western

US forces launched a military attack against Venezuela on January 3, reportedly killing over 100 people and kidnapping Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and first lady Cilia Flores, who also serves as a National Assembly deputy.

Western corporate media have played an active role in recent years in legitimizing escalated US aggression against the Venezuelan people, from whitewashing economic sanctions that killed tens of thousands (FAIR.org, 6/4/21, 6/13/22) to outright calling for a military intervention (FAIR.org, 2/12/25, 11/19/25). They also exposed themselves once again as the fourth branch of the US national security state, opting not to publish information they had prior to the January 3 operation in order to “avoid endangering US troops” (FAIR.org, 1/13/26).

The brazen act of war has elicited zero dissent from the Western media establishment, no urge to challenge Trump’s return to early 20th century “gunboat diplomacy.” Worse, with the White House pushing to impose a semi-colonial protectorate and plunder Venezuela’s wealth, corporate outlets continue working overtime to normalize US imperialist predations.

Damage control

In the weeks since the attack, Western media have made a point of referring to Maduro as “arrested” (NBC, 1/5/26), “captured” (PBS, 2/10/26) or “ousted” (ABC, 1/5/26). The choice is far from innocent. By not stating that the Venezuelan leader was “kidnapped” or “abducted,” in a blatant violation of international law, establishment journalists are normalizing the US’s rogue actions, denying Maduro the proper protections of prisoner of war status (FAIR.org, 1/20/26).

But it is not just through semantic distortion that corporate outlets have quarantined any critique of the administration’s lawlessness. Another common feature has been a certain “damage control” in covering up Trump’s most outlandish statements.

After the January 3 military operation, Trump stated in a press conference that “many Americans, hundreds of thousands over the years…died because of [Maduro].” No corporate outlets reported the outrageously false statement. (A couple of factchecking pieces—CBS, 1/6/26; New York Times, 1/8/26—addressed his adjacent, essentially unfalsifiable claim that “countless Americans” died due to Maduro.)

The attempts to make Trump’s Venezuela policy claims appear more rational are not new. For instance, in presidential press conferences, he constantly said that Venezuela had “emptied” its mental institutions into the US (X, 10/15/25, 11/2/25, 12/3/25, 1/3/26). But throughout 2025, the New York Times  (11/4/25) mentioned this absurd statement just once, and the Washington Post (10/22/25, 12/21/25) did so twice.

On the domestic policy front, corporate journalists have had fewer qualms labeling Trump claims as “false,” when it comes to ending wars (CNN, 1/20/26), immigration (NBC, 2/4/26) or the 2020 US election (Guardian, 1/12/26). But they seem happy to carefully conceal or openly parrot false accusations that build the case for wars of aggression, whether in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran and now Venezuela (FAIR.org, 8/1/05).

The vanishing cartel

In recent years, and especially in the second half of 2025, US officials justified escalating attacks against Venezuela on the grounds that Maduro and associates ran a drug trafficking operation, the so-called Cartel of the Suns. Trump himself, during his January 3 press conference, claimed Maduro “personally oversaw the vicious cartel known as Cartel de los Soles.”

While experts consistently questioned the cartel’s existence, and specialized agencies, including the DEA, found Venezuela to play a marginal role in drug trafficking, media outlets reproduced the warmongering claims without scrutiny, citing only the denials from the Venezuelan president they have systematically demonized for over a decade (e.g., New York Times, 10/06/25; NPR, 11/12/25; CNN, 11/14/25).

But the biggest rebuff came from the Justice Department itself. When the time came to indict Maduro, US prosecutors dropped the accusation that the Venezuelan leader headed an actual drug cartel, and downgraded the Cartel of the Suns to a “patronage system.” In other words, the Justice Department was aware that the cartel charge had no substance, and instead accused Maduro of a much looser “drug trafficking conspiracy.”

But this remarkable about-face brought no accountability for the media establishment. Having spent years echoing claims that US prosecutors admitted would not hold in court, corporate outlets chose to ignore the new development, rather than exposing their shameful stenography over the years and taking responsibility for its deadly consequences. FAIR used Google to search for reporting on this crucial about-face in outlets including the Washington Post, Reuters, CNN, NBC and NPR, and found no results.

The one notable exception in this quasi-state corporate media circus was the New York Times‘ Charlie Savage (1/5/26), reporting on the administration’s quiet dropping of its casus belli. Savage wrote that this “called into greater question the legitimacy” of the administration’s designation of the Cartel of the Suns as a foreign terrorist organization. However, the piece stopped short of challenging the US military operation and illegal kidnapping of Maduro, referring to the Venezuelan leader as “captured” and “removed from power.”

The paper of record was quick to compensate for the vanishing of a flimsy regime-change trope by bringing up another one, focusing on a tried and tested dishonest narrative: Venezuela’s alleged ties with Hezbollah, one of the main opponents of the US and Israel in West Asia (FAIR.org, 5/24/19). Under the headline, “What to Know about Hezbollah’s Ties to Venezuela,” Times reporter Christina Goldbaum (1/19/26) offered nothing but a laundry list of unsubstantiated claims from anonymous officials.

