top leader, he helped shepherd the groundbreaking move of women into front-line infantry and other combat positions, while warning that it would take time to do it right. More recently, he has worked with his senior officers to reverse a deficit in Army recruiting when the service fell far short of its annual goal this year.

He also played a role in one of the Army’s more contentious criminal cases. While serving as head of U.S. Army Forces Command at Fort Bragg, N.C., Milley was assigned to review the case of former Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who abandoned his post in Afghanistan and was held captive by the Taliban for five years.

Milley made the early decision to charge Bergdahl with desertion and misbehavior before the enemy. Bergdahl was eventually found guilty, reduced in rank to private, dishonorably discharged and fined $10,000, but was spared any additional prison time.

A native of Winchester, Mass., and a fervent supporter of the Boston Red Sox and other city teams, Milley received his Army commission from Princeton University in 1980. An infantry officer by training, he also commanded Special Forces units in a career that included deployments in the invasion of Panama in 1989, the multinational mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina to implement the Dayton Peace Accords, and the Iraq war.

The Milley move starts a series of military leadership changes in coming months, including successors in 2019 for Adm. John Richardson as the chief of Naval Operations, Gen. Robert Neller as commandant of the Marine Corps, and Air Force Gen. Paul Selva as vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Trump also will pick a replacement for Milley as Army chief.

Goldfein began his term as Air Force chief of staff in 2016, so he wouldn’t be expected to step down until the summer of 2020.

Since taking the White House in January last year, President Donald Trump has repeatedly said that he wants to annex Greenland “very badly,” with a range of options on the table, including a military attack.

Amid opposition from Greenlandic lawmakers, Trump doubled down on Friday, threatening that the United States is “going to do something [there] whether they like it or not”.

“If we don’t do it, Russia or China will take over Greenland. And we’re not going to have Russia or China as a neighbour,” Trump said at a meeting with oil and gas executives at the White House.

“I would like to make a deal, you know, the easy way. But if we don’t do it the easy way, we’re going to do it the hard way,” he added.

Since the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro last week from Caracas in a military operation, Trump and his officials have upped the ante against the Greenlandic capital, Nuuk.

So, what are the ways that US President Trump could take control of Greenland, a territory of Denmark?

Is Trump considering paying out Greenlanders?

Paying out to Greenland’s nearly 56,000-strong population is an option that White House officials have been reportedly discussing.

Located mostly within the Arctic Circle, Greenland is the world’s largest island, with 80 percent of its land covered by glaciers. Nuuk, the capital, is the most populated area, home to about one-third of the population.

Trump’s officials have discussed sending payments to Greenlanders – ranging from $10,000 to $100,000 per person – according to a Reuters report, in a bid to convince them to secede from Denmark and potentially join Washington.

Greenland is formally a part of Denmark, with its own elected government and rules over most of its internal affairs, including control over natural resources and governance. Copenhagen still handles foreign policy, defence and Greenland’s finances.

But since 2009, Greenland has the right to secede if its population votes for independence in a referendum. In theory, payouts to Greenland residents could be an attempt to influence their vote.

Trump shared his ambitions of annexing Greenland during his first term as well, terming it “essentially a large real estate deal.”

If the US government were to pay $100,000 to each Greenland resident, the total bill for this effort would amount to about $5.6bn.

Can the US ‘buy’ Greenland?

Earlier this week, White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt confirmed to reporters on Wednesday that Trump’s officials are “actively” discussing a potential offer to buy the Danish territory.

During a briefing on Monday with lawmakers from both chambers of Congress, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told them that Trump would prefer to buy Greenland rather than invade it. Rubio is scheduled to hold talks with Danish leaders next week.

Both Nuuk and Copenhagen have repeatedly insisted that the island “is not for sale”.

There are few modern historical precedents to compare Trump’s threats with Greenland, much like the abduction of Maduro on his orders.

The US purchased Louisiana from France in 1803 for $15m and Alaska from Russia in 1867 for $7.2m. However, both France and Russia were willing sellers — unlike Denmark and Greenland today.

Washington has also purchased territory from Denmark in the past. In 1917, the US, under President Woodrow Wilson, bought the Danish West Indies for $25m during World War I, later renaming them the United States Virgin Islands.

Can Trump really just pay off his way?

While Greenlanders have been open to departing from Denmark, the population has repeatedly refused to be a part of the US. Nearly 85 percent of the population rejects the idea, according to a 2025 poll commissioned by the Danish paper Berlingske.

Meanwhile, another poll, by YouGov, shows that only 7 percent of Americans support the idea of a US military invasion of the territory.

Jeffrey Sachs, an American economist and a professor at Columbia University, told Al Jazeera, “The White House wants to buy out Greenlanders, not to pay for what Greenland is worth, which is way beyond what the US would ever pay.”

“Trump thinks he can buy Greenland on the cheap, not for what it’s worth to Denmark or Europe,” he said. “This attempt to negotiate directly with the Greenlanders is an affront and threat to Danish and European sovereignty.”

Denmark and the European Union “should make clear that Trump should stop this abuse of European sovereignty,” said Sachs. “Greenland should not be for sale or capture by the US.”

Sachs added that the EU needs to assess “[Greenland’s] enormous value as a geostrategic region in the Arctic, filled with resources, vital for Europe’s military security.” And, he added, “certainly not a plaything of the United States and its new emperor”.

Denmark and the US were among the 12 founding members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1949 to provide collective security against Soviet expansion.

“Europe should tell the US imperialists to go away,” Sachs said. “[Today] Europe is far more likely to be invaded from the West (US) than from the East,” the economist told Al Jazeera.

Has the US tried to buy Greenland earlier?

Yes, on more than one occasion.

The first such proposal surfaced in 1867 under Secretary of State William Seward, during discussions to successfully purchase Alaska. By 1868, he was reportedly prepared to offer $5.5m in gold to acquire both Greenland and Iceland.

In 1910, a three-way land swap was discussed that would involve the US acquiring Greenland in exchange for giving Denmark parts of the US-held Philippines, and the return of Northern Schleswig from Germany back to Denmark was proposed.

A more formal attempt was made in 1946, immediately following World War II. Recognising Greenland’s critical role in monitoring Soviet movements, President Harry Truman’s administration offered Denmark $100m in gold for the island.

But Denmark flatly rejected the idea.

Can the US attack Greenland?

While political analysts say that a US attack to annex Greenland would be a direct violation of the NATO treaty, the White House has said that using military force to acquire Greenland is among the options.

Denmark, a NATO ally, has also said that any such attack would end the military alliance.

“We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security, and Denmark isn’t going to be able to do it,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One on Sunday. “It’s so strategic.”

Greenland is one of the world’s most sparsely populated, geographically vast regions.

But through a 1951 agreement with Denmark, the US military already has a significant presence on the island.

