picture of article

Putin says Russia not seeking war but ‘if Europe wants to fight, we are ready’ – Europe live

Back in Dublin, Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he had some optimism around peace efforts due to the speed of the process and the United States’ interest in finding a solution. “A little bit optimism was in my words because of some speed of negotiations, and from the American side, their interest in it. It showed that America is not withdrawing now from any kind of diplomatic way of dialogue and it is good,” Zelenskyy said.

picture of article

Putin accuses Europe of blocking US efforts to end war in Ukraine

Vladimir Putin has accused Europe of standing in the way of US efforts to end the war in Ukraine, as he began key talks in the Kremlin with Donald Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff, and the US president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. Witkoff, on his sixth trip to Moscow this year, is to present Putin with an updated version of a US peace proposal drafted with input from a senior Russian official and reworked to make it more acceptable to Kyiv. The two Trump allies arrived in Moscow on Tuesday after meeting Ukrainian officials at the weekend in Florida to discuss revisions to the original 28-point peace plan, which overwhelmingly favoured Moscow. The Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, on a diplomatic push to rally support among European capitals that have backed changes to the original plan, said in Paris that the updated version of the proposal “looks better” but emphasised it was “not over yet”. Moments before the closed-door meeting with Witkoff and Kushner, Putin made a series of hard-edged remarks. Speaking to reporters at the Kremlin, he accused European governments of sabotaging the peace process and said that “European demands” on ending the war in Ukraine were “not acceptable to Russia”. “Europe is preventing the US administration from achieving peace on Ukraine,” Putin said, adding: “Russia does not intend to fight Europe, but if Europe starts, we are ready right now.” Putin did not clarify which European demands he found unacceptable. Zelenskyy has objected, in particular, to provisions in the 28-point plan that would have required Ukraine to surrender territory in the east that it currently controls, and impose limits on the size of its military. He has also demanded clear, enforceable security guarantees from the west to prevent a future Russian invasion. Putin, for his part, has said that only the original US proposal could serve as a basis for further talks, while also stating that it required significant revisions. Despite intense shuttle diplomacy in recent weeks, which has produced several revisions to the US peace plan, bridging the gap remains difficult: Russia’s maximalist demands in effect require Ukraine’s capitulation. Most analysts believe the Kremlin is unlikely to accept substantial changes to the original document, casting doubt on the prospects of real progress in the talks. But Putin’s comments appeared aimed at driving a wedge between Washington and European capitals. European officials have had some success in pushing back against the original US plan, though it remains unclear to what extent Washington is taking their concerns into account. The Kremlin spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, earlier on Tuesday said Putin and Witkoff would discuss the “understandings” reached recently between Washington and Kyiv, adding that Russia remained open to talks but would insist on achieving the goals of its “special operation”. Those goals amount to sweeping demands that would severely erode Ukraine’s sovereignty, including deep cuts to its armed forces, a ban on western military assistance, far-reaching limits on political independence, and the handover of Ukrainian-controlled territory in the east of the country. On the eve of the talks with the US delegation in Moscow, Putin claimed Russian forces had taken control of the strategic city of Pokrovsk in Ukraine. Dressed in military fatigues during a visit to a command centre on Monday evening, the Russian president hailed what he called the “important” capture of Pokrovsk, once a major logistical hub for the Ukrainian army, though Ukrainian officials later disputed the claim. Russia has spent more than a year attempting to seize the frontline hub, seen as a gateway to Donetsk, and has suffered heavy losses in the process. Ukrainian analysts and military bloggers have acknowledged that Russia now holds most of Pokrovsk, with battlefield maps showing its forces largely in control. Buoyed up by recent gains at the front, Putin has indicated in recent weeks that the Russian military was prepared to keep fighting if diplomacy faltered, repeatedly emphasising that his forces remained on the offensive on the battlefield. The Russian leader also on Tuesday threatened retaliation against Ukraine’s ports and shipping after Kyiv in recent days struck several vessels in Russia’s so-called shadow fleet in the Black Sea. The Russian president threatened that Moscow would “step up strikes on Ukrainian ports and on any ships entering them” in response to attacks on Russian tankers, which he described as “piracy”. Echoing the Kremlin, Russian state media on Tuesday struck a confident tone before the US visit. Komsomolskaya Pravda, often described as “Putin’s favourite newspaper”, wrote that the president’s remarks suggested “more and more Ukrainian territory is coming under our control – and that next time Russia’s terms may be tougher”. The paper implied that Moscow viewed the latest US-Ukrainian talks as a dead end, claiming Kyiv was refusing to capitulate: “The US has tried for the third time in the past 10 days to pressure Ukraine, and Washington has once again failed,” it wrote.

