Read the daily news to learn English

Thursday briefing: Why skinny jabs’ short-term fix comes with long-term concerns

Good morning. If you are as chronically online as I am, you have probably noticed a major shift by some of your favourite celebrities and influencers: many suddenly look much thinner. This phenomenon (one assumes) is due to weight loss drugs, which have transformed how obesity is tackled across much of the western world. Brands including Ozempic, Wegovy and Mounjaro have become household names in a short period of time. These drugs – developed for chronic diseases like diabetes – do more than help people lose weight; they can also significantly improve heart health. But while National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) guidelines recommend a maximum two-year usage, the scientific consensus suggests that those who stop taking the drug are likely to regain most, if not all, of the weight they lost. A new study shows that once people stop, they not only gain the weight back, but their heart health and metabolism markers, such as high cholesterol and blood pressure, get worse again. So, what are the implications of this for the fight against obesity and the wider public health landscape? To explore this and more, I speak to Tobi Thomas, the Guardian’s health and inequality correspondent. That’s after the headlines. Five big stories Venezuela | Britain’s Ministry of Defence said it had provided military help to the US forces that seized a Russian-flagged oil tanker north-west of Britain and Ireland, initially arguing the operation was legal because the vessel had breached US sanctions on Iran. Ukraine | Keir Starmer has said that MPs would have a debate and vote before any UK troops were deployed on peacekeeping duties in Ukraine. NHS | Patients are collapsing in hospitals unseen by staff because overcrowding means they are stranded out of sight on corridors, the NHS’s safety watchdog has revealed. Greenland | France has said it is working with allies on how to react if the US were to invade Greenland, as the French, German and Polish foreign ministers met. Elon Musk | The influential Commons women and equalities committee will stop using X after the social media site’s AI tool generated thousands of digitally altered undressed images of women and children. In depth: ‘Obesity was often framed as a failure of willpower’ Obesity has evolved into one of the UK’s most challenging public and economic challenges. More than a quarter of adults and almost a quarter of children are affected by obesity, and these figures are predicted to worsen. (It’s worth reading my colleague Martin’s First Edition this week on the government’s attempts to tackle advertising from fast food giants). As is often the case, those living in deprived areas are worse affected. The new use for these drugs offer the promise of low-effort weight loss, tackling an obesity crisis reported to cost the UK economy £126bn a year. “They have already transformed how obesity is treated,” Tobi Thomas tells me. “Being overweight was often framed as a failure of willpower, but diets and exercise plans produced very mixed results. What’s striking about GLP-1 inhibitors [the proper name for drugs like Ozempic] is how consistent the outcomes are across people. If someone takes them as prescribed, weight loss tends to be fairly predictable.” That’s shifted the conversation away from personal blame and towards biology and bodily processes. “But they are not a miracle cure,” Tobi says. For one thing, significant numbers of people report side effects, from the mild (“Ozempic burps” ), to the weird and the worrying. Perhaps most importantly, she says, is that while “people can lose a significant amount of weight while taking the drug, most people who stop will go on to put on most of the weight they had lost”. A new study, which Tobi reported on, is the first to show the rate of weight regained and the estimated time frames for the benefits provided by the drug to reverse. *** How do they work? Before we delve into the latest study on weight loss jabs, I ask Tobi to remind me what they are and how they work. They are GLP-1 medications or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. “They’re a class of drugs developed to manage type 2 diabetes, but they’re now widely used for weight loss,” she says, explaining that our bodies produce naturally GLP-1 naturally. “Your gut releases it after you eat, and it helps regulate blood sugar and appetite. These medications mimic that hormone and keep it active in the body for longer.” They work by reducing appetite, which means you feel full for longer, and they help regulate blood sugar by increasing the release of insulin. Tobi also points to recent studies that suggest that GLP-1s may also affect the types of foods people want to eat, reducing cravings for high-sugar or high-fat foods. The benefits are remarkable: patients are able to lose weight more consistently, while also seeing improved benefits on heart and metabolic health markers, such as high cholesterol and high blood pressure. But they come with side effects. Nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, bloating, and heartburn are common in the first couple of months. “Because appetite is suppressed,” she tells me, “some people forget to eat, which can lead to fatigue, dizziness, dehydration, and low energy.” Rapid weight loss can also contribute to hair loss, low iron, and fatigue, not directly because of the drug but because of reduced food intake, she explains. Tobi has also highlighted concerns around contraception. The UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) issued guidance after reports of women on oral contraceptives becoming pregnant while taking GLP-1 drugs. Tirzepatide, in particular, has been shown to reduce the effectiveness of the pill. Weight loss itself can also increase fertility, so pregnancy risk may rise unexpectedly. *** What happens after you stop taking them? People can stop taking weight loss drugs without tapering, Tobi says. But once you stop, the effects can reverse quite quickly. “Appetite returns to baseline, hunger signals resume, portion sizes increase, and cravings may come back,” she adds. The latest study showed that, on average, patients gained 0.4kg a month after they stopped treatment. Weight and risk markers for diabetes and heart disease were also found to return to pre-treatment levels in less than two years. The study was carried out by researchers from the University of Oxford who searched databases for trials and observational studies that compared the effects of weight loss drugs with diet and exercise programmess, as well as with a placebo. They found that the rate of weight regained after stopping the drugs is almost four times faster than after diet and physical activity changes. This was irrespective of the amount of weight lost during treatment. The study also cited estimates that around half of people with obesity stop using weight loss drugs within 12 months. The reasons why are not clear, but costs of the drug, which skyrocketed in recent months, and the side-effects, are likely factors, Tobi tells me. *** How should they be taken? When someone