The US military is stationed at the Pituffik Space Base, formerly known as Thule Air Base, in the northwestern corner of Greenland, and the 1951 pact allows Washington to set up additional “defence areas” on the island.

The Thule base supports missile warning, missile defence, space surveillance missions, and satellite command and control.

Nearly 650 personnel are stationed at the base, including US Air Force and Space Force members, with Canadian, Danish and Greenlandic civilian contractors. Under the 1951 deal, Danish laws and taxation don’t apply to American personnel on the base.

Denmark also has a military presence in Greenland, headquartered in Nuuk, where its main tasks are surveillance and search and rescue operations, and the “assertion of sovereignty and military defense of Greenland and the Faroe Islands”, according to Danish Defence.

But the US forces at Thule are comfortably stronger than the Danish military presence on the island. Many analysts believe that if the US were to use these troops to try to occupy Greenland, they could do so without much military resistance or bloodshed.

Trump told reporters on Sunday that “Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place”. Both global powers have a presence in the Arctic Circle; however, there is no evidence of their ships anywhere near Greenland.

Is there another option for the US?

As Trump’s officials mull plans to annex Greenland, there have reportedly been discussions in the White House on entering into a type of agreement that defines a unique structure of sovereignty-sharing.

Reuters reported that officials have discussed putting together a Compact of Free Association, an international agreement between the US and three independent, sovereign Pacific island nations: the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Republic of Palau.

The political arrangement grants the US responsibility for defence and security in exchange for economic assistance. The precise details of COFA agreements vary depending on the signatory.

For a COFA agreement, in theory, Greenland would need to separate from Denmark.

Asked why the Trump administration had previously said it was not ruling out using military force to acquire Greenland, Leavitt replied that all options were always on the table, but Trump’s “first option always has been diplomacy”.

Why does Trump want Greenland badly?

Trump has cited national security as his motivation for wanting to take Greenland.

For the US, Greenland offers the shortest route from North America to Europe. The US has expressed interest in expanding its military presence in Greenland by placing radars in the waters connecting Greenland, Iceland and the United Kingdom. These waters are a gateway for Russian and Chinese vessels, which Washington aims to track.

But Greenland is also home to mineral riches, including rare earths. According to a 2023 survey, 25 of 34 minerals deemed “critical raw materials” by the European Commission were found in Greenland. Scientists believe the island could also have significant oil and gas reserves.

However, Greenland does not carry out the extraction of oil and gas, and its mining sector is opposed by its Indigenous population. The island’s economy is largely reliant on its fishing industry at the moment.

The Syrian army is locked in intense fighting in Aleppo after SDF fighters refused to withdraw under a ceasefire.

Islamabad, Pakistan – Less than a week into the new year, after a meeting between Pakistan’s Air Chief Marshal Zaheer Ahmed Babar Sidhu and his Bangladeshi counterpart Air Chief Marshal Hasan Mahmood Khan, the Pakistani military announced that a deal to sell its domestically produced JF-17 Thunder fighter jet could be imminent.

A statement by the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), the military’s media wing, said Khan praised the Pakistan Air Force’s combat record and sought assistance to support the Bangladesh Air Force’s “ageing fleet and integration of air defence radar systems to enhance air surveillance”.

Alongside a promise of fast-tracked delivery of Super Mushshak trainer aircraft, the statement, issued on January 6, added that “detailed discussions were also held on potential procurement of JF-17 Thunder aircraft.”

The Super Mushshak is a light-weight, two-to-three seater, single-engine plane with fixed, non-retractable, tricycle landing gear. The plane is primarily used for training purposes. Besides Pakistan, more than 10 countries currently have deployed the plane in their fleet for pilot training, including Azerbaijan, Turkiye, Iran, Iraq and others.

Just a day later, it was reported by the Reuters news agency that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were in talks to convert about $2bn of Saudi loans into a JF-17 fighter jet deal, further strengthening military cooperation between the two longtime allies. The discussions come only months after they signed a mutual defence pact in September last year.

Both developments followed reports in late December that Pakistan had reached a $4bn deal with a rebel faction in Libya, the self-styled Libyan National Army (LNA), including the sale of more than a dozen JF-17 Thunder jets.

While the Pakistani military has yet to formally confirm any agreement with Libya or Saudi Arabia, and Bangladesh has so far only expressed “interest” rather than signing a contract, analysts say events in 2025 have boosted the JF-17’s appeal.

However, the relatively cheap price of the plane, estimated at $25m-$30m, has meant that several countries in the last 10 years have shown interest in it, with Nigeria, Myanmar and Azerbaijan already having the jet in their fleets. And recent events have bolstered the reputation of Pakistan’s air fighting capabilities, say analysts.

In May, India and Pakistan fought an intense four-day air war, firing missiles and drones at each other’s territories, parts of Kashmir that they administer, and at military bases, after gunmen shot down 26 civilians in Indian-administered Kashmir. India blamed Pakistan, which denied any link to the attack.

Pakistan said it shot down several Indian fighter jets during the aerial combat, a claim Indian officials later acknowledged after initially denying any losses, but without specifying the number of jets downed.

“The PAF demonstrated superior performance against much more expensive Western and Russian systems, which has made these aircraft an attractive option for several air forces,” Adil Sultan, a former Pakistan Air Force air commodore, said.

The Indian Air Force (IAF) has traditionally relied on Russian Mirage-2000 and Su-30 jets, but in the 2025 fighting also used French Rafale jets.

Pakistan, for its part, relied on its recently imported Chinese J-10C Vigorous Dragon and the JF-17 Thunder as well as the United States’ F-16 Fighting Falcon jets, with 42 planes in the formation that took on 72 IAF planes, according to the PAF.

So what is the JF-17 Thunder, what can it do, and why are so many countries showing interest?

What is the JF-17 Thunder?

The JF-17 Thunder is a lightweight, all-weather, multi-role fighter aircraft jointly manufactured by the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC) and China’s Chengdu Aircraft Corporation (CAC).

Pakistan and China signed an agreement in the late 1990s to develop the aircraft, with work beginning in the early 2000s at the PAC in Kamra, situated in Pakistan’s Punjab province, just more than 80km (50 miles) away from the capital, Islamabad.

A retired Pakistan Air Force air commodore who worked closely on the programme said production is split between the two countries, with 58 percent carried out in Pakistan and 42 percent in China.

“We are manufacturing the front fuselage and vertical tail, whereas China makes the middle and rear fuselage of the plane, with a Russian engine being used, as well as British manufacturer Martin Baker’s seats are installed. However, the complete assembly of the plane is carried out in Pakistan,” he told Al Jazeera, speaking on condition of anonymity due to his involvement in the project.

He said the aircraft was first unveiled to the public in March 2007, with the induction of the first variant, Block 1, in 2009. The most advanced Block 3 variant entered service in 2020.

“The idea was to replace Pakistan’s ageing fleet, and subsequently, in the next decade or so, they made the bulk of our air force, with more than 150 combat jets part of the force,” he said.