picture of article

Trump frees ex-Honduran president from prison as country awaits knife-edge election result

A former president of Honduras who was convicted of drug trafficking has walked free from a US prison after receiving a pardon from Donald Trump, as the country’s presidential election remained on a knife edge with the US-backed candidate leading by 515 votes. Juan Orlando Hernández, who was sentenced to 45 years in prison for allegedly creating “a cocaine superhighway to the United States”, was released from a West Virginia prison after Trump’s intervention, Hernández’s wife confirmed on Tuesday. It came as Trump steps up his “war on drugs” with airstrikes on alleged traffickers in the Caribbean, and a massive US naval force off the coast of Venezuela. There has been an extraordinary level of US interference in the Honduran election. Trump threw his support behind Hernández’s ally Nasry “Tito” Asfura, saying Washington’s support for the country was conditional on an Asfura victory. On Tuesday, Trump again intervened, alleging without evidence that electoral officials were “trying to change” the result of Sunday’s vote and warned: “If they do, there will be hell to pay!” The virtual vote count had been slow and unstable before it was interrupted at about midday on Monday. The electoral council said a technical problem was to blame and insisted the manual count was continuing. When the release of results was suspended on Monday, Asfura was on 39.91%, closely followed by another rightwing candidate, Salvador Nasralla, on 39.89%. Rixi Moncada, the candidate for the leftwing ruling party, was trailing in a distant third place with 19.16% of the vote. As election officials pleaded for patience on Tuesday, Hernández’s wife, Ana García de Hernández, disclosed that the former president had been released from a US prison. “God is faithful and never fails! Yesterday, Monday 1 December 2025, we lived a day we will never forget. After almost four years of pain, waiting and difficult trials, my husband, Juan Orlando Hernández, became a free man AGAIN, thanks to the presidential pardon granted by President Donald Trump,” she wrote. Axios reported that in a letter to Trump in October, Hernández had claimed that he had been “targeted by the Biden-Harris administration not for any wrongdoing, but for political reasons.” Hernández had been held at the federal Hazelton prison in West Virginia and is now in a “safe place”, according to his wife. Trump’s pardon has baffled many observers, who have questioned why the US president has used his “war on drugs” to justify overthrowing Venezuela’s dictator, Nicolás Maduro, while simultaneously freeing a man convicted of such crimes. In Honduras, the pardon has been viewed as yet another attempt by the US president to interfere in the election. Moncada accused Trump of “interventionism” and of “imperial, direct foreign interference” in the electoral process. She served as finance minister under the current president, Xiomara Castro, who could not run again because presidential mandates are limited to a single term. Before the election, Trump had claimed Moncada was a communist and that her victory would hand the country to “Maduro and his narco-terrorists”. Nasralla, an experienced politician and TV host who served as Castro’s vice-president before breaking away to launch his own presidential attempt, was labelled by Trump as a “borderline communist” who was running only to split the vote between Moncada and Asfura. The electoral court has up to 30 days to announce the result. For many, the suspension of the vote counts has revived traumatic memories of the 2017 election, when Hernández ran for a second term, after a court struck down a constitutional ban on re-election. Early results showed Nasralla ahead, but after a “blackout” – marked by violent protests in which dozens were killed – Hernández emerged ahead and, a week after the election, was recognised by the US as the winner. Now, after a campaign in which virtually all the candidates alleged electoral fraud, all three contenders have voiced concern over the delay. “Let’s not keep the country waiting, on edge,” said Asfura.