Media connivance with Washington’s official narratives to justify imperialist attacks only pave the way for new iterations. Recently, in tightening the murderous blockade against Cuba, the Trump administration proffered the totally baseless claim of the Cuban government “providing a safe haven” for Hamas and Hezbollah. While the New York Times (1/30/26) uncharacteristically reminded readers that Trump offered no evidence, other outlets (NBC, 1/29/26; CNN, 1/30/26) were happy to echo the accusation uncritically.

Holding a country hostage

The media establishment’s support for US foreign policy did not end with the January 3 act of war. Since the attacks and presidential kidnapping, the Trump administration has taken control of Venezuelan oil exports at gunpoint after a month-long naval blockade that involved seizing tankers in the high seas for allegedly transporting Venezuelan crude in violation of unilateral US sanctions.

Under an initial agreement, Venezuela surrendered 30–50 million barrels for White House–picked intermediaries to transport and sell. Proceeds were deposited in bank accounts in Qatar, with a portion being returned to Carácas at the administration’s discretion (Venezuelanalysis, 1/21/26, 1/29/26). Analysts have argued that this arrangement explicitly violates the Venezuelan constitution.

Some articles have given space for Democrats to oppose the Trump deal, but mostly on the grounds of lack of transparency or opportunities for corruption (CNN, 1/15/26; Politico, 2/11/26; New York Times, 2/11/26). Readers will find no opposition on principle to the Trump administration’s Mafia-esque extortion of a sovereign nation’s natural resources, from the president himself saying the US will “keep some” of the hijacked Venezuelan oil (CNBC, 1/22/26) to Secretary of State Marco Rubio announcing that the administration is “prepared to use force to ensure maximum cooperation” (New York Times, 1/28/26).

It is hard to find double standards, because no other nation on Earth unleashes this kind of gangster imperialism. But concerning Russia, Western media did not hold back from denouncing its “stealing,” “robbing” or “plundering” of Ukrainian minerals or grain, despite these resources being in territory that Russia occupies and claims sovereignty over (Washington Post, 8/10/22; Guardian, 12/11/23; DW, 8/28/23; New York Times, 6/5/22).

In a nutshell, when Washington imposed deadly sanctions against Venezuela, corporate pundits said these only targeted Maduro and were meant to promote democracy (FAIR.org, 6/14/19, 6/4/21, 6/13/22, 6/22/23). When the White House ramped up military threats, mainstream journalists parroted drug trafficking allegations (FAIR.org, 2/12/25, 11/19/25). When the drug trafficking charges were exposed, Western outlets reheated baseless stories about Hezbollah. And when Trump seized Venezuelan oil at gunpoint, the only mild concern was whether he would use it to enrich himself.

True to its roots in the “yellow journalism” of Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst, the liberal media establishment is fully on board with Trump’s “Donroe Doctrine.” They have undoubtedly earned the title, to paraphrase Gen. Smedley Butler, of “gangster journalists for capitalism.”

Source: FAIR

A highly anticipated new Western drama in the hit Yellowstone franchise is about to start on Paramount+

Yellowstone’s new spin-off that puts Kayce Dutton (played by Luke Grimes) at the forefront is finally here, and it’s a must-watch for fans of the gripping Western drama.

Airing today (Sunday, 1st March) on CBS in the US and later available on Paramount+, Marshals: A Yellowstone Story follows the rancher and former Navy SEAL as he enlists with an elite squad of US Marshals to deliver justice across Montana.

As he wages war against violence and learns to adapt to working with a team, he must also strive to become the best father possible to his teenage son, Tate (Brecken Merrill).

The latest of several spin-offs from the popular neo-Western saga created by Taylor Sheridan, Marshals promises action-packed cases and gripping drama each week that is sure to keep viewers satisfied.

Although reviews have been mixed so far, garnering a 50 percent score on Rotten Tomatoes, critics agree the show has huge potential and is bound to keep die-hard fans enthralled.

Collider has praised Grimes’ central performance as Kayce, writing that he comes into his own as the Yellowstone franchise’s newest lead.

“Grimes carries the series with ease,” they went on, “graduating from being a supporting cast member roaming alongside Kevin Costner’s shadow to the leading man of his own cowboy-flavoured crime drama.”

Their review also assured fans that the shift to CBS hasn’t sanitised the gritty Yellowstone brand too much, adding: “Marshals is a neo-Western that is chock-full of potential.

“It’s action-packed, thrilling, and full of everything you could ask for in a Kayce Dutton-led series that fights hard to divorce itself from the “Y” that still lingers in the background. It’s not perfect, nor does it claim to be, but once it gets through the initial growing pains, it will be able to stand firmly on its own.”

Men’s Journal described the series as “kick-a**”, promising it still has the “Yellowstone magic”.

The review went on: “Marshals may not be as twisty or unpredictable as 1923 or the recent season of Landman, but it has that same sparkle and magic of the other Sheridan westerns.