Before the JF-17, Pakistan was primarily relying on French manufacturer Dassault’s Mirage III and Mirage 5, as well as Chinese J-7 fighter planes.

The Block 3 variant places JF-17 in the so-called 4.5 generation of fighter jets. It has air-to-air and air-to-surface combat capabilities, advanced avionics, an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, electronic warfare systems and the ability to fire beyond-visual-range missiles.

Their avionics and electronic capabilities are an upgrade from the fourth generation of fighter planes, such as the F-16 and Su-27, which were primarily built for speed and dogfighting.

The AESA radar gives these planes the capability to track multiple targets at once and provides more visibility at longer distances. However, unlike fifth-generation planes, they lack stealth capabilities.

The Pakistan Air Force says the jet offers high manoeuvrability at medium and low altitudes and combines firepower, agility and survivability, making it “a potent platform for any air force”.

Who has bought the JF-17?

Myanmar was the first country to buy the JF-17, ordering at least 16 Block 2 aircraft in 2015. Seven have been delivered so far.

Nigeria became the second buyer, inducting three JF-17s into its air force in 2021.

Azerbaijan followed with an initial order of 16 jets in February 2024, worth more than $1.5bn. In November 2025, Azerbaijan unveiled five JF-17s during its Victory Day parade, formally making it the third foreign operator of the aircraft.

That same month, the Pakistani military announced it had signed a memorandum of understanding with a “friendly country” for procurement of the JF-17, describing it as a “noteworthy development” without naming the buyer.

Other countries, including Iraq, Sri Lanka and Saudi Arabia, have also explored the option of buying the JF-17 over the past decade, though those plans did not materialise.

While JF-17 makes the bulk of the PAF’s fighting squadron, the plane is not used by the Chinese air force, which is more reliant on its J-10, J-20 and J-35 fighter planes.

With the plane’s entire assembly carried out in Kamra, Pakistan is the primary seller of the JF-17 fighter plane, including its after-sales services.

How does the JF-17 compare to other fighter jets?

The most advanced fighters currently in service globally are fifth-generation jets such as the US F-22 and F-35, China’s J-20 and J-35, and Russia’s Su-57. These aircraft feature stealth technology – unlike all previous generations of jets.

The JF-17’s Block 3 variant, by contrast, belongs to the 4.5 generation, alongside jets such as Sweden’s Gripen, France’s Rafale, the Eurofighter Typhoon, India’s Tejas and China’s J-10, among others.

Still, while they don’t have stealth capabilities, 4.5 generation planes have specialised coating on them to reduce their radar signature, making them harder – though not impossible – to detect.

So, for instance, when a 4.5-generation jet enters the enemy’s radar zone, it can get detected, but it can also try to jam signals by using its electronic jamming capabilities, or use long-range missiles to attack the target, before turning back.

On the other hand, a fifth-generation plane remains entirely undetected by radars due to its physical design and weapons, which are stored internally.

While official pricing has not been disclosed, estimates put the JF-17’s unit cost at between $25m and $30m. By comparison, the Rafale costs more than $90m per aircraft, while the Gripen is priced at more than $100m.

An Islamabad-based regional security analyst who has closely monitored the development of the JF-17 planes said the jet’s appeal lies in its cost-effectiveness, lower maintenance requirements and combat record.

“The JF-17’s appeal is less about headline performance than the overall package, which includes lower price, flexible weapons integration, training, spares and generally fewer Western political strings,” he told Al Jazeera, requesting anonymity because of his involvement with the JF-17 project.

“In that sense, the JF-17 is a ‘good enough’ multirole jet optimised for accessibility. It can suit air forces modernising on tight budgets, but it is not a direct substitute for higher-end fighters like the J-10C or F-16V in range, payload, electronic warfare maturity and long-term upgrade headroom.”

Sultan, who is also dean of the Faculty of Aerospace and Strategic Studies at Islamabad’s Air University, said the JF-17’s performance against Indian aircraft in 2025 underscored its capabilities.

However, he cautioned that outcomes in air combat depend not only on the aircraft but on who is operating it.

“The jets’ integration with other systems such as ground and airborne radars, communication systems and the human skills mastered during training play the most vital role,” he said.

Why is the interest in JF-17s growing?

Pakistan’s air force again drew attention during the four-day conflict with India in May 2025, particularly on the night of May 7, when Indian aircraft struck targets inside Pakistani territory.

According to the PAF, Pakistani squadrons flying Chinese-made J-10C jets shot down at least six Indian aircraft. Indian officials initially denied losses but later acknowledged that “some” planes had been lost.

US President Donald Trump, who has claimed credit for brokering a ceasefire between the two countries, has repeatedly highlighted the performance of Pakistani jets, a claim India has strongly rejected.

Although the JF-17 was not involved in the reported shoot-downs, the PAF says it was part of the formations that engaged Indian aircraft.

Three days later, on May 10, the ISPR claimed a JF-17 was used to strike India’s Russian-made S-400 air defence system with a hypersonic missile. India has denied any damage to its defence system.

The Islamabad-based security analyst said Pakistan is using the May conflict to market the JF-17 as a combat-proven, affordable option for countries with limited defence budgets.

He added, however, that the possibility of a “potential procurement” should be treated cautiously.

“‘Expressions of interest’ should be treated cautiously as fighter jet procurements typically take years to translate from exploratory talks to signed contracts and deliveries,” he said, adding that “while PAF is continuing to market the JF-17 aggressively, the JF-17 for debt swap isn’t what PAF envisions.”

Other observers agree that Islamabad sees an opportunity to leverage its air force’s performance to secure defence exports and project itself as a rising middle power.

The retired air commodore involved in the JF-17 programme said combat performance remains the ultimate benchmark.

“Very few countries are making fighter jets, with most of the market dominated by Western developers who often attach many conditions to sales,” he said. “But everybody wants to diversify and avoid putting all their eggs in one basket, and that is where Pakistan comes in.”

On Bangladesh, he said Dhaka’s posture towards Pakistan has shifted sharply since a change of government in 2024.

“Such deals are not just about sale of a platform or a plane. It is a collaboration, an agreement at national level, showing strategic alignment between two countries,” he said.

Fighter jets, he added, are a long-term commitment, with service lives of three to four decades.

“If Bangladesh is getting a JF-17 or Super Mushshak trainers, you can be certain that they are in it for the long haul with training and after-sales services. They are also showing interest in Chinese J-10s, which means that strategically, they have decided who they want to align with in the future,” he said.

WASHINGTON — Five Senate Republicans broke with party leaders on Thursday to advance legislation that would rein in President Trump’s use of the U.S. military in Venezuela, a move that comes as a growing number of GOP lawmakers have expressed unease about the White House’s threats to use force to acquire Greenland.

