KYIV — Russia broke an energy truce brokered by U.S. President Donald Trump after just four days on Tuesday, hitting Ukraine’s power plants and grid with more than 450 drones and 70 missiles. “The strikes hit Sumy and Kharkiv regions, Kyiv region and the capital, as well as Dnipro, Odesa, and Vinnytsia regions. As of now, nine people have been reported injured as a result of the attack,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in a morning statement. The Russian strike occurred half-way through a truce on energy infrastructure attacks that was supposed to last a week, and only a day before Russian, Ukrainian and American negotiators are scheduled to meet in Abu Dhabi for the next round of peace talks.   The attack, especially on power plants and heating plants in Kyiv, Kharkiv and Dnipro, left hundreds of thousands of families without heat when the temperature outside was −25 degress Celsius, Ukrainian Energy Minister Denys Shmyhal said. “Putin waited for the temperatures to drop and stockpiled drones and missiles to continue his genocidal attacks against the Ukrainian people. Neither anticipated diplomatic efforts in Abu Dhabi this week nor his promises to the United States kept him from continuing terror against ordinary people in the harshest winter,” said Andrii Sybiha, the Ukrainian foreign minister. Last Thursday, Trump said Putin had promised he would not bomb Ukraine’s energy infrastructure for a week. Zelenskyy had said that while it was not an officially agreed ceasefire, it was an opportunity to de-escalate the war and Kyiv would not hit Russian oil refineries in response. “This very clearly shows what is needed from our partners and what can help. Without pressure on Russia, there will be no end to this war. Right now, Moscow is choosing terror and escalation, and that is why maximum pressure is required. I thank all our partners who understand this and are helping us,” Zelenskyy said.

Yanmei Xie is senior associate fellow at the Mercator Institute for China Studies. After Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney spoke at Davos last week, a whole continent contracted leadership envy. Calling the rules-based order — which Washington proselytized for decades before stomping on — a mirage, Carney gave his country’s neighboring hegemonic bully a rhetorical middle finger, and Europeans promptly swooned. But before the bloc’s politicians rush to emulate him, it may be worth cooling the Carney fever. Appearing both steely and smooth in his Davos speech, Carney warned middle powers that “when we only negotiate bilaterally with a hegemon, we negotiate from weakness.” Perhaps this was in reference to the crass daily coercion Canada has been enduring from the U.S. administration. But perhaps he was talking about the subtler asymmetry he experienced just days before in Beijing. In contrast to his defiance in Switzerland, Carney was ingratiating during his China visit. He signed Canada up for a “new strategic partnership” in preparation for an emerging “new world order,” and lauded Chinese leader Xi Jinping as a fellow defender of multilateralism. The visit also produced a cars-for-canola deal, which will see Canada slash tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles from 100 percent to 6.1 percent, and lift the import cap to 49,000 cars per year. In return, China will cut duties on Canadian canola seeds from 84 percent to 15 percent. In time, Ottawa also expects Beijing will reduce tariffs on Canadian lobsters, crabs and peas later this year and purchase more Canadian oil and perhaps gas, too. The agreement to launch a Ministerial Energy Dialogue will surely pave the way for eventual deals. These productive exchanges eventually moved Carney to declare Beijing a “more predictable” trade partner than Washington. And who can blame him? He was simply stating the obvious — after all, China isn’t threatening Canada with annexation. But one is tempted to wonder if he would have needed to flatter quite so much in China if his country still possessed some of the world’s leading technologies. The truth is, Canada’s oil and gas industry probably shouldn’t really be holding its breath. Chinese officials typically offer serious consideration rather than outright rejection out of politeness — just ask Russia, which has spent decades in dialogue with Beijing over a pipeline meant to replace Europe as a natural gas market. The cars-for-canola deal also carries a certain irony: Canada is importing the very technology that makes fossil fuels obsolete. China is electrifying at dizzying speed, with the International Energy Agency projecting its oil consumption will peak as early as next year thanks to “extraordinary” electric vehicle sales. That means Beijing probably isn’t desperate for new foreign suppliers of hydrocarbons, and the ministerial dialogue will likely drag on inconclusively — albeit courteously — well into the future. This state of Sino-Canadian trade can be seen as classic comparative advantage at work: China is good at making things, and Canada has abundant primary commodities. But in the not-so-distant past, it was Canadian companies that were selling nuclear reactors, telecom equipment, aircraft and bullet trains to China. Yet today, many of these once globe-spanning Canadian high-tech manufacturers have either exited the scene or lead a much-reduced existence. Somewhere in this trading history lies a cautionary tale for Europe. Deindustrialization can have its own self-reinforcing momentum. As a country’s economic composition changes, so does its political economy. When producers of goods disappear, so does their political influence. And the center of lobbying gravity shifts