“It’s the sort of show that doesn’t ask much to get invested, and rewards you with the simple pleasure of feeling good after you’ve watched an episode. In a world of morally grey anti-heroes, Kayce Dutton is here to be the perennial good guy on horseback. And frankly, it’s good to have him back.”

TVLine was also impressed with the Yellowstone universe’s latest offering, urging potential viewers not to be put off by Marshals’ broadcast on CBS, home to crime procedurals such as NCIS and FBI.

Paramount+ half price sale

This article contains affiliate links, we will receive a commission on any sales we generate from it. Learn more

£7.99

£3.99

Paramount+

Get Paramount+ here

Paramount+ is offering 50% off its Standard and Premium subscriptions until July 10.

“Marshals actually manages to serve both of its masters quite well,” they wrote.

“With its swelling score, sweeping cinematography, and gorgeous opening credits sequence (a dying art!), you’ll often find yourself wondering, ‘Wait, am I really watching a network procedural right now?’

“Marshals fires on all cylinders, sending the team on explosive missions that guarantee your Sunday nights will end with a bang.”

They concluded: “A visual treat with genuine heart, Marshals is enough of a crime procedural to appeal to viewers who enjoy a complete story told in 60 minutes, while also remaining prestigious enough to satisfy Yellowstone fans who might not typically watch a show like, say, S.W.A.T. or NCIS.”

Marshals: A Yellowstone Story premieres Sunday, 1st March on CBS and the following Monday on Paramount+.

For the latest showbiz, TV, movie and streaming news, go to the new **Everything Gossip** website.

Ensure our latest headlines always appear at the top of your Google Search by making us a Preferred Source.** Click here to activate**** or add us as your Preferred Source in your Google search settings.**

After spending decades criticising China, a succession of leaders from Western countries have been lining up to engage with its leadership.

In recent months, many of them have visited Beijing, seeking business opportunities.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz is the latest to land in China.

Merz says Beijing must not be overlooked when tackling the big global challenges.

United States President Donald Trump’s huge tariffs are said to have pushed Western countries closer to China.

But can China be an alternative?

And what does it have to offer?

Presenter: James Bays

Guests:

Jost Wubbeke – Managing partner at Sinolytics and an expert on China’s industrial policy, rare earths and supply chain strategy

Harry Broadman – Former assistant to the US trade representative

Dan Wang – Economist and director on Eurasia Group’s China team

At its peak, the BRICS coalition of economies – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – was seen as a serious attempt to move away from the United States dollar and the domination of Western economic institutions like the World Bank, Group of Seven (G7), and International Monetary Fund (IMF).

But BRICS members have different political agendas, and new forces are at play, argues economist Jim O’Neill, a member of Britain’s House of Lords.

O’Neill, who coined the term “BRIC” 25 years ago, tells host Steve Clemons that the US’s economic policies may be the driver of its own decline, coupled with the economic rise of China and India.

China reacted angrily to the CIA’s public campaign, launched in February 2026, to recruit spies from within the ranks of the Chinese military, vowing to take “all necessary measures” to protect its national security. The Chinese response to the “recruitment video” included an official warning: Foreign Ministry spokesperson “Lin Jian” stated that the attempts by forces hostile to China “will not succeed,” emphasizing that Beijing would resolutely counter foreign infiltration and sabotage operations. In addition to Beijing’s accusation that the United States engaged in blatant political provocation, the Chinese Embassy in Washington described the American recruitment video targeting Chinese military personnel as a “blatant political provocation” and an explicit admission by the United States of its attempts to steal other countries’ secrets. This was especially true given the nature of the video, released by the CIA, which featured Mandarin Chinese and targeted “disillusioned” Chinese military officers, exploiting corruption within the Chinese army and recent purges within the Chinese military leadership. While other foreign intelligence agencies typically maintain contact with sources and agents within both friendly and hostile militaries, observers noted that the 95-second CIA video was “unusually explicit,” as described by Newsweek magazine. This angered China, prompting it to lodge a formal protest through the Chinese Embassy in Washington.

To counter this American intelligence campaign, official Chinese measures to contain Western and American intelligence intensified. Beijing pursued a multi-pronged strategy to tighten the noose on espionage activities, including expanding the Anti-Espionage Law: China amended its laws to broaden the definition of “espionage” to include any data or documents that threaten national security, granting authorities greater powers to search and access electronic devices. (Increasing Public Awareness and “Reporting Hotlines”): The Chinese Ministry of State Security, which acts as China’s intelligence agency, encouraged citizens to report suspicious activities through substantial financial rewards and released educational videos on how to detect “foreign spies” who might be disguised as researchers or diplomats. (Chinese Technological Counter-Response): China used artificial intelligence and simulation tools to mock American recruitment videos, releasing videos that mimicked the same style to highlight “Wall Street corruption” and internal American crises. With (China’s purge of sensitive leaders): Beijing launched a widespread purge within the People’s Liberation Army, targeting high-ranking generals such as “Zhang Youxia” on charges of corruption and leaking sensitive information. With China’s expansion in drafting and enacting counter-sanctions laws: In March 2025, China activated new regulations for its Foreign Counter-Sanctions Law, allowing it to freeze assets and impose visa bans on any foreign individuals or entities that interfere in its internal affairs or threaten its security interests.