The procedural vote, which came over the objections of Republican leaders, now sets the stage for a full Senate vote next week on a measure that would block Trump from using military force “within or against Venezuela” without approval from Congress. Even with the Senate’s approval, the legislation is unlikely to become law as it is unlikely to pass the House, and President Trump — who has veto power over legislation — has publicly condemned the measure and the Republicans who supported it.

“This vote greatly hampers American Self Defense and National Security, impeding the President’s Authority as Commander in Chief,” Trump wrote in a social media post shortly after the 52-47 vote in the Senate.

The Republican defection on the issue underscores the growing concern among GOP lawmakers over the Trump administration’s foreign policy ambitions and highlights the bipartisan concern that the president is testing the limits of executive war powers — not only in Venezuela but also in Greenland, a semiautonomous territory of Denmark, a U.S. ally.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Me.), one of the Republicans who voted for the resolution, said that while she supported the operation that led to the capture and extradition of Nicolás Maduro, she did not “support committing additional U.S. forces or entering into any long-term military involvement in Venezuela or Greenland without specific congressional authorization.”

The resolution is co-sponsored by Sens. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). The Republicans who supported it were Sens. Collins, Paul, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Todd Young of Indiana and Josh Hawley of Missouri.

“Finally, the Senate is exercising its constitutional power over the authorization of the use of force to prevent America from being dragged into a new war over oil,” Schiff said in a social media post after the vote.

Vice President JD Vance told reporters at the White House on Thursday that he was not concerned about Trump losing support among Republican lawmakers in Washington, adding that passage of the resolution in the Senate would not “change anything about how we conduct foreign policy over the next couple of weeks or the next couple of months.”

But Republican support for the resolution reflects a deepening concern within the GOP over Trump’s foreign policy plans, particularly his threats to acquire Greenland — a move that prompted European leaders earlier this week to call on the United States to respect the Arctic territory’s sovereignty

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) told reporters on Wednesday that he does not believe “anybody’s seriously considering” using the military to take control of Greenland.

“In Congress, we’re certainly not,” Johnson said.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) struck a similar tone the same day, telling reporters that he does not “see military action being an option” in Greenland.

Other Republican lawmakers have been more openly critical, warning that even floating the idea of using force against a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a defense alliance that includes the United States, risks weakening America’s position on the world stage.

“Threats and intimidation by U.S. officials over American ownership of Greenland are as unseemly as they are counterproductive,” Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a statement. “And the use of force to seize the sovereign democratic territory of one of America’s most loyal and capable allies would be an especially catastrophic act of strategic self-harm to America and its global influence.”

In a statement Tuesday, the White House said acquiring Greenland was a “national security priority” and that using the military to achieve that goal was “always an option.” A day earlier, Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff for policy, told CNN that “Greenland should be part of the United States.”

“Nobody is going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland,” Miller said.

Miller’s remarks angered Republican senators, including Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) who in an interview with CNN on Wednesday called the idea of invading Greenland “weapons-grade stupid.”

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C), who has served as the top Republicans on the Senate NATO Observer Group since 2018, criticized the idea as well in a searing Senate floor speech.

“I’m sick of stupid,” Tillis said. “I want good advice for this president, because I want this president to have a good legacy. And this nonsense on what’s going on with Greenland is a distraction from the good work he’s doing, and the amateurs who said it was a good idea should lose their jobs.”

Tillis, who is not seeking reelection this year, later told CNN that Miller needs to “get into a lane where he knows what he’s talking about or get out of this job.”

United States President Donald Trump has dismissed international law, saying only his “own morality” can curb the aggressive policies he is pursuing across the world after the abduction of Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro.

“I don’t need international law. I’m not looking to hurt people,” Trump told The New York Times on Thursday.

Asked whether he needs to abide by international law, Trump said he does, but it “depends what your definition of international law is”.

Trump has shown a willingness to use the brute force of the US military to achieve his foreign policy goals.

On Saturday, the US launched an early-morning attack on Venezuela, with explosions reported across the capital Caracas and at Venezuelan military bases.

US troops ultimately abducted Venezuelan President Maduro from Caracas in what critics say was a clear violation of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”.

The attack on Venezuela appears to have supercharged the belligerence of the US president, who received the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize Award last month.

In the immediate aftermath of the attack, Trump said the US would “run” Venezuela and exploit the country’s vast oil reserves, though his administration has said it would cooperate with interim President Delcy Rodriguez.

Still, the Trump administration said it would “dictate” policy to the interim government and repeatedly threatened a “second wave” of military actions if US demands were disobeyed.

“If she doesn’t do what’s right, she is going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro,” Trump said of Rodriguez in a Sunday interview with The Atlantic.

Earlier this week, Trump also suggested that the US may carry out a strike against Colombia’s left-wing President Gustavo Petro, and he has escalated his campaign to acquire the Danish territory of Greenland.

In June, Trump joined Israel’s unprovoked war against Iran, ordering the bombing of the country’s three main nuclear sites.

Trump aide Stephen Miller has criticised the post-World War II international order, saying that, from here forward, the US would “unapologetically” use its military force to secure its interests in the Western Hemisphere.

“We’re a superpower, and under President Trump, we are going to conduct ourselves as a superpower,” Miller told CNN on Monday.

But experts warn that disregard for international law could have catastrophic consequences for the entire global community, including the US.

International law is the set of rules and norms that govern ties between states. It includes UN conventions and multilateral treaties.

Margaret Satterthwaite, the UN special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, told Al Jazeera earlier this week that US statements dismissing international law are “extremely dangerous”.

Satterthwaite said she is concerned the world may be returning to an “age of imperialism”, stressing that degrading international laws may embolden Washington’s adversaries to launch their own acts of aggression.

“International law cannot stop states from doing terrible things if they’re committed to doing them,” Satterthwaite told Al Jazeera.

“And I think that the world is aware of all of the atrocities that have happened in Gaza recently, and despite efforts by many states and certainly by the UN to stop those atrocities, they continued. But I think we’re worse off if we don’t insist on the international law that does exist. We’ll simply be going down a much worse kind of slippery slope.”

Yusra Suedi, an assistant professor of international law at the University of Manchester, warned against the belief that “might is right” and the trend towards disregarding international law.

“It signals something very dangerous, in that it gives permission to other states to essentially follow suit – states such as China, who might be eyeing Taiwan, or Russia with respect to Ukraine,” Suedi told Al Jazeera.

Ian Hurd, a professor of political science at Northwestern University, said history illustrates the perils of US policies in Latin America.

The region has witnessed more than a century of US invasions and US-supported military coups, leading to instability, repression and human rights abuses.

“There are innumerable examples historically of this, from Panama to Haiti to Nicaragua to Chile in the ’70s and on and on,” Hurd told Al Jazeera.

He added that Trump’s policies in Venezuela are “in line” with how the US has previously attempted to decide how other parts of the Americas are governed.

“You can see that in every one of those cases, the US came to regret its choice to intervene. These never work well.”