toward downstream users and consumers who prefer readily available imports. Europe’s indigenous solar manufacturers have been driven to near extinction by much cheaper Chinese products | STR/AFP via Getty Images Europe already has its own version of this story: Its indigenous solar manufacturers have been driven to near extinction by much cheaper Chinese products over the span of two decades. Currently, its solar industry is dominated by installers and operators who favor cheap imports and oppose trade defense. Simply put, Carney’s cars-for-canola deal is a salve for Canadian consumers and commodity producers, but it’s also industrial policy in reverse. In overly simplified terms, industrial policy is about encouraging exports of finished products over raw materials and discouraging the opposite in order to build domestic value-added capacity and productivity. But while Canada can, perhaps, make do without industry — as Carney put it in Davos, his ambition is to run “an energy superpower” — Europe doesn’t have that option. Agri-food and extractive sectors aren’t enough to stand up the continent’s economy — even with the likes of tourism and luxury goods thrown in. China currently exports more than twice as much to the EU than it imports. In container terms, the imbalance widens to 4-to-1. Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs estimates Chinese exports will shave 0.2 percentage point or more of GDP growth in Germany, Spain and Italy each year through 2029. And according to the European Central Bank, cars, chemicals, electric equipment and machinery — sectors that form Europe’s industrial backbone — face the most severe job losses from China trade shock. Europe shares Canada’s plight in dealing with the U.S., which currently isn’t just an unreliable trade partner but also an ally turned imperialist. This is why Carney’s speech resonates. But U.S. protectionism has only made China’s mercantilism a more acute challenge for Europe, as the U.S. resists the bloc’s exports and Chinese goods keep pouring into Europe in greater quantities at lower prices. European leaders would be mistaken to look for trade relief in China as Carney does, and bargain away the continent’s industrial capacity in the process. Whether it’s to resist an expansionist Russia or an imperial U.S., Europe still needs to hold on to its manufacturing base.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s increasingly overt attempts to bring down the Cuban government are forcing Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum into a delicate diplomatic dance. Mexico is the U.S.’s largest trading partner. It is also the primary supplier of oil to Cuba since the U.S. seized control of Venezuela’s crude. Now, Sheinbaum must manage her relationship with a mercurial Trump, who has at times both praised her leadership and threatened to send the U.S. military into her country to combat drug trafficking — all while appeasing her left-wing party Morena, factions of which have historically aligned themselves with Cuba’s communist regime. That balance became even more difficult for Sheinbaum this week following reports that Mexico’s state-run oil company, Pemex, paused a shipment of oil headed for Cuba, which is grappling with shortages following the U.S. military action earlier this month in Venezuela. Asked about the suspension, the Mexican president said only that oil shipments are a “sovereign” decision and that future action will be taken on a “humanitarian” basis. On Thursday, Trump ramped up the pressure, declared a national emergency over what he couched as threats posed by the Cuban government and authorized the use of new tariffs against any country that sells or provides oil to the island. The order gives the administration broad discretion to impose duties on imports from countries deemed to be supplying Cuba, dramatically raising the stakes for Mexico as it weighs how far it can go without triggering economic retaliation from Washington — or worse. “It’s the proverbial shit hitting the fan in terms of the spillover effects that would have,” said Arturo Sarukhán, former Mexican ambassador to the U.S., referring to the possibility of a Pemex tanker being intercepted. Sheinbaum still refuses to hit back too hard against Trump, preferring to speak publicly in diplomatic platitudes even as she faces new pressure. Her posture stands in marked contrast to Canada’s Mark Carney, whose speech at Davos, urging world leaders to stand up to Trump, went viral and drew a swift rebuke from the White House and threats of new tariffs. But the latest episode is characteristic of Sheinbaum’s approach to Trump over the last year — one that has, so far, helped her avoid the kinds of headline-grabbing public ruptures that have plagued Carney, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and French President Emmanuel Macron. Still, former Mexican officials say Trump’s threats — though not specific to Mexico — have triggered quiet debate inside the Mexican government over how much risk Sheinbaum can afford to absorb and how hard she should push back. “My sense is that right now, at least because of what’s at stake in the counter-narcotics and law enforcement agenda bilaterally, I think that neither government right now wants to turn this into a casus belli,” Sarukhán added. “But I do think that in the last weeks, the U.S. pressure on Mexico has risen to such a degree where you do have a debate inside the Mexican government as to what the hell do we do with this issue?” A White House official, granted anonymity to speak candidly about the administration’s approach, said that Trump is “addressing the depredations of the communist Cuban regime