quickly loses a significant amount of weight, the sudden change in their physical appearance gets attention. But the latest study shows that obesity is a complex issue that requires a long-term, holistic approach. “GLP-1s are not something you can just prescribe and walk away from,” Tobi says. “They’re a very physical intervention, and your body goes through quite an extreme change, so there needs to be proper support alongside them.” She continues: “In a lot of NHS and private programmes, people also receive psychological support, group sessions, therapy, and nutritional guidance. That is crucial, because obesity isn’t just a physical condition. It affects how people think about food, their bodies and themselves.” This key point can be lost, she notes, when people exclusively focus on the physical effects of weight loss drugs, and ignore a person’s overall health. “If someone’s diet was poor before, GLP-1s might just mean they eat smaller portions of the same foods. Without support, that doesn’t lead to long-term change. The drug works best as part of a holistic programme that addresses eating habits, movement and psychological wellbeing.” Current Nice guidelines suggest patients should be on these drugs for a maximum of two years, which seems contradictory with the latest research. Tobi explains that the health regulatory always operates with an abundance of caution. “Long-term data is still emerging. The guidance doesn’t mean people must stop after two years, but it reflects uncertainty [about long-term effects].” The study does add to the chorus of evidence that suggests these drugs may require long-term use. “There are links to gallstones, and concerns about muscle and bone-density loss if people lose weight rapidly without strength training. That’s why these drugs are meant to be part of a structured weight-loss programme, not taken in isolation.” For those suffering health problems due to their weight, the benefits are often thought to be worth the risks. But the private market brings additional concerns. While there is a strict criteria on who qualifies for the drug under the NHS, people can access them privately – including through online pharmacies and social media links, and there are serious health risks to people who end up using counterfeit drugs. “You can have someone who is already healthy using them purely for aesthetic reasons – for example, someone who might be a size 14 wanting to be a size 8,” Tobi says. “This shifts the purpose of the drug away from health and towards appearance. When that happens, you’re no longer treating a medical condition, you’re responding to cultural pressure to be thinner.” It’s part of a wider shift in beauty standards, she explains: “After years of body positivity, we’re seeing a move back towards extreme thinness, particularly online. When celebrities and public figures talk openly about using these drugs, it can make thinness feel like the default or even an expectation again.” There is, therefore, a risk that GLP-1s stop being seen as a serious medical intervention and start being treated like a cosmetic shortcut, she adds. “That’s a slippery slope, because women’s bodies in particular end up being treated as trends, rather than something tied to long-term health and well-being.” What else we’ve been reading This feature on cluster headaches by Morgan Ofori (pictured above) is a powerful and affecting read that brings this recurring and debilitating experience with the condition to life. Aamna Miss Rosen has a nostalgic look back for Huck magazine at the 1980s Rockers Reunion Club, a revival of the 1950s motorbike scene, lovingly photographed by Phil Polgaze. Martin A macabre sideshow to the Trump intervention in Venezuela has been the suggestion that gambling markets were manipulated beforehand – one online platform is refusing to pay up. Martin Belam, newsletters team Simon Hattenstone and his partner, Diane Taylor, were the fourth heterosexual couple to enter a civil partnership in Haringey. He writes movingly about why they chose to do so after more than 30 years together, and why the photograph taken at the ceremony is the one he treasures most. Aamna It is 10 years since David Bowie died, and 40 years since he starred in Jim Henson’s Labyrinth. Peter Bradshaw reviews its return to the big screen, calling it “charmingly eccentric”. I’m going on Friday. Martin Sport Football | Darren Fletcher failed to produce what Manchester United’s interim manager, fans and chief executive craved: a cathartic victory to move the club on quickly from the recent turbulence. Cricket | There were a couple of wobbles along the way but at 2.30pm on the final day in Sydney, Australia had knocked off a target of 160 runs to win the fifth Test by five wickets and claim this Ashes series by a 4-1 scoreline. Cycling | Simon Yates, one of Britain’s most storied riders and the winner of last year’s Giro d’Italia, has stunned cycling by announcing his retirement at 33. The front pages “US seizes Russian-flagged tanker in high-stakes Atlantic operation,” is the splash on the Guardian on Thursday. “UK joins in the pursuit of Putin’s shadow fleet,” says the Times, while the FT runs with: “US seizes tanker and aims to control Venezuelan crude sales ‘indefinitely.’” “Splash & grab,” is the lead at the Metro. “UK ready to seize more of Putin’s shadow ships, as ‘grey war’ grows,” says the i paper. “Badenoch blueprint to save our pubs,” is the main story at the Telegraph. At the Mail it’s: “YOU NEED TO BE ON FAT JABS FOR LIFE.” “‘SMA’ heel-prick campaign,” says the Mirror, while the Express has “Don’t run down clock on ‘safe’ right to die law.” Finally the Sun with: “Look who’s Huw.” Today in Focus On the ground in Venezuela after Trump’s ‘operation’ Tom Phillips, the Guardian’s Latin America correspondent, describes the apprehension and mixed feelings among Venezuelans crossing the border with Colombia. He outlines the mistrust and fragility within the new leadership, the disappointment of the opposition movement, and how considerations regarding the country’s oil reserves may have shaped the US’s political calculations. Cartoon of the day | Nicola Jennings The Upside A bit of good news to remind you that the world’s not all bad Tens of thousands of families around the world have long been priced out of modern cystic fibrosis treatments, but after years of campaigning a dramatic breakthrough has been made. A low-cost generic version of the drug Trikafta will be produced in Bangladesh at a fraction of the price charged by Vertex Pharmaceuticals. “We were sitting with our calculator saying ‘we can afford that!’” said one parent. Until recently, most sufferers would die as young adults. Campaigner Gayle Pledger, whose daughter has cystic fibrosis, said families had “watched children suffer and die while a treatment sat on the shelf”, but added: “I’ve come off calls in tears thinking, ‘This is actually going to happen.’” Sign up here for a weekly roundup of The Upside, sent to you every Sunday Bored at work? And finally, the Guardian’s puzzles are here to keep you entertained throughout the day. Until tomorrow. Martin Belam’s Thursday news quiz Quick crossword Cryptic crossword Wordiply