Israeli gunfire killed 11-year-old Hamsa Hosou in northern Gaza, her family says, despite a ceasefire in place for nearly three months. She is among more than 400 Palestinians reported killed since the truce took effect.

A resolution that would block US President Donald Trump from taking further military action against Venezuela without congressional authorisation has passed in the Senate by a vote of 52-47.

With the measure receiving a simple majority in Thursday’s vote, it will move ahead to the House.

Days after US forces abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in a dramatic military raid in Caracas, senators voted on the latest in a series of war powers measures introduced since the administration ramped up military pressure on the country with attacks on boats off its coast in September.

Republicans have blocked all of the measures, but the last vote was just 49-51, as two senators from Trump’s party joined Democrats in backing a resolution in November. Administration officials had told lawmakers at that time that they did not plan to change the government or conduct strikes on Venezuelan territory.

More to come…

Civilians were seen fleeing several northern Aleppo neighbourhoods en masse as the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces and the Syrian military escalate their fighting after a breakdown in integration talks. Estimates vary widely, but some have placed the number of evacuees at more than 100,000.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said he will meet Denmark next week as Donald Trump again raises the prospect of gaining control of Greenland. When pressed on NATO concerns, Rubio said the president can use force, but diplomacy is preferred.

US President Donald Trump sees Greenland as a United States national security priority to deter Washington’s “adversaries in the Arctic region”, according to a White House statement released on Tuesday.

The statement came days after Trump told reporters that the US needs Greenland from a national security perspective because it is “covered with Russian and Chinese ships”.

Here’s what you need to know about what Trump said, whether Russia and China are present in Greenland, and whether they do pose a threat to American security.

What has Trump recently said about Greenland?

“Right now, Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place. We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on January 4.

The White House statement on Tuesday fleshed out further details on how the US would go about its acquisition of Greenland.

“The president and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the US military is always an option at the commander-in-chief’s disposal,” the White House statement says.

Over the course of his second term, Trump has talked about wanting Greenland for national security reasons multiple times.

“We need Greenland for international safety and security. We need it. We have to have it,” he said in March.

Since 1979, Greenland has been a self-governing territory of Denmark, and since 2009, it has had the right to declare independence through a referendum.

Trump has repeatedly expressed a desire to take control of the island, which hosts a US military base. He first voiced this desire in 2019, during his first term as US president.

As a response, leaders from Greenland and Denmark have repeatedly said that Greenland is not for sale. They have made it clear that they are especially not interested in becoming part of the US.

On January 4, Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said, “It makes absolutely no sense to talk about the US needing to take over Greenland.”

“The US has no right to annex any of the three countries in the Danish kingdom,” she said, alluding to the Faroe Islands, which, like Greenland, are also a Danish territory.

“I would therefore strongly urge the US to stop the threats against a historically close ally and against another country and another people who have very clearly said that they are not for sale,” Frederiksen said.

US special forces abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro during an operation in the Venezuelan capital, Caracas, on January 3.

Hours later, Katie Miller, the wife of close Trump aide and US Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller, posted a photo on X showing the US flag imposed on the map of Greenland.

Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen hit back in an X post, writing, “Relations between nations and peoples are built on mutual respect and international law – not on symbolic gestures that disregard our status and our rights.”

Why does Trump want Greenland so badly?

The location and natural resources of the Arctic island make it strategically important for Washington.

Greenland is geographically part of North America, located between the Arctic Ocean and the North Atlantic Ocean. It is home to some 56,000 residents, mostly Indigenous Inuit people.

It is the world’s largest island. Greenland’s capital, Nuuk, is closer to New York City  – some 2,900km (1,800 miles) away – than the Danish capital Copenhagen, which is located 3,500km (2,174 miles) to the east.

Greenland, a NATO territory through Denmark, is an EU-associated overseas country and territory whose residents remain European Union citizens, having joined the European Community with Denmark in 1973 but having withdrawn in 1985.

“It’s really tricky if the United States decides to use military power to take over Greenland. Denmark is a member of NATO; the United States is a member as well. It really calls into question what the purpose of the military alliance is, if that happens,” Melinda Haring, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council Eurasia Center, told Al Jazeera.

Greenland offers the shortest route from North America to Europe. This gives the US a strategic upper hand for its military and its ballistic missile early-warning system.

The US has expressed interest in expanding its military presence in Greenland by placing radars in the waters connecting Greenland, Iceland and the United Kingdom. These waters are a gateway for Russian and Chinese vessels, which Washington aims to track.

The island is also incredibly rich in minerals, including rare earth minerals used in the high-tech industry and in the manufacture of batteries.

According to a 2023 survey, 25 of 34 minerals deemed “critical raw materials” by the European Commission were found in Greenland.

Greenland does not carry out the extraction of oil and gas, and its mining sector is opposed by its Indigenous population. The island’s economy is largely reliant on its fishing industry.

Are Chinese and Russian ships swarming Greenland?

However, while Trump has spoken of Russian and Chinese ships around Greenland, currently, facts don’t bear that out.

Vessel tracking data from maritime data and intelligence websites such as MarineTraffic do not show the presence of Chinese or Russian ships near Greenland.

Are Russia and China a threat to Greenland?

The ships’ location aside, Trump’s rhetoric comes amid a heightened scramble for the Arctic.

Amid global warming, the vast untapped resources of the Arctic are becoming more accessible. Countries like the US, Canada, China and Russia are now eyeing these resources.

“Russia has never threatened anyone in the Arctic, but we will closely follow the developments and mount an appropriate response by increasing our military capability and modernising military infrastructure,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said during an address in March 2025 at the International Arctic Forum in the Russian city of Murmansk, the largest city within the Arctic Circle.

During this address, Putin said that he believed Trump was serious about taking Greenland and that the US will continue with efforts to acquire it.

In December 2024, Canada released a policy document detailing plans to ramp up its military and diplomatic presence in the Arctic. Russia is also constructing military installations and power plants in the region.

Meanwhile, Russia and China have been working together to develop Arctic shipping routes as Moscow seeks to deliver more oil and gas to China amid Western sanctions while Beijing seeks an alternative shipping route to reduce its dependence on the Strait of Malacca.

The Northern Sea Route (NSR), a maritime route in the Arctic Ocean, is becoming easier to navigate due to melting ice. The NSR can cut shipping trips significantly short. Russia is hoping to ramp up commerce through the NSR to trade more with Asia than Europe due to Western sanctions. Last year, the number of oil shipments from Russia to China via the NSR rose by a quarter.

China is also probing the region, and has sent 10 scientific expeditions to the Arctic and built research vessels to survey the icy waters north of Russia.

Leader of Yemen’s Southern Transitional Council removed from government with the Saudi-led coalition saying he ‘fled to unknown location’.

Over the weekend, the United States carried out a large-scale military strike against Venezuela and abducted President Nicolas Maduro in a major escalation that sent shockwaves across Latin America.