This confrontation comes at a time when reports indicate that the CIA is seeking to rebuild its human network in China after most of it was dismantled between 2010 and 2012. China has begun intensifying its internal security measures to counter Western espionage, particularly American espionage, by updating its anti-espionage laws, strengthening cybersecurity, and raising public awareness, targeting the activities of the CIA and Mossad. These efforts include strict data controls, protecting sensitive technology, dismantling spy recruitment networks, and considering Western espionage a direct security threat. Among the most prominent Chinese measures to contain Western and American intelligence activities are the following (updating anti-espionage laws): China has broadened the definition of espionage in its laws to include any documents, data, or materials related to national security, granting authorities wider powers to search and investigate suspects. (Strengthening cybersecurity): Beijing is conducting intensive campaigns to secure sensitive networks and data and is working to protect its digital infrastructure from infiltration, especially after reports indicating widespread cyber operations by Western actors. This is in addition to (Chinese security awareness campaigns): The Chinese Ministry of State Security (MSS) is urging citizens to report any suspicious activities, considering counter-espionage a societal responsibility. It has also published warnings about methods used to recruit spies. Along with Chinese authorities tightening control over foreigners and foreign companies in China, control has been intensified over foreign consultancies and companies that could be used as cover for intelligence activities, with a focus on uncovering foreign spies, whether affiliated with the CIA or any other foreign agency. Along with China’s emphasis on protecting technology and scientific research: Here, Beijing is taking strict measures to protect its technological and industrial secrets from theft, especially in the fields of artificial intelligence and computing, to prevent their exploitation to advance the interests of foreign countries.

This Chinese escalation comes at a time when US intelligence reports have described China as the “greatest overall military and security threat” to the interests of the United States and its allies, further intensifying the intelligence conflict between the two sides. Therefore, China began taking strict and decisive measures to contain Western and American intelligence activities within the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). These measures include strengthening information security through the Information Support Force, enforcing anti-espionage laws, and increasing internal oversight to ensure the protection of national security and development interests from infiltration and sabotage. The most prominent measures include tightening digital surveillance by enhancing capabilities in electronic espionage, signals intelligence, and cybersecurity to counter any breaches; strengthening internal security by tightening security measures around personnel and sensitive data to prevent recruitment or leaks; and activating the role of the Ministry of State Security domestically. The Chinese intelligence ministry, “MSS,” has become highly effective in combating foreign espionage, particularly American espionage, and in maintaining political security within military and civilian institutions. The Chinese authorities also established the Information Support Force: this force was created to promote the development and implementation of secure network information systems, thereby enhancing the army’s ability to repel infiltrations. With China’s keenness to modernize its anti-espionage laws, it has taken strict measures against infiltration and sabotage activities, pledging to protect China’s national security.

Based on the preceding analysis, we understand that these Chinese security measures are a response to intensive US intelligence efforts to recruit informants within the Chinese military, which has provoked Beijing’s ire and resentment. This is especially true given the sensitive timing for the Chinese military establishment, coming just weeks after another senior officer was implicated in President Xi Jinping’s anti-corruption campaign within the army. The video released by the CIA showing the recruitment and targeting of Chinese military personnel represents the latest episode in a US intelligence campaign targeting Chinese military personnel on social media. This campaign, which openly targets China, has been described by CIA Director “John Ratcliffe” as the agency’s top intelligence priority amidst what he called a generational competition with Beijing.

Speaking at the annual Munich Security Conference on Saturday, United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio urged European countries to collaborate with the US to build a “new Western century”, describing US-Europe ties as “civilisational”.

“We are part of one civilisation – Western civilisation,” he said.

His rallying speech comes after more than a year of President Donald Trump’s rhetoric about mass immigration in Europe and his administration’s latest National Security Strategy, which warns of “civilisational erasure” in Europe.

Last year, US Vice President JD Vance also lambasted European “liberal values” in his first address at the security conference.

As European leaders grapple with the rise of far-right political parties, how will they respond to this new demand from the US, and what does it mean for the future of transatlantic relations?

What did Rubio say?

The top US diplomat focused on several key areas he views as imperative for Europe to address, which included ending “liberalist” policies the Trump administration views as responsible for Europe’s “post-war decline”, creating new supply chains to reduce reliance on countries such as China, and ending mass migration, which he said is leading to the erasure of Western “civilisation”.

“The work of this new alliance,” Rubio said, “should not be focused just on military cooperation and reclaiming the industries of the past. It should also be focused on, together, advancing our mutual interests and new frontiers, unshackling our ingenuity, our creativity, and the dynamic spirit to build a new Western century.”

Liberalism and mass migration

Rubio argued that the “euphoria” of the Western victory in the Cold War had led to a “dangerous delusion that we had entered ‘the end of history’”, where every nation would be a liberal democracy and “live in a world without borders, where everyone became a citizen of the world”.