Right to protest is under attack in England and Wales, reports warn

The right to protest is under attack in England and Wales with laws trampling over human rights protections and more oppressive restrictions in the pipeline, two major reports have warned. Both Human Rights Watch and the cross-party law reform organisation Justice say recent legislative changes have created a chilling effect on lawful protest and should be repealed. Their reports, simultaneously published on Thursday, also say that proposals for more curbs should be halted. They highlight the arrest of Republic anti-monarchy protesters during King Charles’s coronation, charges and arrests of pro-Palestinian demonstrators and long sentences for climate protesters as examples of the crackdown on the right to peaceful dissent. Fiona Rutherford, chief executive of Justice, said: “Year by year, we see police powers grow, as our fundamental right to protest is treated more like a privilege. The law in this area has become dangerously unbalanced, empowering the state to silence voices it should be safeguarding. Reversing this trend is essential to restoring trust, protecting rights and preserving a healthy democracy.” Lydia Gall, a senior Europe and Central Asia researcher at Human Rights Watch, said: “The UK is now adopting protest-control tactics imposed in countries where democratic safeguards are collapsing. The UK should oppose such measures, not replicate and endorse them.” Both reports say that the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the Public Order Act 2023 were watershed moments, criminalising large amounts of previously lawful protest activity and placing a greater emphasis on preemptive containment of protest through criminal law. The 2022 law granted police authority to impose conditions on public assemblies on grounds such as causing “serious unease” or being “too noisy”, described by Human Rights Watch as “vague and subjective”. Members of the public can be arrested for carrying items – described as innocuous by Justice – including cable ties, bike locks or glue, on suspicion that they may be used for “locking‑on”. Republic protesters were arrested on the day of the coronation and held for over 12 hours on suspicion of being equipped to lock-on for carrying plastic ties, despite telling officers the items would be used to secure placards. The Met subsequently apologised personally to one of the protesters and expressed regret for their arrests. Laura O’Brien, a partner at the law firm of Hodge Jones & Allen, told Human Rights Watch that the new laws had created confusion among officers and, in the context of placards at pro-Palestinian protests, the approach seemed to be “arrest first and decide later”. The NGO’s report also highlighted the case of a retired social worker, Trudi Warner, who was arrested and charged with contempt of court for quietly holding a sign outside a courthouse informing jurors of their absolute right to acquit. The high court dismissed the case as “fanciful” and confirmed that she had not attempted to influence any juror. Justice cited last-minute restrictions imposed by police on farmers’ budget day protest in November, which it said prompted allegations of “two-tier policing”. Both reports referred to the case of five Just Stop Oil activists who, in 2024, were sentenced to between two and five years in prison for joining a Zoom call to plan a protest, believed to be the longest sentences in the UK for non-violent protest. Although they were reduced on appeal the sentences were still criticised as unduly harsh. The organisations call for reviews of protest laws – which Human Rights Watch claim contravene international human rights obligations – and their policing. Proposed further laws, which include powers for police to take into account the cumulative impact of repeat protests, a ban on the wearing of face coverings and restrictions on demonstrations near places of worship, should be scrapped or paused, they say. The organisations bemoan a failure to recognise that some level of disruption is inevitable in civic protest. According to Justice, the law has been “fundamentally reshaped … from a positive duty to facilitate peaceful protest toward a system that expands state powers and emphasises controls and restriction”. A Home Office spokesperson said: “The right to protest is fundamental to our democracy, and it is a longstanding tradition in this country that people are free to demonstrate their views. “The home secretary recently announced an independent review of existing public order legislation. This will ensure police powers remain fit for purpose, consistent and strike the right balance between protecting the public and upholding the right to lawful protest.”