by taking decisive action to hold the Cuban regime accountable for its support of hostile actors, terrorism, and regional instability that endanger American security and foreign policy.” “As the President stated, Cuba is now failing on its own volition,” the official added. “Cuba’s rulers have had a major setback with the Maduro regime that they are responsible for propping up.” Sheinbaum, meanwhile, responded to Trump’s latest executive order during her Friday press conference by warning that it could “trigger a large-scale humanitarian crisis, directly affecting hospitals, food supplies, and other basic services for the Cuban people.” “Mexico will pursue different alternatives, while clearly defending the country’s interests, to provide humanitarian assistance to the Cuban people, who are going through a difficult moment, in line with our tradition of solidarity and respect for international norms,” Sheinbaum said. The Mexican embassy in Washington declined further comment. Cuba’s Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez, in a post on X, accused the U.S. of “resorting to blackmail and coercion in an attempt to make other countries to join its universally condemned blockade policy against Cuba.” The pressure on Sheinbaum to respond has collided with real political constraints at home. Morena has long maintained ideological and historical ties to Cuba, and Sheinbaum faces criticism from within her coalition over any move that could be seen as abandoning Havana. At the same time, she has come under growing domestic scrutiny over why Mexico should continue supplying oil abroad as fuel prices and energy concerns persist at home, making the “humanitarian” framing both a diplomatic shield and a political necessity. Amid the controversy over the oil shipment, Trump and Sheinbaum spoke by phone Thursday morning, with Trump describing the conversation afterward as “very productive” and praising Sheinbaum as a “wonderful and highly intelligent Leader.” Sheinbaum’s remarks after the call point to how she is navigating the issue through ambiguity rather than direct confrontation, noting that the two did not discuss Cuba. She described it as a “productive and cordial conversation” and that the two leaders would “continue to make progress on trade issues and on the bilateral relationship.” With the upcoming review of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement on trade looming, even the appearance of defying Trump’s push to cut off Cuba’s oil lifelines carries the potential for economic and diplomatic blowback. It also could undo the quiet partnership the U.S. and Mexico have struck on border security and drug trafficking issues. Gerónimo Gutiérrez, who served as Mexican ambassador to the U.S. during the first Trump administration, described Sheinbaum’s approach as “squish and muddle through.” “She obviously is trying to tread carefully with Trump. She doesn’t want to irritate him with this matter,” Gutiérrez said, adding that “she knows that it’s a problem.” Meanwhile, Cuba’s vulnerability has only deepened since the collapse of Venezuela’s oil support following this month’s U.S. operation that ousted President Nicolás Maduro. For years, Venezuelan crude served as a lifeline for the island, a gap Mexico has increasingly helped fill, putting the country squarely in Washington’s crosshairs as Trump squeezes Havana. With fuel shortages in Cuba triggering rolling blackouts and deepening economic distress, former U.S. officials who served in Cuba and regional analysts warn that Trump’s push to choke off remaining oil supplies could hasten a broader collapse — even as there is little clarity about how Washington would manage the political, humanitarian or regional fallout if the island tips over the edge. Trump has openly suggested that outcome is inevitable, telling reporters in Iowa on Tuesday that “Cuba will be failing pretty soon,” even as he pushed back on Thursday that the idea he was trying to “choke off” the country. “The word ‘choke off’ is awfully tough,” Trump said. “It looks like it’s not something that’s going to be able to survive. I think Cuba will not be able to survive.” The administration, however, has offered few details about what would come next, and Latin American analysts warn that the U.S. and Mexico are likely to face an influx of migrants — including to Florida and the Yucatán Peninsula — seeking refuge should Cuba collapse. There is no evidence that the Trump administration has formally asked Mexico to halt oil shipments to Cuba. Trump’s executive order leaves it to the president’s Cabinet to determine whether a country is supplying oil to Cuba and the rate at which it should be tariffed — an unusual deferral of power for a president for whom tariffs are a favorite negotiating tool. But former U.S. officials say that absence of an explicit demand to Mexico does not mean the pressure is theoretical. Lawrence Gumbiner, who served as chargé d’affaires at the U.S. embassy in Havana during the first Trump administration, believes Washington would be far more likely to lean on economic pressure than the kind of military force it has used to seize Venezuelan oil tankers. At the same time, the administration’s push on Venezuela began with a similar executive order last spring. “There’s no doubt that the U.S. is telling Mexico to just stop it,” Gumbiner said. “I think there’s a much slimmer chance that we would engage our military to actually stop Mexican oil from coming through. That would be a last resort. But with this administration you cannot completely discount the possibility of a physical blockade of the island if they decide that it’s the final step in strangling the island.”