picture of article

Former EU top diplomat among three held in fraud investigation

Belgian police have arrested three people including the EU’s former top diplomat Federica Mogherini and raided the headquarters of the EU foreign service and the elite College of Europe as part of an investigation into suspected fraud. The three were detained “as part of a probe into suspected fraud related to EU-funded training for junior diplomats”, the European public prosecutor’s office said in a statement, without naming individuals. The Belgian newspaper De Standaard, citing judicial sources, was among the first to report that Mogherini, now the rector of the College of Europe, was among the three arrested. A source confirmed to the Guardian that Mogherini was among those held. The Belgian paper said two others from “diplomatic circles” had also been arrested over possible “procurement fraud, corruption and conflicts of interest”. The College of Europe did not respond immediately to a request for comment. The Guardian understands that Stefano Sannino, the secretary general of the EU’s external action service between 2021 and 2024 and now a European Commission director general, was another of those arrested. Belgian media also reported his name. Sannino, an Italian official, did not respond immediately to an emailed request for comment. A European Commission spokesperson confirmed that “an ongoing investigation is happening into the activities that took place in the previous mandate” but declined to answer further questions, including about the names of the suspects. The College of Europe did not respond to a question about whether Mogherini had been arrested but said it would cooperate fully with the authorities “in the interest of transparency and respect for the investigative process”. It said it remained committed to “the highest standards of integrity, fairness and compliance – both in academic and administrative matters”. Police carried out searches at the Brussels headquarters of the EU’s foreign service, the European External Action Service, as well as several buildings of the College of Europe in Bruges at the request of the prosecutor’s office. Searches also took place at the houses of the suspects, the prosecutor’s office said. It said an investigation was ongoing “to assess whether any criminal offences have occurred”, adding: “All persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty by the competent Belgian courts of law.” The EU foreign service was led by Mogherini from 2014 to 2019, after she had served a few months as Italian foreign minister. She became rector of the EU-funded College of Europe in 2020, a controversial choice for some former alumni who claimed she lacked scholarly credentials or experience running a complex academic structure. The College of Europe, founded in 1949 in Bruges, has served as the postgraduate training ground for countless EU officials and diplomats. The case is an unprecedented investigation by the European public prosecutor’s office (EPPO), the only EU body that handles criminal cases, which was launched in 2021 to combat cross-border fraud involving EU funds. The EPPO can bring criminal cases in courts in any of the 24 EU member states that have joined it, including Belgium. The case centres on whether the College of Europe and or its representatives were informed in advance about the tender for a training programme for young diplomats before the official launch of the bidding process. The EPPO said it had “strong suspicions” that the rules on fair competition had been breached and that confidential information had been shared with one of the candidates taking part in the tender. The College of Europe in Bruges was awarded a contract to run the European Union Diplomatic Academy in 2021-22 after a decision from the EU foreign service. The EPPO said immunity of the three suspects had been lifted at its request. The EPPO declined to give further details beyond its initial statement about the case so as “not to endanger the ongoing procedures and their outcome”. An EU diplomat said they were happy that the EPPO was working “and is not afraid to go after big names”, adding: “If the allegations are true, they should be severely punished to send a clear message that any type of corruption is not tolerable in the EU.”

picture of article

Indian order to preload state-owned app on smartphones sparks political outcry

A political outcry has erupted in India after the government mandated large technology companies to install a state-owned app on smartphones that has led to surveillance fears among opposition MPs and activists. Manufacturers including Apple, Samsung and Xiomi have 90 days to comply with the order to preload the government’s Sanchar Saathi, or Communication Partner, on every phone in India. All phones must have the app pre-installed before sale, while those already sold should have it installed through software updates. The Indian government denied any privacy implications, stating that Sanchar Saathi “does not automatically capture any specific personal information from you without intimation on the application”. According to Reuters, Apple is among the big tech companies that is reportedly refusing to comply with the edict, while otherlarge tech companies have yet to respond publicly. The app, described as a citizen-centric safety tool, allows users to block and track lost or stolen mobile phones and check how many mobile connections are registered under their name, helping to identify and disconnect fraudulent numbers used in scams. It also helps report suspected fraudulent calls and verify the authenticity of used devices – particularly to check they aren’t stolen – before buying. The order for mandatory installation was quietly given to phone manufacturers by the Indian government, led by the prime minister, Narendra Modi, last week. After it was made public, it was confirmed by the telecom ministry, who described it as a security measure to combat the “serious endangerment” of cybersecurity and fraud that is rampant in India, as well as a means to regulate India’s secondhand phone market. It has been met with outcry by the political opposition, as well as digital freedom activists and groups, who claimed it was a way for the government to gain unfettered access to the 730m smartphones in the country and track people through their phones. KC Venugopal, a leader in the opposition Congress party, said the party would protest against the “dystopian” ruling, adding: “Big Brother cannot watch us.” The internet freedom foundation said it would “fight this direction till it is rescinded”. Priyanka Gandhi, another senior Congress party leader, condemned it as a “snooping app” that violated citizens’ basic right to privacy. According to three sources who spoke to Reuters, Apple intends to refuse to comply with the order, due to significant security concerns. Speaking anonymously, those at the company emphasised that internal policy stipulated that Apple does not comply with such orders anywhere in the world, due to the security and privacy risks they posed to Apple’s iOS operating system. Apple did not respond to official requests for comment. According to the app’s privacy policy, iPhone users will be asked permission to share access to cameras, photos and files. Android users – who represent 95% of India’s smartphone market – will be asked to share call logs, send messages for registration, make and manage phone calls “to detect mobile numbers in your phone”, as well as grant access to cameras and photos. It was reported initially that the government had instructed tech companies to ensure the app could not be disabled. But speaking on Tuesday, the communications minister, Jyotiraditya Scindia, denied this. “Keeping it on their devices or not is up to the user,” he said. “It can be deleted from the mobile phone just like any other app.”