Coalition of the willing must be ‘robust’ to deal with Russia, warns ex-US general

An Anglo-French led stabilisation force for Ukraine would have to deploy thousands of combat troops if it is to successfully dissuade Russia from breaking a post-war ceasefire, according to a former commanding general of the US army in Europe. Ben Hodges said the proposed multinational force, discussed this week by the British and French leaders with Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Paris, had to be robust enough to deal with likely Kremlin-orchestrated provocations. “The coalition of the willing has to have real force and rules of engagement that allow it to immediately react and respond to any violations,” he said. “Captains can’t be having to call back to Paris or London to find out how to deal with a Russian drone”. The retired general said: “Anybody who believes that Russia will live up to any agreement is not being realistic” – a reference in part to the period between 2014 and 2022 when there were repeated violations of the old ceasefire lines in Ukraine. At least, British and French troops would need to be able to defend themselves from drones and other forms of attack, Hodges said, as it would be very likely that “Russia will immediately test their responsiveness”. Russian forces, the former general added, “have to look over there and say these guys are serious, not parked in a barracks somewhere near Lviv. So far there is not enough detail to judge.” Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron reiterated a commitment to deploy ground troops to Ukraine in Paris on Tuesday by signing a declaration of intent with Zelenskyy. The two leaders said that air and naval forces from the countries and its allies would also be part of the package, though there is no sign of a breakthrough in peace talks. Russia has said it consistently opposes the idea of any western troops in Ukraine. The multinational force, relatively modest in size, would work closely with Ukraine’s 600,000-strong army and help retrain it and rebuild it, but other than promising to establish “military hubs across Ukraine” in unspecified locations, details were scant. The European leaders declined to say how many ground troops would be involved while the UK Ministry of Defence would not say explicitly if combat troops would be part of the deployment, citing operational sensitivities. On Wednesday, Starmer told MPs that once a ceasefire was agreed, they would be told how many British troops would be required and given a vote on the issue. He also did not confirm if combat troops would be involved in response to the Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch. Instead, the prime minister did refer to a need to conduct deterrence. “I will be clear with the house that there would only be deployment after a ceasefire. It would be to support Ukraine’s capabilities, to conduct deterrence operations, and to construct and protect military hubs,” he said. Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform, said in a radio interview that he would vote against sending British troops to Ukraine. “We neither have the manpower nor the equipment to go into an operation that clearly has no ending timeline,” he said. The multinational force had never been expected to be very large, somewhere between 10,000 and 15,000 in size, reflecting European countries’ relatively small armed forces. The latest figures show the size of the British army fell to 70,300 by 1 October , its lowest level in more than two hundred years. Few countries have committed to participate so far. Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor, suggested his country could engage in “deploying forces on Nato territory neighbouring Ukraine after a ceasefire,” with a possible view to help freeing up troops from other countries. The US, Poland and Italy have said they would not supply ground forces either, though Turkey has said it would be willing to help. The US has said it is willing to support “security protocols” to maintain peace, partly in the belief that if a deal can be agreed between Moscow and Kyiv it is likely to be durable. Its mooted size contrasts with the 60,000-strong Nato peacekeeping force that enforced the first stages of the Bosnia peace agreements for one year from December 1995. Three divisions, led by the US, UK and France, separated Serbian forces from an alliance of Bosnians and Croats after three years of fighting. John Foreman, a former UK military attache to Russia, said: “What will a 15,000 strong force do? It will probably be west of the Dnipro river and not on the front line. They are there to complicate Russia’s decision making and to be a trip wire force if fighting restarted. The punishment force would be air forces.”