He used this as a plank to lash out against opening “doors to an unprecedented wave of mass migration that threatens the cohesion of our societies, the continuity of our culture, and the future of our people”.

“Mass migration is not, was not, isn’t some fringe concern of little consequence. It was and continues to be a crisis which is transforming and destabilising societies all across the West,” he said.

Taking aim at liberalist policies, he added that, to “appease a climate cult, we have imposed energy policies on ourselves that are impoverishing our people”.

New supply chains

Rubio said the US and its allies should bring more industry and jobs back home, not just to build weapons but to lead in new, high‑tech fields.

He added that the West should control key minerals and supply chains, invest in space travel and artificial intelligence, and work together to win markets in the Global South.

In particular, he said, is the need for a “Western supply chain for critical minerals not vulnerable to extortion from other powers”.

Earlier this month, Trump hosted ministers from dozens of countries for a critical minerals conference in Washington. The meeting was the first of a new Critical Minerals Ministerial, a US initiative to build alliances aimed at countering China’s control over critical mineral supply chains around the world.

What does a ‘new Western century’ mean?

While the overarching message of Rubio’s speech was that the US still seeks a partnership with Europe, said Trita Parsi, executive vice president of think tank Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, his remarks revealed, “The US will entirely set the parameters of that partnership and that it will be based on ideas Europe long has abandoned: An embrace of empire and colonisation.”

Rubio’s remarks at the conference suggest that the US under Trump wants Europe to accept “a civilisational divide of the world in which the ‘West’ must restore its dominance over other civilisations”, Parsi told Al Jazeera.

“In essence, Rubio listed the criteria for how Europe can become well-behaved vassals of the United States,” he said.

How did European leaders react to Rubio’s speech?

European leaders appeared to welcome Rubio’s speech at the conference; it was followed by a standing ovation. However, while lauding his call for stronger ties with the US, they notably did not address his comments about migration and liberal values.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told reporters on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference: “We know that in the [Trump] administration, some have a harsher tone on these topics. But the secretary of state was very clear. He said, ‘We want [a] strong Europe in the alliance’, and this is what we are working for intensively in the European Union.”

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot responded to Rubio’s speech: “Referring to [our] common legacy can only be welcomed with applause in Europe.”

“We will deliver a strong and independent Europe,” he said. “Independent, of course, irrespective of the speeches that we hear at the Munich Security Conference, however right they may be.”

Calling Rubio a “true partner”, German Foreign Minister John Wadephul said: “[It was] a very clear message from Secretary Rubio that we have … to stay and stick to our international rules-based order, which is, of course, in [the] first line the United Nations. This is our Board of Peace. We have to make it more effective, as Rubio said this morning.”

Finnish Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen said she was “very satisfied with the tone” and the content of Rubio’s speech.

What does this mean for Europe?

European leaders have been facing a dilemma – particularly over migration and defence – for some time, for a number of reasons. The mass migration crisis prompted by unrest in other parts of the world has already caused far-right parties to surge in popularity. Now, the Trump administration has voiced support for many of these parties and is also urging Europe to take stronger action on migration and defence.

Therefore, many European leaders have already started taking action in these areas.

For instance, most European countries are already working on boosting their defences and cracking down on migration.

Last year, the United Kingdom announced plans for a big boost in defence spending in advance of Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s meeting with Trump early last year amid fears the US would withdraw support for Ukraine in its war with Russia. Notably, Rubio skipped a meeting about Ukraine with European leaders at the Munich conference.

Many countries have also tightened controls over immigration. Denmark has led the way in implementing increasingly restrictive policies in its immigration and asylum system, with top leaders aiming for “zero asylum seekers” arriving in the country. Recently, the UK said it was studying the Danish model as well.

Europe is also working to make its energy and technology supply chains more sovereign, reducing dependence on foreign suppliers, particularly in the face of Trump’s trade war, which has seen him impose reciprocal trade tariffs on many countries around the world.

Many European leaders have come under increasing pressure from the rise in popularity of far-right parties calling for greater restrictions on immigration, as well.

In recent years, far-right, anti-immigration sentiment has been increasing in countries like the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and France. In 2023, the far-right Party for Freedom (PVV), led by Geert Wilders, won the election in the Netherlands. France’s National Rally (RN), led by Marine Le Pen, won the snap election in 2024. The same year, Nigel Farage’s right-wing Reform UK party made significant inroads in the general elections and, last year, a YouGov poll placed Reform as the UK’s most popular political party.

Besides this, ideas which were once far-right fringe notions, such as remigration – the notion of forcibly expelling non-white European citizens – are gaining traction among far-right conservatives in Europe. The idea has been promoted by Herbert Kickl, the leader of Austria’s far-right anti-immigration Freedom Party (FPO) and Alice Weidel, the leader of the AfD in Germany.

While some European leaders have geared up to resist the rise of far-right politics – partly by appeasing them with new, more restrictive migration policies – Trump has, however, embraced it.

What does this mean for US-Europe relations?