LONDON — U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer is braced for a meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping — and there’ll be more than a few elephants in the room. Though Britain has improved its relationship with China following the more combative approach of previous Conservative administrations, a litany of concerns over national security and human rights continues to dog Labour’s attempted refresh. Starmer, who will meet the Chinese president in Beijing Thursday morning, told reporters engaging with China means he can discuss “issues where we disagree.”   “You know that in the past, on all the trips I’ve done, I’ve always raised issues that need to be raised,” he said during a huddle with journalists on the British Airways flight to China on Tuesday evening. In a sign of how hard it can be to engage on more tricky subjects, Chinese officials bundled the British press out of the room when Starmer tried to bring up undesirable topics the last time the pair met. From hacking and spying to China’s foreign policy aims, POLITICO has a handy guide to all the ways Starmer could rile up the Chinese president. 1) STATE-SPONSORED HACKING China is one of the biggest offenders in cyberspace and is regarded by the U.K.’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) — part of Britain’s GCHQ intelligence agency — as a “highly sophisticated threat actor.” The Electoral Commission said it has taken three years to recover from a Chinese hack of its systems. The Chinese state, and private companies linked directly or obliquely to its cyber and espionage agencies, have been directly accused by the British government, its intelligence agencies and allies. As recently as last month, the U.K. government sanctioned two Chinese companies — both named by the U.S. as linked to Chinese intelligence — for hacking Britain and its allies. 2) ACTIONS AGAINST BRITISH PARLIAMENTARIANS Politicians in Britain who have spoken out against Chinese human rights abuses and hostile activity have been censured by Beijing in recent years. This includes the sanctioning of 5 British MPs in 2021, including the former security minister Tom Tugendhat, who has been banned from entering the country. Last year, Liberal Democrat MP Wera Hobhouse was refused entry to Hong Kong while attempting to visit her grandson, and was turned back by officials. The government said that the case was raised with Chinese authorities during a visit to China by Douglas Alexander, who was trade minister at the time. 3) JIMMY LAI In 2020, the British-Hong Kong businessman and democracy campaigner Jimmy Lai was arrested under national security laws imposed by Beijing and accused of colluding with a foreign state. Lai — who is in his late 70s — has remained in prison ever since. Last month, a Hong Kong court convicted Lai of three offenses following what his supporters decried as a 156-day show trial. He is currently awaiting the final decisions relating to sentencing — with bodies including the EU parliament warning that a life imprisonment could have severe consequences for Europe’s relationship with China if he is not released. Lai’s son last year called for the U.K. government to make his father’s release a precondition of closer relations with Beijing.  4) REPRESSION OF DISSIDENTS China, like Iran, is involved in the active monitoring and intimidation of those it considers dissidents on foreign soil — known as trans-national repression. China and Hong Kong law enforcement agencies have repeatedly issued arrest warrants for nationals living in Britain and other Western countries.  British police in 2022 were forced to investigate an assault on a protester outside the Chinese consulate in Manchester. The man was beaten by several men after being dragged inside the grounds of the diplomatic building during a demonstration against Xi Jinping. China removed six officials from Britain before they could be questioned. 5) CHINESE SPY SCANDALS Westminster was last year rocked by a major Chinese spying scandal involving two British men accused of monitoring British parliamentarians and passing information back to Beijing. Though the case against the two men collapsed, the MI5 intelligence agency still issued an alert to MPs, peers and their staff, warning Chinese intelligence officers were “attempting to recruit people with access to sensitive information about the British state.” It is not the only China spy allegation to embroil the upper echelons of British society. Yang Tengbo, who in 2024 outed himself as an alleged spy banned from entering the U.K., was a business associate of Andrew Windsor , the` disgraced brother of King Charles. Christine Lee, a lawyer who donated hundreds of thousands of pounds to a Labour MP, was the subject of a security alert from British intelligence. In October, Ken McCallum, the head of MI5, said that his officers had “intervened operationally” against China that month. 