EU accused of fuelling Putin’s war by importing Russian liquefied natural gas

European governments have been accused of fuelling Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine as new data shows the Kremlin earned an estimated €7.2bn (£6.2bn) last year from exporting its liquefied natural gas (LNG) to the EU. Brussels has pledged to ban imports of Russian LNG – natural gas that is supercooled to make it easier to transport – by 2027 but an analysis suggests there is yet to be any letup in the vast quantities being received at European ports from Russia’s LNG complex on the Yamal peninsula in Siberia. More than 15m tonnes of Yamal LNG was transported through the Arctic ice to reach EU terminals in 2025, according to the human rights NGO Urgewald, earning the Kremlin an estimated €7.2bn. While Europe has cut supplies of pipeline gas from Russia since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the EU’s share of global shipments from Yamal increased in the last year, the fourth of the war in Ukraine, rising to 76.1%, up from 75.4% in 2024, the report said. The imports remain legal and the EU has been reluctant to ban Russian shipments of LNG, particularly due to the dependency of central and eastern Europe on the energy source. One of the two European shipping companies who are said to form the logistical backbone for Yamal LNG is Seapeak, which is based in the UK. The latest analysis suggests Seapeak transported 37.3% of Yamal LNG on its ships, while Greece’s Dynagas transported 34.3%. The two companies have been contacted for comment. Eleven of the 14 specialist ice-breaking Arc7 tankers that transport LNG from Yamal are owned by Seapeak, which is owned by the American investment firm Stonepeak, and Dynagas. The UK has said it will transition towards a ban this year on the provision of maritime services for vessels carrying Russian LNG. Sebastian Rötters, an energy and sanctions campaigner at Urgewald, said: “While Brussels celebrates the latest agreement to phase out Russian gas, our ports continue serving as the logistics lung for Russia’s largest LNG terminal, Yamal. “In the current geopolitical situation, we cannot afford another year of complicity. We are not just customers, we are the essential infrastructure keeping this flagship project alive. Every cargo that offloads at an EU terminal is a direct deposit into a war chest that fuels the slaughter in Ukraine. We must stop providing the oxygen for Russia’s energy profits and shut the Yamal loophole now.” Russia’s Yamal plant is dependent on access to EU ports and the use of ice-breaking LNG tankers of the Arc7 class, which were built specifically for the project. The ships would have to accept significantly longer transport routes if they did not have the unloading or reloading opportunities in EU ports including Zeebrugge in Belgium. According to Urgewald, 58 ships reached the Belgian terminal in 2025, delivering 4.2m tonnes of LNG. During the same period, only 51 ships reached Chinese ports, delivering 3.6m tonnes. A total of 87 ships delivered 6.3m tonnes of LNG to the French ports of Dunkirk and Montoir in 2025, making France the largest importer. France’s energy major TotalEnergies remains a key investor in Russia’s Yamal project. Access to the European ports enables the ice-class tankers to quickly return to the Arctic to pick up more gas, rather than being tied up on weeks-long voyages to Asia.

Two weeks on, questions linger over targeting and impact of US airstrikes in Nigeria