All this ultimately means that “Europe has a choice to make”, said Trita Parsi, executive vice president at the think tank Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. “It can pursue strategic autonomy and seek to find a balance between the great powers, and within that seek a dignified partnership with America in which it is not subjugated into vassalage.”

“[Or] Europe can continue on its current path in which it subordinates itself slowly but surely fully to Washington’s interests, priorities, impulses, and ideas about civilisational empire,” he told Al Jazeera.

Parsi pointed to the standing ovation at the conference that followed Rubio’s speech, simply for offering to remain partners with Europe.

“Whether they disregarded Rubio’s parameters, did not understand them, or simply found it unimportant because Europe desires to be a junior partner to the United States regardless of the parameters, remains to be seen,” he said.

For their part, European leaders appeared to place the greatest importance on repairing US-Europe relations above all else at the Munich Security Conference.

During his address at the conference on Friday, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz called on the US and Europe to “repair and revive transatlantic trust together”. “Let me begin with the uncomfortable truth: A rift, a deep divide has opened between Europe and the United States,” he said.

“Vice President JD Vance said this a year ago here in Munich. He was right in his description,” Merz said, as he called for a “new transatlantic partnership”.

Caracas, February 15, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – US President Donald Trump is considering a visit to Venezuela, though he did not specify when the trip might take place or what agenda it would entail.

“I’m going to make a visit to Venezuela,” Trump told reporters outside the White House on Friday. 

The US President addressed the press ahead of a trip to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, to meet soldiers who participated in the January 3 military attacks against Venezuela and the kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores.

Questioned by a journalist, Trump stated that Washington recognizes the Venezuelan government led by Acting President Delcy Rodríguez as the country’s legitimate authority.

“We are dealing with them, and they have done a great job,” he stated. The White House refused comment on whether the recognition was the administration’s official stance.

In 2019, the first Trump administration recognized the self-proclaimed “interim government” headed by Juan Guaidó as the country’s legitimate authority, prompting the Maduro government to sever diplomatic ties. The US later transferred its recognition to the defunct opposition-controlled National Assembly whose term expired in January 2021.

Since the January 3 attacks, Caracas and Washington have fast-tracked a diplomatic rapprochement, with US Chargé d’Affaires Laura Dogu arriving in the Caribbean nation in early February. An official recognition of the Rodríguez acting government could pave the way for the restructuring of Venezuela’s sizable foreign debt.

In his Friday press remarks, Trump further described relations with Venezuelan leaders as being “as good as one could hope for,” and added that “the relationship with Venezuela today is a 10.”

Trump additionally highlighted progress in Venezuela’s oil sector.

“Oil is flowing, and other nations are paying a lot of money for it, and we are handling it. We are refining it,” he said. Since January, the White House has imposed control of Venezuelan oil exports, with proceeds deposited in bank accounts in Qatar before being partly rerouted to Caracas under US-set conditions.

Earlier last week, Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez emphasized in an NBC interview that Maduro remains the country’s legitimate president. She also disclosed that she has spoken twice with Trump and has had “more frequent” contact with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and expressed “gratitude” for the “respectful and courteous” nature of the talks.

Venezuela’s acting president went on to announce that she has likewise been invited to visit the US. “We are considering going once we establish cooperation and can move forward with everything,” she said.

The invitation reportedly arose during a recent visit to Caracas by US Energy Secretary Chris Wright, who was hosted by Rodríguez at Miraflores Palace on Wednesday. 

Wright and Rodríguez later toured the Petroindependencia crude upgrader, a mixed venture between Venezuela’s state-owned PDVSA and Chevron, in the Orinoco Oil Belt.

The Trump administration official announced that Chevron would invest US $100 million to modernize operational facilities, with the goal of “doubling [Petroindependencia’s] productive capacity within 12 to 18 months and quintupling it within five years.” Petroindependencia has a current output of 40,000 barrels per day (bpd).

US issues new oil licenses

Following Wright’s Venezuela visit, the US Treasury Department issued two general licenses, 49 and 50, aimed at boosting conditions for Western multinational corporations to operate in Venezuela’s energy sector.

The first license allows for the negotiation and signing of future investment contracts, contingent upon the potential issuance of a specific license. The second waiver authorizes Chevron, BP, Eni, Shell, and Repsol to conduct transactions and operations related to hydrocarbon projects with PDVSA or any other Venezuelan public entity.

Repsol (Spain) and Eni (Italy), like Chevron, participate in oil and gas joint ventures in the South American country, whereas the UK-headquartered Shell and BP are set to lead offshore natural gas projects alongside Trinidad and Tobago’s National Gas Company (NGC) in Venezuelan waters. 

However, GL50 requires that any contracts fall under US jurisdiction and mandates that all payments to “blocked” entities—as sanctions against PDVSA and Venezuela’s banking system remain in place—be made to accounts designated by the US Treasury.

It also explicitly prohibits transactions involving any person or entity linked to Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, or China, as well as vessels sanctioned by Washington.