6) EMBASSY DING DONG This month — after a protracted political and planning battle — the government approved the construction of a Chinese “super-embassy” in London. This came after a litany of security concerns were raised by MPs and in the media, including the building’s proximity to sensitive cables, which it is alleged could be used to aid Chinese spying. Britain has its own embassy headache in China. Attempts to upgrade the U.K. mission in Beijing were reportedly blocked while China’s own London embassy plan was in limbo. 7) SANCTIONS EVASION China has long been accused of helping facilitate sanctions evasion for countries such as Russia and Iran. Opaque customs and trade arrangements have allegedly allowed prohibited shipments of oil and dual-use technology to flow into countries that are sanctioned by Britain and its allies. Britain has already sanctioned some Chinese companies accused of aiding Russia’s war in Ukraine. China has called for Britain to stop making “groundless accusations” about its involvement in Russia’s war efforts. 8) HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES AND GREEN ENERGY U.K. ministers are under pressure from MPs and human rights organizations to get tougher on China over reported human rights abuses in the country’s Xinjiang region — where many of the world’s solar components are sourced. In a meeting with China’s Vice Premier Ding Xuexiang last March, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband raised the issue of forced labor in supply chains, according to a government readout of the meeting. But he also stressed the need for deeper collaboration with China as the U.K.’s lofty clean power goal looms. British academic Laura Murphy — who was researching the risk of forced labor in supply chains — had her work halted by Sheffield Hallam University amid claims of pressure from China. “I know that there are other researchers who don’t feel safe speaking out in public, who are experiencing similar things, although often more subtly,” Murphy said last year. 9) THE FUTURE OF TAIWAN China continues to assert that “Taiwan is a province of China” amid reports it is stepping up preparations for military intervention in the region. In October, the Telegraph newspaper published an op-ed from the Chinese ambassador to Britain, which said: “Taiwan has never been a country. There is but one China, and both sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to one and the same China.” In a sign of just how sensitive the matter is, Beijing officials reportedly threatened to cancel high-level trade talks between China and the U.K. after Alexander, then a trade minister, travelled to Taipei last June. 10) CHINA POOTLING AROUND THE ARCTIC Britain is pushing for greater European and NATO involvement in the Arctic amid concern that both China and Russia are becoming more active in the strategically important area. There is even more pressure to act, with U.S. President Donald Trump making clear his Greenland aspirations. In October, a Chinese container ship completed a pioneering journey through the Arctic to a U.K. port — halving the usual time it takes to transport electric cars and solar panels destined for Europe.

President Donald Trump on Tuesday said he has no problem with the sharp decline in the dollar that’s been triggered by convulsions in global bond markets and growing skepticism about the U.S.’s reliability as a trading partner. “I think it’s great,” Trump told reporters in Iowa when asked about the currency’s decline. “Look at the business we’re doing. The dollar’s doing great.” Trump has long maintained that a weaker currency helps industries that he’s seeking to boost — particularly manufacturers, but also oil and gas. And U.S. corporations that export goods and services abroad typically report stronger earnings when they can convert foreign payments into a weaker greenback. But a soft dollar also diminishes the purchasing power of U.S. businesses and consumers and can lead to higher inflation. That’s one reason why Treasury officials, including Secretary Scott Bessent, have historically advocated for a stronger dollar. Some of Trump’s other advisers — including Fed Gov. Stephen Miran, who’s on leave from his role as the president’s top economic adviser — argue that the dollar’s strength in recent years has placed domestic businesses at a competitive disadvantage to overseas-based companies. The greenback was trading at its lowest level in nearly four years before Trump weighed in on its recent declines. After the president’s remarks, its value sank even further against a basket of foreign currencies. Trump’s foreign policy agenda and repeated tariff threats — including his push to acquire Greenland — have amplified a “sell America” narrative that has hurt the dollar and other U.S. asset prices. A possible intervention to prop up the value of the Japanese yen has also pushed down the dollar over the last week.