On Monday morning, US President Donald Trump doubled down, threatening action against the governments of Colombia, Cuba and Mexico unless they “get their act together”, claiming he is countering drug trafficking and securing US interests in the Western Hemisphere.

The remarks revive deep tensions over US interference in Latin America. Many of the governments targeted by Trump have little appetite for Washington’s involvement, but their armed forces lack the capacity to keep the US at arm’s length.

Latin America’s military capabilities

The US has the strongest military in the world and spends more on its military than the total budgets of the next 10 largest military spenders combined. In 2025, the US defence budget was $895bn, roughly 3.1 percent of its gross domestic product.

According to the 2025 Global Firepower rankings, Brazil has the most powerful military in Latin America and is ranked 11th globally.

Mexico ranks 32nd globally, Colombia 46th, Venezuela 50th and Cuba 67th. All of these countries are significantly below the US military in all metrics, including the number of active personnel, military aircraft, combat tanks, naval assets and their military budgets.

In a standard war involving tanks, planes and naval power, the US maintains overwhelming superiority.

The only notable metric that these countries have over the US is their paramilitary forces, which operate alongside the regular armed forces, often using asymmetrical warfare and unconventional tactics against conventional military strategies.

Paramilitaries across Latin America

Several Latin American countries have long histories of paramilitary and irregular armed groups that have often played a role in the internal security of these countries. These groups are typically armed, organised and politically influential but operate outside the regular military chain of command.

Cuba has the world’s third largest paramilitary force, made up of more than 1.14 million members, as reported by Global Firepower. These groups include state-controlled militias and neighbourhood defence committees. The largest of these, the Territorial Troops Militia, serves as a civilian reserve aimed at assisting the regular army against external threats or during internal crises.

In Venezuela, members of pro-government armed civilian groups known as “colectivos” have been accused of enforcing political control and intimidating opponents. Although not formally part of the armed forces, they are widely seen as operating with state tolerance or support, particularly during periods of unrest under Maduro.

In Colombia, right-wing paramilitary groups emerged in the 1980s to fight left-wing rebels. Although officially demobilised in the mid-2000s, many later re-emerged as criminal or neo-paramilitary organisations, remaining active in rural areas. The earliest groups were organised with the involvement of the Colombian military following guidance from US counterinsurgency advisers during the Cold War.

In Mexico, heavily armed drug cartels function as de facto paramilitary forces. Groups such as the Zetas, originally formed by former soldiers, possess military-grade weapons and exercise territorial control, often outgunning local police and challenging the state’s authority. The Mexican military has increasingly been deployed in law enforcement roles in response.

History of US interference in Latin America

Over the past two centuries, the US has repeatedly interfered in Latin America.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the so-called Banana Wars saw US forces deployed across Central America to protect corporate interests.

In 1934, President Franklin D Roosevelt introduced the “Good Neighbor Policy”, pledging nonintervention.

Yet during the Cold War, the US financed operations to overthrow elected governments, often coordinated by the CIA, founded in 1947.

Panama is the only Latin American country the US has formally invaded, which occurred in 1989 under President George HW Bush. “Operation Just Cause” ostensibly was aimed at removing President Manuel Noriega, who was later convicted of drug trafficking and other offences.

Venezuela’s interim leader, Delcy Rodriguez, has said that “no foreign agent” is running Venezuela in the wake of Nicolas Maduro’s abduction by United States military forces.

Rodriguez, who had been Maduro’s vice president before his abduction, spoke during a televised event on Tuesday, a day after Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, pleaded not guilty in a New York court to drug-trafficking conspiracy charges.

“The government of Venezuela is in charge in our country, and no one else. There is no foreign agent governing Venezuela,” Rodriguez said.

Venezuela’s prosecutor general, meanwhile, called for the immediate release of Maduro and his wife.

“The military operation, without a declaration of war or a UN Security Council resolution, represents an illegal act of armed aggression of a terrorist nature,” Tarek William Saab said.

The statements come amid the continuing fallout from Saturday’s military operation, which left dozens of people in Venezuela dead. The offensive has been broadly condemned as a violation of international law.

Venezuela on Tuesday released a list of the 24 soldiers killed in the predawn assault. Cuba also announced that 32 members of its military had died. Rodriguez declared a seven-day period of mourning to commemorate the fallen military members.

Since seizing Maduro from his residence, the administration of US President Donald Trump has offered little clarity about its plans for Venezuela.

Trump said on Saturday that the US would “run” Venezuela, a statement US Secretary of State Marco Rubio walked back the next day.

The top diplomat instead said that US officials would guide the “direction” of how the country is run and use sanctions and an ongoing embargo to force more access to Venezuela’s oil industry.

Rubio, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine briefed a bipartisan group of Congress members on Monday about the Venezuela operation.

But several lawmakers said that the administration had offered scarce insight into its justification for conducting the strike without first seeking approval from Congress, much less its plans for Venezuela’s future.

“This briefing, while very extensive and long, posed far more questions than it ever answered,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said afterwards.

On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Trump ally in the Republican Party, said the next few days would show Venezuela’s “government structure and how willing they are to work with the US”.

In a social media post, Thune called Rodriguez a “practical person, pragmatic person” who “will understand the importance of figuring out a path forward to where America’s national security priorities can be prioritized by Venezuela”.

Trump, meanwhile, offered few new details on the operation during a retreat with Republicans on Tuesday, beyond praising the abduction as an “amazing military feat” and “brilliant tactically”.

Speaking from exile in Miami, Florida, former Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido said the country had a “wonderful and incredible opportunity”.

Guaido, who fled Venezuela in 2023, said that rebuilding the country’s democracy would allow millions of Venezuelans to return, and help “bring back to life the oil fields” and restore prosperity.

He condemned Rodriguez as “an acting dictator”, describing the current period as “a phase of transition” that will only be complete “once the rule of law has been reinstalled”.

Unease in Caracas

In Venezuela’s capital, Caracas, crowds gathered on Tuesday for a state-organised display of support for the government.

Some marchers flashed “V” victory signs. Hardline Minister of Interior Diosdado Cabello – who, like Maduro, has been indicted by the US Department of Justice – was seen wading through the gathering. He wore a blue cap emblazoned with the slogan, “To doubt is to betray.”

But Noris Argotte Soto, a Venezuelan reporter in Caracas, told Al Jazeera that the situation in the capital continues to be tense, with most residents staying inside their homes.

“In the peripheral areas of the city, everybody remains at home. The tension is rising; people are on edge. And people are very much afraid of going out into the streets, mostly because [of] the security forces that we see at the main points of the city,” she said.

Soto added that government-aligned paramilitaries have been working alongside the military in recent days to maintain security and crack down on potential dissent.

“They were working yesterday with the security forces,” she said.

“They were basically bullying people, intimidating people, searching their cars, even demanding their cell phones to check their messages, check their social media.”