The Trump administration has loosened restrictions against the Venezuelan energy sector, including allowing the import of US diluents, inputs and technology, following a recent pro-business overhaul of the country’s Hydrocarbon Law. The reform granted expanded benefits for private corporations, including reduced fiscal responsibilities and expanded control over operations and sales.

Upon leaving Caracas, Energy Secretary Wright claimed that “structural reforms” would continue in Venezuela, with changes to “labor laws, the court system and the banking system.”

Edited and with additional reporting by Ricardo Vaz from Caracas.

Thousands of Western nationals joined the Israeli military amid its genocidal war in Gaza, raising questions over international legal accountability for foreign nationals implicated in alleged war crimes against Palestinians.

More than 50,000 soldiers in the Israeli military hold at least one other citizenship, with a majority of them holding US or European passports, information obtained by the Israeli NGO Hatzlacha through Israel’s Freedom of Information Law has revealed.

Since October 7, 2023, Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza has killed at least 72,061 people in military actions that have been dubbed war crimes and crimes against humanity by rights groups.

Rights organisations around the world have been trying to identify and prosecute foreign nationals, many of whom have posted videos of their abuse on social media, for their involvement in war crimes, particularly in Gaza.

So, what does the first such data reveal about the Israeli military? And what could be the legal implications for dual-national soldiers?

Which foreign nationals enlist most in the Israeli military?

At least 12,135 soldiers enlisted in the Israeli military hold United States passports, topping the list by a huge margin. That is in addition to 1,207 soldiers who possess another passport in addition to their US and Israeli ones.

The data – shared with Al Jazeera by Israeli lawyer Elad Man, who serves as the legal counsel for Hatzlacha – shows that 6,127 French nationals serve in the Israeli military.

The Israeli military, which shared such data for the first time, noted that soldiers holding multiple citizenships are counted more than once in the breakdown.

The numbers show service members enlisted in the military as of March 2025, 17 months into Israel’s devastating war in Gaza.

Russia stands at third, with 5,067 nationals serving in the Israeli military, followed by 3,901 Ukrainians and 1,668 Germans.

The data revealed that 1,686 soldiers in the military held dual British-Israeli citizenship, in addition to 383 other soldiers who held another passport in addition to their British and Israeli ones.

South Africa, which brought a case of genocide against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), also had 589 of its citizens serving in the Israeli military ranks.

Furthermore, 1,686 soldiers hold Brazilian citizenship, 609  Argentine, 505 Canadian, 112 Colombian, and 181 Mexican, in addition to their Israeli nationality.

Israel’s military comprises an estimated 169,000 active personnel and 465,000 reservists – of whom nearly eight percent hold dual or multiple citizenships.

Can dual nationals be tried for war crimes in Gaza?

Ilias Bantekas, a professor of transnational law at Hamad Bin Khalifa University in Qatar, told Al Jazeera that “war crimes incur criminal liability under international law, irrespective of what the law of nationality says”.

Otherwise, Nazi Germans, whose law allowed and obliged them to commit atrocities, would incur no liability, Bantekas added. “Dual nationality is immaterial to criminal liability,” he said.

However, the major issue in prosecuting the accused “is getting [them] on your territory and putting them before a court”, he noted.

Bantekas also added that there is no difference in the question of liability between native soldiers and those of dual nationalities.

Dual nationals, in fact, “may in addition be liable under laws that prevent military service in foreign conflicts or joining armies of other nations”, the professor said.

Prosecuting foreign nationals has been “pretty much the norm”, he noted.

“Think of Nazi Germans tried by Allied war crimes tribunals after World War II, Japanese officers tried by US military courts, and crimes committed during the Bosnian conflict where alleged offenders were tried by various courts in Europe,” Bantekas told Al Jazeera.

Last May, the United Kingdom’s Foreign Office said that allegations of war crimes should be submitted to the Metropolitan Police.

“The UK recognises the right of British dual nationals to serve in the legitimately recognised armed forces of the country of their other nationality,” it said. “Allegations of war crimes should be submitted to the Met Police for investigation.”

Have foreign nationals been tried for Gaza war crimes?

Nationals with dual or multiple citizenships have not yet been arrested for committing war crimes in Gaza. But rights groups, including lawyers, are trying to get them prosecuted.

In the UK last April, the Gaza-based Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) and the UK-based Public Interest Law Centre (PILC) filed a 240-page report to the Metropolitan Police.

Accusations against the 10 British individuals, whose names have not been publicly disclosed, include murder, forcible transfer of people, and attacks on humanitarian personnel, between October 2023 and May 2024.

In September last year, a case was filed in Germany against a 25-year-old soldier, born and raised in Munich, for participating in the killing of Palestinian civilians in Gaza, by PCHR, the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), Al-Haq, and the Al Mezan Center for Human Rights.

The sniper, with shootings documented near Gaza’s al-Quds and Nasser hospitals between November 2023 and March 2024, was a member of a unit known as “Refaim”, “ghost” in Hebrew.

Legal proceedings against members of the same unit are also under way in France, Italy, South Africa, and Belgium.