NEW DELHI — The European Union and India locked arms against U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariff offensive and China’s flood of cheaper goods to conclude talks on a landmark trade pact on Tuesday.  Under the deal, India will lower tariffs on European cars and wine, while the EU signaled it would assist Indian companies with decarbonization and negotiate duty-free quotas for Indian steel.  “Two giants who choose partnership, in a true win-win fashion. A strong message that cooperation is the best answer to global challenges,” said European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, standing next to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The announcement rounded off a year of intensive negotiations in which the EU sought to lock down a trade deal with the world’s most populous nation. Von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa were guests of honor at India’s exuberant Republic Day celebrations on Monday. Ties between India and the U.S. reached a low point last August, when Trump imposed a 50 percent tariff on goods from the South Asian nation over its purchases of Russian oil.  “Both know that they need each other like never before and in this fractured world where trusted partnerships are very, very hard to come by,” said Garima Mohan, who leads the German Marshall Fund’s work on India. Under the deal, India will gradually slash tariffs on European cars, reducing tariffs from 110 to 10 percent on 250,000 cars every year.  A range of agricultural goods will also see their tariffs drop, coming as a reassurance for the European Parliament and the EU’s farmers who have been heavily protesting in recent months over fears that they would be undercut by cheap farm produce.  Tariffs on wine will be reduced from to 20 and 30 percent from 150 percent now, depending on value. European olive oil will also enter duty free into India, instead of facing a 45 percent tariff. STEEL DEAL The stickiest issues related to steel and the EU’s carbon border tax: New Delhi, a major steel exporter, wanted to make sure that its metals wouldn’t be impacted by an upcoming 50 percent EU tariff on steel, and the carbon levy that has just entered force. In response to those concerns, the EU plans to give India a significant share of the 18.3 million metric tons of steel allowed to enter the bloc duty free — Brussels will negotiate this with its partners as is required by global trade rules.  “There will of course be a difference in how you treat this negotiation on application of steel measures between FTA and non-FTA partners. Therefore I think it was strategic from both sides that we have the agreement now and that India will be treated as an FTA partner,” EU trade chief Maroš Šefčovič told POLITICO.  On the carbon border tax, a new levy on carbon emissions that has irked countries such as the United States and Brazil, Brussels will “help Indian operators to have a smooth introduction of CBAM with all the technical assistance and all the additional advice we can provide,” Šefčovič added, stressing that the Commission would treat all its partners equally.  For India, the deal represents an opportunity to boost its exports of pharmaceuticals, textiles and chemicals.  This story has been updated.

The Trump administration is weighing new tactics to drive regime change in Cuba, including imposing a total blockade on oil imports to the Caribbean country, three people familiar with the plan said Thursday. That escalation has been sought by some critics of the Cuban government in the administration and backed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, according to two of the three people, who were granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive discussions. No decision has been made on whether to approve that move, but it could be among the suite of possible actions presented to President Donald Trump to force the end of Cuba’s communist government, these people added. Preventing shipments of crude oil to the island would be a step-up from Trump’s statement last week that the U.S. would halt Cuba’s imports of oil from Venezuela, which had been its main crude supplier. But there are ongoing debates within the administration about whether it is even necessary to go that far, according to all three people. The loss of Venezuelan oil shipments — and the resale of some of those cargoes that Havana used to obtain foreign currency — has already throttled Cuba’s laggard economy. A total blockade of oil imports into Cuba could then spark a humanitarian crisis, a possibility that has led some in the administration to push back against it. The discussions, however, show the extent to which people inside the Trump administration are considering deposing leaders in Latin America they view as adversaries. “Energy is the chokehold to kill the regime,” said one person familiar with the plan who was granted anonymity to describe the private discussions. Deposing the country’s communist government – in power since the Cuban revolution in 1959 – is “100 percent a 2026 event” in the administration’s eyes, this person added. The effort would be justified under the 1994 LIBERTAD Act, better known as the Helms-Burton Act, this person added. That law codifies the U.S. embargo on Cuban trade and financial transactions. Cuba’s embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment. A White House spokesperson did not address a question on whether the administration was considering blocking all oil imports into Cuba. Cuba imports about 60 percent of its oil supply, according to the International Energy Agency. It was heavily dependent on Venezuela for those imports until the Trump administration started seizing sanctioned shipments from that country. Mexico has more recently become the main supplier as Venezuelan crude shipments have dried up. Mexico, however, charges Cuba for imported oil and its shipments are not expected to fully ameliorate Cuba’s worsening energy shortage. Since the U.S. operation that captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, the administration has turned its attention on Cuba, arguing that the island’s economy is at its weakest point, making it ripe for regime change soon. Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, have each voiced their optimism that the island’s communist government will fall in short time given the loss of Venezuela’s economic support. Toppling the communist regime in Cuba would fulfill a nearly seven-decade political project for Cuban exiles in Miami, who have pushed for democracy on the island since Fidel Castro took power after ousting the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista in 1959. Rubio has long been an advocate for tough measures against Havana in the hopes of securing the fall of the regime. Conditions on the island have indeed worsened, triggering blackouts and shortages of basic goods and food products. But the regime has weathered harsh U.S. sanctions — and the sweeping trade embargo — for decades and survived the fall of the Soviet Union after the Cold War. Meanwhile, concerns remain that the sudden collapse of the Cuban government would trigger a regional migration crisis and destabilize the Caribbean. Critics of the Cuban government will likely celebrate the proposal if implemented by the White House. Hawkish Republicans had already embraced the idea of completely blocking Cuba’s access to oil. “There should be not a dime, no petroleum. Nothing should ever get to Cuba,” said Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) in a brief interview last week.

PARIS — The French Navy on Thursday boarded a vessel off the Mediterranean coast it suspects of being part of Russia’s embargo-defying shadow fleet. “The French Navy boarded an oil tanker coming from Russia, subject to international sanctions and suspected of flying a false flag,” President Emmanuel Macron wrote on X. Last October French forces arrested two crew members on a tanker suspected of belonging to the shadow fleet off Europe’s Atlantic coast. Hundreds of Russian ships have been cruising international waters since 2022, in violation of international sanctions, to sell oil to fund the country’s war against Ukraine or to transport military equipment. They have typically flown misleading flags and had their transponders turned off to avoid detection. More than 600 of them are currently under an EU ban. The interdicted vessel, the Grinch, came from the Port of Murmansk, in northwest Russia, local maritime authorities said in a statement. It was boarded in a joint operation with the U.K. near the Strait of Gibraltar in the Western Mediterranean. “The operation was conducted on the high seas in the Mediterranean, with the support of several of our allies. It was carried out in strict compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,” Macron wrote, adding that a judicial investigation has begun.

STRASBOURG — Donald Trump’s threats to slap tariffs on European countries that disagree with him on Greenland are “simply wrong,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said Wednesday morning. Speaking to MEPs in Strasbourg, von der Leyen said the EU is aligned and “working together” with the U.S on the need to ensure security in the Arctic, and Brussels is planning “a massive European investment surge in Greenland” to support the local economy and boost its infrastructure.  “This is why the proposed additional tariffs are simply wrong,” von der Leyen said. She added that the EU wants to stop the crisis escalating as “a dangerous downward spiral between allies” would only “embolden the very adversaries we are both so committed to keeping out of our strategic landscape.” Von der Leyen’s comments come as EU leaders scramble to deal with Trump’s threats to annex Greenland and react to his announcement of 10 percent tariffs on goods from countries that sent troops to Nuuk.  “Europe prefers dialogue and solutions, but we are fully prepared to act, if necessary, with unity, urgency and determination,” she said.  The Commission president also said the EU needs to diversify its trade relationships and “reduce our dependencies.” The EU is negotiating trade deals with India and other countries that “will open massive opportunities for our businesses.” ”Our supply chains and derisking goals depend on it,” she added, hinting at the bloc’s highly interlinked trade connections with the U.S. The European Union is on track to get nearly half of its gas from the United States by the end of the decade, creating a major strategic vulnerability for the bloc as relations with Washington hit an all-time low, as POLITICO reported earlier this week.  Just a few hours before lawmakers vote on whether to send the Mercosur trade deal for legal review, which could stall the adoption process by up to two years, von der Leyen said the deal with the South American bloc will be beneficial for the dairy, wine, spirits and oil sectors, while the Commission has secured “strong” safeguards for other sensitive agri-food sectors.   “This is a deal that will bring benefits across our economy, across every member state. And it can shield Europe from the risks it faces, ensuring our prosperity and our security at the same time,” she said. 