Two weeks after the US carried out Christmas Day airstrikes in north-west Nigeria on what it described as Islamic State fighters, questions remain over the specific group that was targeted and the operation’s impact. In the aftermath of the strikes, Donald Trump said in a post on his Truth Social platform that “ISIS Terrorist Scum in Northwest Nigeria, who have been targeting and viciously killing, primarily, innocent Christians” were hit with “numerous perfect strikes”. The operation, coordinated with Nigeria, targeted an Islamist group known as Lakurawa, which extorts the mainly Muslim local population and enforces a strict version of sharia law that includes lashes for listening to music. Very little information has been shared by either the US or Nigeria about the strikes’ impact and it is unclear how many Lakurawa fighters, if any, died. The US Africa Command branch of the US military said on 25 December that its “initial assessment is that multiple Isis terrorists were killed in the Isis camps”. Malik Samuel, a researcher with Good Governance Africa, said he had spoken to a Lakurawa member who said about 100 fighters were killed in a forest camp in the Tangaza area of Sokoto state. He said he was told that about 200 were missing, with many of the remaining fighters now trying to cross into Niger. This could not be independently confirmed. Residents of Nukuru, a village about 6 miles from the reported camp, told the BBC that fighters on about 15 motorcycles had fled through the community, riding three to a bike. Missile debris fell on empty farmland about 60 miles south in the town of Jabo, which local people said had never been attacked by Lakurawa. Debris also reportedly damaged a hotel 500 miles south of Tangaza, injuring three workers. It remains unclear why the US specifically targeted Lakurawa, which operates in a rural, underdeveloped and almost entirely Muslim area in the north-west near the Niger border. Most violence in the area is perpetrated by armed gangs known as bandits. Trump had previously accused the Nigerian government of failing to stop the killing of Christians, an important theme for his evangelical base. Two US officials told the New York Times that the airstrikes were a one-off aimed at allowing Trump to claim he was going after a group that had killed Christians. Murtala Abdullahi, a Nigerian security consultant, also said Lakurawa was probably a symbolic target. “How do you establish a link that [a] bandit group has been hitting the Christian community?” he asked. “That’s difficult. But if you hit a jihadist group then you don’t need to establish a link.” Abdullahi said he did not know why the US had chosen to hit Lakurawa rather than Boko Haram, which is far more notorious internationally and attacks both Christians and Muslims. Since the airstrikes, global attention around Trump’s unpredictable, militarised foreign policy has turned to Venezuela, where US forces abducted Nicolás Maduro on 3 January, and Greenland, where Trump and other senior US officials have expressed renewed interest in a US takeover. Very little is known conclusively about Lakurawa, from the year it started to the number of fighters. Even the meaning of its name, which some analysts say is a Hausa pronunciation of “les recrues” (“the recruits” in French), is not an agreed fact. Nigeria designated the group as a terrorist organisation in January 2025. Some analysts say the group is linked to Islamic State’s Sahel branch. However, Samuel said he had interviewed Lakurawa members who professed loyalty to al-Qaida. Researchers agree that the group’s senior members are from Mali or Nigeria. Local people in Sokoto state report that fighters speak Hausa with a foreign accent and a different language among themselves. In about 2017, Lakurawa was invited by some local communities to protect them against bandits. However, the group has since turned to violent methods similar to those of the bandits, as well as enforcing their extreme version of Islam. “That coercive authority that they started asserting turned communities against them,” said Kato Van Broeckhoven, a United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research researcher. Even before the US intervention, military action alone had failed to quell Nigeria’s numerous, proliferating security crises. Just last week, gunmen killed more than 30 people in Niger state, in the centre-west of Nigeria, and abducted an unknown number of people. Local people told reporters they included students from a Catholic school where 300 pupils and teachers were kidnapped in November and only freed in December. “Why is Nigeria a fertile ground for all these groups to come in and operate?” Samuel said. “It is simple: because of governance issues … You see clearly the level of poverty in these places, you see clearly the absence of the state, the vacuum that has been created.”

Venezuela open to oil deal, says Rodríguez, as Vance claims US ‘controls’ country’s resources

Venezuela’s interim president, Delcy Rodríguez, has defended plans to open up her country’s oil market to Washington, as Donald Trump’s vice-president JD Vance reiterated that the US would have complete control of the country’s supplies. Rodríguez said on Wednesday that America’s attack to remove her predecessor, Nicolás Maduro, put a “stain” on the countries’ relations, but added it was “not unusual or irregular” to trade with the US, adding that Venezuela was “open to energy relations where all parties benefit.” Trump’s administration has sought to assert its control over Venezuelan oil, seizing a pair of sanctioned tankers on Wednesday, while announcing it would manage all sales of future crude production and oversee the sale of the country’s petroleum worldwide. “We’re going to market the crude coming out of Venezuela,” US energy secretary, Chris Wright, said. “First this backed-up store of oil, and then indefinitely going forward we will sell the production that comes out of Venezuela in the marketplace.” In an interview on Fox News, Vance said Venezuela would only be able to sell its oil if it serves the interests of the US. “We control the energy resources, and we tell the regime, you’re allowed to sell the oil so long as you serve America’s national interest, you’re not allowed to sell it if you can’t serve America’s national interest,” Vance said. On Tuesday, Trump announced a deal to access to up to $2bn worth of Venezuelan crude, a sign that the Venezuelan government officials are responding to Trump’s demand that they open up to US oil companies or risk more military intervention. On top of the ongoing embargo on Venezuelan oil, the US energy department has said the “only oil transported in and out of Venezuela” will be through approved channels consistent with US law and national security interests. That level of control over the world’s largest proven reserves of crude oil could give the Trump administration a broader hold on oil supplies globally in ways that could enable it to influence prices. Since the American military’s capture of Nicolás Maduro, Trump has continued to pledge that the US will “run” the country, despite push back from Rodríguez. On Wednesday, Trump said that Venezuela would only buy US-made products with the profits it makes from any deal it strikes with Washington to sell oil. “I have just been informed that Venezuela is going to be purchasing ONLY American Made Products, with the money they receive from our new Oil Deal,” the president said in a social media post. Trump is scheduled to meet with the heads of major oil companies at the White House on Friday to discuss ways of raising Venezuela’s oil production. But according to reports, US oil companies are pushing for “serious guarantees” from Washington before they make large investments in Venezuela. The Financial Times reported that oil executives are expected to press the president on providing strong legal and financial guarantees before they agree to commit capital to Venezuela. US officials have in recent weeks told US oil executives that they will need to return to Venezuela quickly and invest significant capital in the country to revive the damaged oil industry, Reuters reported earlier this week. With Reuters and Agence France-Presse