picture of article

The slow death of Pokrovsk

For a time Pokrovsk was a haven, a wartime Ukrainian boom city because of its strategic position in the east, 30 miles (48km) from the front. But that was before the summer of 2024, when a rapid Russian advance engulfed the industrial centre in a shattering conflict, a duel only now reaching its endgame. The 18-month battle for Pokrovsk epitomises the current state of the Ukraine war: an attritional struggle in which gradual Russian advances have been made at extraordinary human cost. Though it demonstrates Russia cannot easily capture urban areas, the fight has also drained Ukraine, and consequences are emerging elsewhere. Such has been the level of destruction that Pokrovsk is no longer even strategically significant. Its population is decimated, its industry destroyed and supply routes are re-routed; instead it has become a bloody signpost as peace negotiations restart. “There are fairly strong military arguments for Ukraine giving up ground,” said Nick Reynolds, a land warfare analyst at the Royal United Services Institute thinktank. “But politically, Ukraine recognises that giving up territory won’t necessarily stop the war. Giving up land would mean fighting the same battles on different terrain.” An industrial city, with a prewar population of 60,000 and five-storey communist apartment blocks in its centre, Pokrovsk was already significant before the Russian invasion. A mine 6 miles (10km) to the west was the largest supplier of coking coal, an essential raw material for the steel-making process, in post-2014 Ukraine. Producing 6m tonnes a year, it employed, with a sister mine, 10,000 people. People deserted the city rapidly after Russia launched its full-scale assault in February 2022. But while the invaders swept through the south and eastern edge of Ukraine, the prewar lines held in Avdiivka 30 miles south-east. As the frontlines stabilised elsewhere, Pokrovsk’s location made it strategically important. Its rail station became a distribution hub for the region, while its roads were the principal through connection from the central city of Dnipro to Kramatorsk and Ukraine’s fortress belt in Donetsk province, bringing troops and supplies forward, and ferrying casualties back by night. By the summer of 2022, Pokrovsk became a lively base in the rear, even allowing for a 7pm curfew, its population at prewar levels. The Hotel Druzhba, with its Soviet attitude to service, was filled with off-duty soldiers and their partners as well as humanitarian workers, military trainers and journalists. “The city gained a boost from all the people that were arriving,” said Oleksandr Nesterenko, a public activist from Pokrovsk. An apartment that might have cost $100 a month to rent before the war “at the peak in 2023 cost anywhere from $350 to $600”, he said, with shops selling military gear springing up “seemingly every 3 metres”. That began to change in August 2023. A few weeks before a warning had been circulated that the Russians were targeting frontline hotels. On 8 August, two Iskander missiles slammed into an apartment block near the Druzhba, landing about 40 minutes apart; the second an apparent effort to kill or maim those responding to the initial attack. Seven were killed. For journalists, Pokrovsk became a place to pass through. Its economy had begun to change with a handful of women taking on traditionally male jobs working in the coalmines. But it was the fall of Avdiivka in February 2024 (caused partly by a suspension of military aid by the US Congress) that led to a dramatic change. A relatively rapid Russian advance followed in the next six months, across poorly defended rear lines, and the invaders reached within 7 miles of the south of the city by August. Civilians were told to