Regional uncertainty

Anxiety was also felt across the region, as the Trump administration has upped its threats against Venezuela’s neighbour, Colombia, as well as the island of Greenland in the northern Atlantic.

In the aftermath of Saturday’s attack, Trump said he had not ruled out an attack on Colombia for allegedly failing to tamp down on the illegal drug trade.

He described the country’s president, Gustavo Petro, who has been a vocal critic of US operations in Venezuela, as a “sick man who likes making cocaine and selling it to the United States”.

On Tuesday, Colombia’s Foreign Affairs Minister Rosa Yolanda Villavicencio announced she will meet with the US Embassy’s charge d’affaires in Bogota to present a formal complaint over the recent US “threats”.

Villavicencio said she hopes to reassure the Trump administration “about all that we are doing in the fight against drug trafficking”.

Greenland and Denmark also called for an expedited meeting with Rubio on Tuesday to “discuss the significant statement made by the United States”, Greenland’s foreign minister, Vivian Motzfeldt, wrote on social media.

In the wake of Maduro’s abduction, Trump again floated taking control of Greenland, which is an autonomous territory of Denmark.

Trump aide Stephen Miller later said that Washington has a right to seize sovereign territories if it deems such moves to be in its national interest.

The statement was in line with a White House national security strategy released in December, which pledged to re-establish US “pre-eminence” in the Western Hemisphere.

The White House on Tuesday again said it was exploring options to seize Greenland, adding that “utilizing the US military is always an option”.

An array of European countries, as well as Canada, have rushed to support Greenland, noting that Denmark is a NATO member. Therefore, an attack on the island would constitute an attack on the entire bloc.

On Tuesday, the leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom joined with Denmark to issue a joint statement denouncing Trump’s remarks.

“Greenland belongs to its people. It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland,” the statement said.

The United States has raised the prospect of using military force to take control of Greenland as leaders in Europe and Canada rallied behind the Arctic territory, saying it belongs to its people.

In a statement on Tuesday, the White House said that US President Donald Trump sees acquiring Greenland, which is part of Denmark, as a national security priority, necessary to “deter our adversaries in the Arctic region”.

“The president and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the ​US military is always an option at the commander-in-chief’s disposal,” it said.

Any attempt by the US to seize Greenland from longtime ally Denmark would send shockwaves through the NATO alliance and deepen the divide between Trump and European leaders.

The opposition has not deterred Trump, however.

His interest in Greenland, initially aired in 2019 during his first term in office, has been rekindled following the US’s abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in an attack on Caracas.

Emboldened by the operation, Trump has said that “American dominance in the Western Hemisphere will never be questioned again”, and has stepped up pressure on both Colombia and Cuba. He has also argued that controlling Greenland is vital to US national security, claiming the island “is covered with Russian and Chinese ships” and that Denmark lacks the capacity to protect it.

Greenland, the world’s largest island, but with a population of just 57,000 people, has repeatedly said it does not ‍want to be part of the US.

Its strategic location between Europe and North America makes it a critical site for the US ballistic missile defence system, while its mineral wealth aligns with Washington’s ambition to reduce reliance on Chinese exports.

Greenland ‘belongs to its people’

The White House statement on Tuesday came as leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom joined Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen in issuing a statement reaffirming that Greenland “belongs to its people”.

“It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland,” they said.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney also voiced support, announcing that Governor General Mary Simon, who is of Inuit descent, and Minister of Foreign Affairs Anita Anand would visit Greenland early next month.

In a separate statement, Nordic foreign ministers – from Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark – also stressed Greenland’s right to decide its own affairs. They also noted they had increased their investments in Arctic security, and offered to do more in consultation with the US and other NATO allies.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk also warned that threats against a NATO member undermined the alliance’s credibility. “No member should attack or threaten another ‌member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Otherwise, NATO would lose its meaning,” he said.

Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen welcomed the European leaders’ pledge of solidarity and renewed his ‌call to the US for a “respectful dialogue”.

Denmark, meanwhile, rejected Trump’s assertion that it is unable to protect Greenland.

“We do not share this image that Greenland ‍is plastered with Chinese investments… ⁠nor that there are Chinese warships up and down along Greenland,” Danish Minister for Foreign Affairs Lars Lokke Rasmussen said, adding that the US was welcome to invest more on the island.

Greenland’s government said it had asked for an urgent meeting with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, together with Rasmussen, to discuss the situation.

Also on Tuesday, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry, whom Trump appointed last month as US special envoy to Greenland, said he was not interested in talking to people in Denmark or European diplomats over Greenland.

Instead, he said he wants to have conversations directly with residents of Greenland. “I want to talk to people who want an opportunity to improve the quality of life in Greenland,” the Republican said on a Fox News radio show.

Separately, The Wall Street Journal reported that Rubio had told US lawmakers during a congressional briefing that the recent threats did not signal an imminent invasion of Greenland and that the goal is to ‌buy the island from Denmark.

The White House deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, also dismissed concerns about Danish sovereignty.

“You can ⁠talk all you want about international niceties and everything else,” Miller told CNN. “But we live in a world, in the real world, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that ​is governed by power.”

Members of Congress, including some of Trump’s fellow Republicans, pushed back.

“When Denmark and Greenland make it clear that Greenland is not for sale, the United States must honour its treaty obligations and respect the sovereignty and ‌territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark,” said Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen and Republican Senator Thom Tillis, the co-chairs of the Senate NATO Observer Group.

The attack on Venezuela and the abduction of President Nicolas Maduro over the weekend have sent shockwaves across Latin America, where many countries fear a return to a period of overt United States interventionism.

Those fears are particularly prominent in Mexico, the US’s neighbour and longtime ally.

The country was one of several — along with Cuba and Colombia — that US President Donald Trump singled out in remarks after Saturday’s attack on Venezuela, which killed dozens of people and was widely condemned as a violation of international law.

Trump suggested that the US could carry out military strikes on Mexican territory in the name of combating drug traffickers.

“Something’s going to have to be done with Mexico,” Trump said in an interview with Fox News on Saturday morning, after the Venezuela strikes.

“She [President Claudia Sheinbaum] is very frightened of the cartels,” he added. “They’re running Mexico.”

‘We are free and sovereign’

Sheinbaum has responded to Trump’s threats with a firm insistence on Mexican sovereignty.

“We categorically reject intervention in the internal matters of other countries,” Sheinbaum said in comments to the media on Monday.

“It is necessary to reaffirm that, in Mexico, the people rule and that we are a free and sovereign country,” she added. “Cooperation, yes; subordination and intervention, no.”

Even in good times, Mexican leaders have walked a line between seeking productive relations with their powerful northern neighbour and defending their interests from possible US encroachment.

That balancing act has become more difficult as the Trump administration employs rhetoric and policies that have drawn parallels to earlier eras of imperial intervention.