‘Out with the Yanks!’: Thousands protest in Colombia as anger builds over Trump’s intervention in Venezuela

Thousands of protesters have taken to the streets of cities across Colombia to decry Donald Trump’s threats to expand his military campaign in South America into their territory, after last weekend’s deadly attack on Venezuela. In Cúcuta, a city on Colombia’s eastern border with Venezuela, several hundred demonstrators marched towards its 19th century cathedral waving the country’s yellow, blue and red flag and shouting: “Fuera los yanquis!” (“Out with the Yanks!”) “Trump is the devil … he’s the most abhorrent person in the world,” said one demonstrator, a 55-year-old businesswoman called Janet Chacón. Another marcher, José Silva, 67, said the abduction of Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, during Saturday’s attack made a mockery of Trump’s claim to be “the president of peace”. “He’s the president of war … he’s a maniac,” Silva declared. “The US congress needs to do something to get him out of the presidency … He’s a thug.” Colombia’s leftwing president, Gustavo Petro, called Wednesday’s rallies after Trump indicated he favoured the idea of military action in Colombia, after Saturday’s audacious assault on Venezuela’s capital. Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, and first lady Cilia Flores were captured, while dozens of Cuban and Venezuelan bodyguards were killed, during the dramatic US special forces raid on a military base in Caracas. “What happened in Venezuela was, in my opinion illegal,” Petro told thousands of supporters who had gathered at a rally in Bolívar plaza in Colombia’s capital, Bogotá. In front of the stage a protester held a placard reading: “Go to hell shitty yanks”. However, Petro took a less combative line after talking to Trump for the first time, shortly before his public statement. “It was a great honor to speak with the president of Colombia … I appreciated his call and tone, and look forward to meeting him in the near future,” Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social. Petro indicated he was willing to meet Trump but added: “We cannot lower our guard.” “Words need to be followed by deeds,” he added. On Sunday Trump called Petro “a sick man who likes making cocaine and selling it to the United States” – although there is no evidence Colombia’s leader is linked to the drug trade in his country, the world’s largest producer of cocaine. Asked if he would consider a Venezuela-style military intervention in Colombia, Trump told reporters: “It sounds good to me.” Trump’s attack on Venezuela – which he has admitted was in-part designed to secure “total access” to Venezuela’s massive oil reserves – and subsequent threats to Colombia have sent shock waves through Latin America. Demonstrators have this week hit the streets of cities including Mexico City, São Paulo and Buenos Aires to condemn the “Yankee invasion” and the possibility of further attacks. “The message from the people of Latin America is: ‘Donald Trump, get your hands off Latin America. Latin America isn’t the US’ back yard’,” said Reimont Otoni, a leftwing Brazilian congressman who led protests outside the US consulate in Rio on Monday. Otoni recognised Venezuela faced “a humanitarian and a democratic crisis” under Maduro. “[But] there isn’t the slightest chance that an aerial bombardment or the kidnapping of a country’s president … will fix this,” he said, condemning the failure of European leaders to denounce Trump’s intervention. “This is simply an assertion of North American imperialism … Trump wants to seize control of the biggest oil reserves in the world … and dominate Venezuela.” There was similar anger on Colombia’s streets during Wednesday’s marches, which the US embassy urged its citizens to avoid, claiming they had “the potential to turn violent”. “He doesn’t want to liberate Venezuela. He just wants the oil,” Marta Jiménez, a 65-year-old teacher, said of Trump as she stood in Cúcuta’s palm-dotted Santander Plaza. Jiménez slammed the international community’s failure to confront Trump. “They are leaving him to fly, free as a bird over every single country, to do whatever he likes,” she said, warning that while Venezuela and Colombia were Trump’s current targets, any Latin American nation could be the next. “It might be Nicaragua, Brazil, Ecuador, Peru – any of them,” she said. Another protester called Juan Carlos Silva, 59, feared that after the US attacked Venezuela, “they are coming for Colombia”. “We’re not against North America. There are lots of good people there. But this guy [Trump] is possessed by the devil,” he said. Silva recognised Maduro had been a dictator. But he believed Trump was more dangerous. “He’s trying to cause a third world war, just like Hitler did. He’s a fiend and he must be stopped.” Trump’s night-time assault on Caracas was by far the most dramatic of his interventions in Latin America since he returned to power one year ago. But it was by no means the first. In his inaugural address last January, the US president vowed to “take back” the Panama canal. He subsequently launched a pressure campaign of sanctions and tariffs against Brazil’s government in a failed bid to help his far-right ally, Jair Bolsonaro, escape jail for plotting a coup. Trump also waded into last month’s presidential election in Honduras, in support of the eventual right-wing winner, and offered an ideologically motivated multi-billion dollar bailout to Argentina’s right-wing president, Javier Milei. On Sunday Trump hinted at military action in Mexico to combat its drug cartels, telling reporters: “We’re going to have to do something.” Asked this week if Trump’s next target might be Cuba, his secretary of state, Marco Rubio, replied: “They are in a lot of trouble, yes.” Trump’s moves have horrified Latin American diplomats, who fear a further US attack on Venezuela is possible. One called the White House’s behaviour “unhinged”. Benjamin Gedan, the South America director at the national security council under Barack Obama, said Trump had shown himself to be “astoundingly disinterested in US diplomatic relationships and the US image in the world”. “He has demonstrated absolutely no concern for the way the United States is viewed and for its relationships with governments of the region. He has concluded that he can bully governments into submission and that public opinion is meaningless and that soft power is irrelevant … It’s a bizarre approach to a region that he himself has identified as strategically important for the United States,” added Gedan, the director of the Latin America Program at the Stimson Center. “It seems like Trump goes out of his way to maximise the diplomatic wreckage.” Gedan said Trump could have tried to portray his capture of the “universally loathed” Maduro as a boon for democracy. “But instead of making a case or even gesturing toward democracy and human rights, he immediately pivots to a resource grab, alienating almost any potential ally who wants to make the case that this person should be gone for the interests of the country, its people, and the region. What leader in Latin America can sign on to this operation in the interest of the US oil sector?” Gedan asked.