evacuate. Library books were packed up, and shop signs were being taken down when the Guardian visited in August 2024. Gradually most residents abandoned their homes and lives. Pokrovsk was expected to fall in weeks, but did not. Some pressure on the sector was relieved by Ukraine’s surprise incursion into Russia, also in summer 2024, while the defenders became more organised. Russia’s military, unable to take the city directly, began instead what turned out to be a gradual semi-encirclement – eventually outnumbering the defenders eight to one, Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, said last month. Russian forces focused heavily on locating and eliminating Ukrainian FPV (first-person view) drone crews with its Rubicon drone units, achieving an aerial dominance in the summer, and targeting the remaining supply routes covered by anti-drone netting to the north. Rotating forces and evacuating wounded became increasingly dangerous, leaving defenders exhausted. A shortage of Ukrainian artillery weakened the defensive position further. Nesterenko abandoned his apartment in Pokrovsk in the autumn of 2024, but returned, despite the growing risks, for a few months thereafter to help people in the city. His last visit was in March this year. The least dangerous way into Pokrovsk was to walk – a car being too obvious a target for an FPV drone; the sound of explosions, he added, was constant. “At that time there was still one shop working, a general store, and it had a Starlink internet and a generator, so you could still pay by card,” he said. “No young people were left. All the customers were 50 or older, and none of them would flinch or squat whenever an explosion was close. They were so used to it, they didn’t react in any way at all, it was so noticeable.” The coking coalmine closed in January, its tunnels deliberately collapsed. Because it is not actively being maintained the mine has flooded. The last shop shut in August. About 1,200 civilians are estimated to live in Pokrovsk and 900 in nearby Myrnohrad, mostly waiting for the Russians, while Nesterenko said the city was “a complete ruin. It has no gas, no water, no electricity and no heating”. Russian troops began to infiltrate in ones, twos and small groups, to avoid drone attack, from October, increasingly taking advantage of rainy or foggy autumn weather to hide from drones. Their aim was to seal off the city, though a dramatic Ukrainian special forces helicopter raid at the end of October unblocked an exit route. Meanwhile the Russian infiltrators keep coming: on foot, on motorbike, even in pickup trucks. A larger but equally irregular group nicknamed the “Mad Max convoy”, appeared in a video on 10 November, emerging from under the cover of fog. Their goal was to accumulate in Pokrovsk, before finding and attacking Ukrainian positions. In October, the Russians suffered 25,000 casualties, killed and wounded, mostly around Pokrovsk, according to Zelenskyy. In January, the figure was 15,000, according to another Ukrainian estimate. That suggests capturing the rest of Donetsk, the cities of Kramatorsk and Sloviansk, which Vladimir Putin is demanding in the latest peace negotiations, would be more bloody. Meanwhile, perhaps because of Ukraine’s stubborn 15-month defence, problems are emerging elsewhere: its front is giving way near Huliaipole, 60 miles to the south-west, with 6 miles lost in November. “Ukraine is in a very difficult position, though it is a large country and only losing territory slowly,” Reynolds said. “Meanwhile, even if Russia continues to advance, it is not clear to what degree its civilians will in future put up with the numbers being recruited and killed.”

picture of article

‘An unprecedented void’: Brussels goes record-breaking 542 days without a government