“Historically, there’s a record of US intervention that is part of the story of Mexican nationalism,” Pablo Piccato, a professor of Mexican history at Columbia University, told Al Jazeera.

Many of those instances loom large in the country’s national memory. The US launched a war against Mexico in 1846 that saw US troops occupy Mexico City and annex enormous swaths of territory, including modern-day California, Nevada, and New Mexico.

Later, during the Mexican Revolution, from 1910 to 1920, US Ambassador Henry Lane Wilson worked with conservative forces in Mexico to overthrow the country’s pro-reform president.

US forces also bombed the port city of Veracruz in 1914 and sent forces into northern Mexico to hunt down revolutionary leader Pancho Villa.

“These are seen as important moments in Mexican history,” said Piccato.

“There is a quote attributed to Mexican President Porfirio Diaz, ‘Poor Mexico. So far from God, so close to the United States.’”

In recent statements, Trump has linked the US’s history in the region to his present-day agenda. While announcing Saturday’s strike, he cited the Monroe Doctrine, a 19th-century policy that the US has used to assert primacy over the Western Hemisphere.

“The Monroe Doctrine is a big deal, but we’ve superseded it by a lot, by a real lot. They now call it the ‘Donroe Doctrine’,” Trump said.

On Monday, the US State Department also shared an image of Trump on social media with the caption: “This is OUR hemisphere.”

‘Balancing on a thin wire’

Sheinbaum’s insistence on Mexican sovereignty has not prevented her from offering concessions to Trump on key priorities, such as migration, security and commerce.

When faced with Trump’s threats of 25 percent tariffs last February, Sheinbaum agreed to deploy 10,000 Mexican National Guard troops to her country’s border with the US, to help limit irregular immigration and drug-trafficking.

Mexico has also maintained close security ties with the US and cooperated in its operations against criminal groups, including through the extradition of some drug traffickers.

In February, for instance, Sheinbaum’s government extradited 29 criminal suspects that the US accused of drug trafficking and other charges. In August, it sent another 26 suspects to the US, earning a statement of gratitude from the Trump administration.

Washington has historically pressured Mexico to take a hardline stance towards combating drugs, leading to policies that some Mexicans blame for increasing violence and insecurity in their country.

Still, while Sheinbaum has received praise for managing relations with Trump, she has consistently said that unilateral US military action on Mexican territory would be a red line.

Experts say Sheinbaum’s willingness to cooperate should be an incentive for the US government not to launch attacks on Mexican soil.

“Sheinbaum has gone out of her way to cooperate with the US,” said Stephanie Brewer, the director of the Mexico programme at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), a US-based research group. “There would be no rational reason to break this bilateral relationship by crossing the one red line Mexico has set out.”

But the strikes on Venezuela have also underscored the Trump administration’s increasingly aggressive posture towards Latin America.

“I don’t think US strikes on Mexican territory are any more or less likely than they were before the attacks in Venezuela,” said Brewer. “But they do make it abundantly clear that the Trump administration’s threats need to be taken seriously, and that the US is willing to violate international law in its use of military force.”

“Sheinbaum is doing a balancing act on an increasingly thin wire,” she added.

Caracas, Venezuela – The normally noisy capital of Caracas was eerily quiet on Monday, two days after the United States bombed the city and abducted Venezuela’s leader, Nicolas Maduro.

But many “caraqueños” nevertheless ventured out to buy food and other necessities, albeit at marked-up prices.

The tense atmosphere on Caracas’s streets was yet another sign of the uncertainty facing everyday Venezuelans, as they face the looming threat of further US intervention.

Local authorities have called for regular economic activity to continue in Venezuela. But some stores nevertheless remained closed, while households stocked up on basic supplies in case of shortages.

At Caracas’s central market, Quinta Crespo, many shopkeepers had shuttered their businesses for fear of unrest and looting.

Lines of 10 or more people often stretched outside the stores that remained open, despite the midday sun. Officers from the Bolivarian National Police patrolled outside to keep the queues calm.

Shoppers told Al Jazeera they were buying non-perishables, like corn flour, rice and canned goods, in case the security situation deteriorated in the capital.

“I’m looking for basic necessities, given the situation the country is going through,” said Carlos Godoy, 45, who lives in the western Caricuao district of Caracas. “We are waiting to see what happens. We are all in suspense, in uncertainty.”

Among the most expensive products Godoy saw on his shopping trip was powdered milk, which he said is selling for $16 per kilogram.

Another shopper, Betzerpa Ramírez, said she felt calm, despite the early-morning attack on Saturday. While she felt no need to hoard food items, she did note that prices for some goods have increased.

“Hygiene items are more expensive, even more than food,” she said.

Alexandra Arismendi, who works in a mobile phone shop at the Sambil mall in one of Caracas’s busiest shopping districts, expressed frustration with some of the recent price spikes.

The price of eggs, she said, was “exaggerated”.

“Prices are high,” she said. “A carton of eggs is selling for $10, which is beyond normal.”

Her colleague at the mobile shop, 23-year old María Gabriela, lamented the slump in sales, as shoppers stay indoors for fear of further unrest.

The normally bustling mall had largely emptied of its usual crowds. Gabriela herself was hesitant to show up for work. She travelled by taxi to avoid public transport.

“We thought people would be looking for chargers or power banks [for possible power failures], but they have been looking for other things,” Gabriela said.

“There has been no usual activity. It has been one of the strangest days in recent months.”

Venezuelans have become accustomed to volatile price increases and supply shortages over the past decade. Experts often blame government corruption, mismanagement and US sanctions for destabilising Venezuela’s economy.

During Maduro’s presidency, oil prices plummeted, sending Venezuela’s petroleum-heavy economy into free fall.

By 2018, inflation hit more than 130,000 percent, according to the country’s central bank. The COVID-19 pandemic also dealt the economy a wallop, leading to shortages of food and health supplies.

Maduro’s government has not published inflation statistics since he claimed victory in 2024’s disputed presidential election.

It remains unclear to what degree normalcy will return to Venezuela after the US attack on Saturday.

Early that morning, the administration of US President Donald Trump launched munitions against military installations in the states of Caracas, Aragua, Miranda and La Guaira.

At least 80 people died in the attack, according to an anonymous Venezuelan official quoted in The New York Times.

The US military offensive was over in a matter of hours. But Trump has warned he could authorise a “second wave” of attacks, should his demands for Venezuela not be fulfilled.

The Venezuelan government has also declared a state of emergency to “immediately begin the national search and capture of everyone involved in the promotion or support for the armed attack by the United States”.

It has maintained that Maduro remains the leader of Venezuela, despite his abduction to the US.

To Arismendi, the tension in Venezuela has not yet reached the level seen after the 2024 election, when thousands of protesters took to the streets.

“I feel that there was more tension around the elections,” said Arismendi. “Thank God we’re not at that level right now, but I feel like we’re not that far off either.”