LONDON — A sanctions loophole that allows British planes to fill up with jet fuel made using Russian oil must be closed without delay, a senior MP has warned.    Liam Byrne, Labour MP and chair of the House of Commons Business and Trade Committee, said that every month that passes without the U.K. implementing a promised ban “risks tens of millions of pounds still flowing to Russia’s war effort” against Ukraine.    The U.K. outlawed direct imports of Russian oil in December 2022, 10 months after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Since then, the country has gradually widened its sanctions regime against Vladimir Putin and his associates. Prime Minister Keir Starmer warned in April 2025 that Britain would “crack down” on “energy revenues which are still fueling Putin’s war chest.”  But according to new research, between the ban on direct imports coming into force in 2022 and the end of 2025, the U.K. has nonetheless imported £4 billion of jet fuel and other oil products made at refineries in India and Turkey, which run partially on Russian crude.   The analysis, by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), estimated that £1.6 billion worth of the products imported from these refineries would have been made with Russian oil.   India remains the second-largest international buyer of Russian crude oil after China, while Turkey is also a major importer. Both process much of the oil in refineries, producing oil products such as jet fuel, which are then sold on to other countries. This so-called “refining loophole” is one of the major weaknesses in Western efforts to reduce Russia’s fossil fuel income, CREA said.   With Putin’s war against Ukraine approaching its fifth year, ministers pledged in October to close the loophole, announcing a ban on oil products made with Russian crude in third countries. Responding to CREA’s new findings, a government spokesperson said they “expect” the ban to be introduced this spring.  But with a similar European Union ban coming into force today, the U.K. government has “dragged its feet,” said Isaac Levi, an analyst at CREA.   “Roughly one in six jet fuel shipments entering the U.K. comes from refineries running on Russian crude, and we’re buying it for a measly two percent discount,” said Levi. “The U.K. doesn’t need this fuel, but it is helping bankroll Putin’s war machine.    “If ministers won’t act, they’re effectively allowing one in six flights to continue running on Russian oil molecules.”  Prime Minister Keir Starmer warned in April 2025 that Britain would “crack down” on “energy revenues which are still fueling Putin’s war chest.” | Pool Photo by Sarmento Matos via EPA A government spokesperson gave no explanation for the delay in implementing the ban, but said that the government was monitoring the impact of its sanctions measures “with input from industry.” A government official confirmed legislation will be needed before it can happen. A spokesperson for Fuels Industry UK, which represents fuel suppliers, echoed the need for legislation, adding that companies were “in discussion” with the government on “how best to extend … measures to stop imports of Russian derived products which are refined in third countries.” “For the U.K. to make this change, there needs to be confidence that there are adequate mechanisms in place to prove where fuels are from, as well as potentially changing contracts which may already be in place,” they added. Airlines UK, an industry group representing the country’s aviation sector — one of the biggest in the world — declined to comment. However, Byrne said the government needed to implement the ban as soon as possible.  “The government is right to move to close this loophole, but speed is now critical,” he said.   “Every month the ban is delayed risks tens of millions of pounds still flowing to Russia’s war effort. Announcements need to turn into action, and fast.”   Levi, the CREA analyst, said the U.K. was lagging behind the EU.   “Every month the U.K. delays banning oil products made from Russian crude, it’s effectively writing the Kremlin a cheque for around £44 million,” he said. “That’s £44 million a month flowing into Russia’s war chest — from U.K. imports — while ministers insist they’re doing all they can to support Ukraine.”   A government spokesperson said: “We ended all imports of Russian fossil fuels following Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, and have struck at the heart of his war funding by strengthening sanctions to cover Russian oil products refined in third countries. We regularly monitor the impact of these measures with input from industry and expect the ban to come into effect in spring 2026.”