Ukraine war briefing: Allies yet to provide details of security guarantee, Zelenskyy says

Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he has received no “unequivocal answer” from European allies about how they would defend Ukraine if Russia attacked again after a peace deal was reached. On Tuesday, European leaders and US envoys announced they had agreed key security guarantees for Kyiv, including a European multinational force that would be deployed if a ceasefire could be reached. But when asked if he was sure that European allies would step in and defend his country in the event of another Russian invasion, Zelensky said on Wednesday he had no “clear” answer on that. “I personally very much want to get a very simple answer: yes, if there is aggression again, all partners will give a strong response to the Russians. And that’s the exact question I put to all our partners. And so far I haven’t received a clear, unequivocal answer,” Zelensky said. He said there was “political will” from Kyiv’s allies to “give us strong security guarantees”. “But until we have such security guarantees – legal ones, backed by parliaments, backed by the United States Congress – we cannot answer this question.” UK prime minister Keir Starmer said British MPs will have the opportunity to vote on the final number of troops deployed to Ukraine should a peace deal be reached, Peter Walker reports. Downing Street could not say, however, whether the Commons vote, which would take place before deployment, would tie the government’s hands should MPs reject the prospect of British boots on the ground. British troops would “conduct deterrent operations and to construct and protect military hubs”, Starmer told parliament on Wednesday. “The number will be determined in accordance with our military plans, which we are drawing up and looking to other members to support. So the number I will put before the house before we were to deploy.” During the session in the Commons, the Conservative MP Ben Obese-Jecty said that “the presence of boots on the ground in Ukraine was a red line for Putin, and I worry that this potentially might be a stick that he beats us with in order to push back on any peace deal.” Russian strikes late on Wednesday knocked out power supplies almost entirely in two regions of south-eastern Ukraine, the energy ministry said. “As a result of the attack, Dnipropetrovsk and Zaporizhzhia regions are almost completely without electricity,” the ministry said on Telegram. Ukraine’s prime minister, Yulia Svyrydenko, said impending snowfalls and temperatures plunging overnight to minus 20C were likely to compound disruptions to power and heating. Russia attacked two seaports in Ukraine’s Odesa region on Wednesday, killing one person and injuring eight others, Ukrainian officials said. Ukraine’s seaport administration said the attacked ports were Chornomorsk and Pivdennyi, both key export arteries for Ukraine’s commodity-heavy economy. “This is yet another attack by a terrorist country on port infrastructure that is involved in ensuring global food security,” deputy prime minister, Oleksiy Kuleba, said. Ukraine’s foreign currency reserves grew to a record high of $57.3bn at the start of January as the country continues to draw substantial flows of foreign support, the central bank said on Wednesday. Ukrainian military spending surged from around $7bn in 2021, the last year before the invasion, to a record of more than $70bn last year. The government depends heavily on financial aid to pay for humanitarian and social spending, as well as defence.