The Belgian public prosecutor’s office also opened a judicial investigation last October into a 21-year-old Belgian-Israeli citizen, a member of Refaim.

The mandatory military service law in Israel exempts dual nationals residing abroad, making the enlistment a voluntary act, an important distinction when such crimes are tried in foreign courts. Lawyers have reportedly noted that the voluntary nature of the soldiers’ service makes them more liable for alleged crimes.

What does international law say about soldiers in foreign wars?

South Africa brought its case to the ICJ in December 2023, arguing that Israel’s war in Gaza violates the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

While a final ruling could take years, the ICJ issued provisional measures in January 2024 ordering Israel to take steps to prevent acts of genocide in Gaza and to allow unimpeded access for humanitarian aid. But Israel has continued curb the supply of aid into Gaza in violation of the ICJ interim order.

Under the 1948 Genocide Convention, countries that are party to the treaty have a binding obligation to prevent and punish genocide. Countries can investigate and prosecute individuals who may have committed or been complicit in this crime.

In March last year, the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) announced the “Global 195” campaign to hold Israeli and dual-national individuals accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

The coalition aims to work simultaneously within multiple jurisdictions to apply for private arrest warrants and initiate legal proceedings against those implicated, including the Israeli military members and the entire Israeli military and political command in its scope.

For countries that are parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), there is an additional layer, where the ICC can assert its jurisdiction. Palestine has been a state party since 2015.

The State of Palestine is recognised as a sovereign nation by 157 of the 193 UN member states, representing 81 percent of the international community. Most recently, it has been recognised by France, Belgium, Canada, Australia, and the UK.

A foreign national, whose country considers Palestine a “friendly state”, would also be vulnerable to prosecution for participating in the Israeli military’s war crimes in Gaza.

How is the Hind Rajab Foundation tracking alleged war criminals?

The Hind Rajab Foundation – named to honour a five-year-old Palestinian girl whose killing by Israeli soldiers on January 29, 2024 became emblematic of Israel’s genocide in Gaza – has been amassing troves of data with identifiable information about Israeli soldiers.

The Belgium-based foundation is the force behind an international effort for accountability over war crimes in Gaza – and has since filed several cases, including a landmark challenge targeting 1,000 Israeli soldiers.

The foundation identified numerous individuals with dual citizenship, including 12 from France, 12 from the US, four from Canada, three from the UK, and two from the Netherlands, in the complaint.

The foundation has scoured TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube, where the Israeli soldiers boast about atrocities in Gaza, to collect information on the soldiers. It has been using those pieces of evidence to pursue the trail of the accused for war crimes.

“We are in possession of many more profiles of dual nationals beyond the 1,000 soldiers named in our complaint to the ICC. We will be pursuing legal action against all of them in the national courts of their respective countries,” the foundation had said in October 2024. “Impunity must end, everywhere.”

The Hind Rajab Foundation says it pursues criminal accountability for Israeli war criminals, from those who planned and ordered operations to those who executed them, including foreign nationals who have participated in or financed these crimes.

Its founder, Dyab Abou Jahjah, was also threatened by Israeli Minister of Diaspora Affairs Amichai Chikli, who told him to “watch your pager” in a post on X, an allusion to deadly attacks on Hezbollah members’ communication systems in September 2024. At least 12 people were killed and more than 3,000 people were wounded when thousands of pagers were detonated by Israeli operatives during those attacks.

In January last year, a complaint filed by the Hind Rajab Foundation led to a Brazilian judge ordering an investigation into an Israeli soldier vacationing in the country. The soldier had to flee, prompting the Israeli military to order all troops who participated in combat to conceal their identities.

“Criminal liability under international law cannot be dissolved by time bars. It extends forever, and no statute of limitations is applicable,” said Bantekas of Hamad Bin Khalifa University.

However, prosecuting Israeli military members “is practically difficult for two reasons”, he said, noting the difficulty of obtaining firsthand evidence and the wariness of national prosecutors who may fear political or other repercussions.

“If public opinion and political opinion in Europe shifts far more in favour of Palestine than it is now, then national prosecutions will feel more at ease to initiate prosecutions,” he told Al Jazeera.

From the ostentatious baroque square of Quattro Canti all the way up to the Teatro Massimo, Palermo’s Via Maqueda is thick with tourists. Pomegranate juice sellers are setting up pyramids of fruit on their carts at gaps in the crowd and waiters are trying to reel in passersby with happy hour prices for Aperol spritzes. Amid the noise and movement, it’s easy to walk straight past number 206, whose arched doorway features a stone cross stained black with dirt – a clue to the building’s former use.

Convento dei Crociferi was abandoned for 30 years, until Sicilian power couple Andrea Bartoli and Florinda Saievi took over and transformed it into Palermo’s newest arts space, the Museum of World Cities, due to open at the end of February. Inside, a cloister with high, scalloped porticoes frames a verdant courtyard filled with palms and banana trees. Bartoli comes to meet me and enthusiastically pumps my hand before leading me up to the grand, marble-floored rooms on the first floor, which have been given over to a rather self-referential exhibition on urban change.