It is a city that prides itself on the art of political compromise. But recently that quality has been sorely lacking in Brussels, which has gone a record-breaking 542 days without a government. The Brussels Capital Region, which governs the Belgian capital of 1.25 million people, has not had a government since elections in June 2024. The city has now surpassed the record of the country as a whole, which made headlines around the world in 2010-11 when it took 541 days to form a government, the longest period to form an administration in peacetime. Brussels, however, like Northern Ireland, which went 729 days without a government, will escape the ignominy of entering the Guinness World Records, which counts only sovereign states. The unhappy milestone was reached on Tuesday if you include election day, as most Dutch-language media do, although for some Francophone media the record will not officially be broken until Wednesday. Either way, it is unlikely Brussels will have a government anytime soon. Rancorous divisions, sometimes descending into personal insults, continue among the 14 parties that won places in the 89-seat parliament. This means deadlock in the self-styled capital of Europe, which hosts the EU institutions and Nato, amid a growing budget crisis, rising levels of drug-related violence, and homelessness as city authorities struggle to manage irregular migrants seeking a place to stay. An open letter signed by nearly 200 business, academic and cultural figures published on Monday lamented “541 days of seeing Brussels slide into an unprecedented institutional void and funding crisis”. The letter, published in Belgium’s major newspapers, Le Soir and De Standaard, says “political inaction is now affecting our daily lives” and that the “immense challenges that Brussels needs to tackle – economic, social, climatic and institutional – can no longer wait”. The signatories, who include the historian David Van Reybrouck, the speculoos biscuit entrepreneur Antoine Helson and the political scientist Fatima Zibouh, urge Brussels leaders to meet in conclave on Tuesday to agree a government and budgetary path. At a protest against the political deadlock on Monday, about 500 Brussels residents booed politicians walking into the city’s parliament, the Belga news agency reported. Some carried signs reading: “Shame on you Brussels.” The deadlock is the result of an election in which the tax-cutting liberal Mouvement Réformateur party emerged as the largest francophone force, while the Flemish Groen, or greens, came top for Dutch-speakers. Adding complexity to cross-party talks is the fact that the Brussels government has a fixed quota of ministerial posts for both language groups to protect the interests of Dutch-speaking voters, who are a minority in the bilingual capital. The francophone Socialists have ruled out a coalition with the Flemish nationalists, the NVA party of the country’s prime minister, Bart De Wever. The Socialists claim the NVA is an “anti-Brussels, anti-diversity” party. The Flemish liberal party, the Open VLD, meanwhile, refuses to join a Brussels government without the NVA and has referred to the Socialists as “an alcoholic addicted to public spending”. The local newspaper Bruzz has forecast that the region’s deficit will rise to €1.6bn (£1.4bn) by the end of the year, and a major bank has withdrawn a €500m credit line. A caretaker administration is in place, but it is unable to take new spending decisions, leading social support organisations to warn they may be forced to cut salaries after the loss of subsidies. Big construction projects are on hold and investments frozen. The director of Kanal, an ambitious contemporary art museum that is scheduled to open in 2026, said the lack of decision on its budget meant it may have to halt construction, threatening the project’s future. Few, however, expect to see a rapid resolution to the deadlock. “In the Brussels region so much is happening and yet nothing at all,” De Standaard’s political editor, Jan-Frederik Abbeloos, wrote last week.

picture of article

Trump’s full-throttle threats suggest no backing down from aims to topple Maduro’s regime

Weeks of saber-rattling, dark threats and a US military buildup not seen in Latin America since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis led on 21 November, somewhat anticlimactically, to a telephone call, when Donald Trump rang the man he has cast as his arch-adversary, Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela. By Trump’s own account, it was less an attempt at opening dialogue en route to a mutually beneficial compromise than a bid to up the ante by imparting an ultimatum. “You can save yourself and those closest to you, but you must leave the country now,” Trump is said to have told a leader who he has branded a narco-terrorist and baselessly accused of emptying his country’s prisons in order to send its most violent criminals to the US. The revelation this week of that threat seemed to dispel thoughts that Trump is backing down from decisive action to topple Maduro’s regime. Yet conflict with Venezuela has not always seemed inevitable. Just months ago, Trump’s special missions envoy, Richard Grenell, seemed to have paved a path to compromise with Caracas – persuading Maduro to accept return flights of deported migrants from the US, while also agreeing to release to free 10 US nationals and legal residents held captive in the US. Maduro has also floated the possibility of further agreement by offering the US access to Venezuela’s rich supply of oil and mineral resources. Yet instead of more deals, a president whose electoral appeal was partly based on a vow to end the US’s supposed addiction to distant foreign war appears to be on the brink of igniting a conflict in its own hemisphere. Grenell, who argued for pragmatism, found himself supplanted by the more hawkish advocacy of Marco Rubio, the secretary of state and acting national security adviser, who has long taken a hard line towards Maduro and his late predecessor, Hugo Chávez. One widely held explanation for the shift is that Trump is prey to the influence of the last person he was briefed by – a role presumably played, in this instance, by the increasingly influential Rubio. But some close observers of Trump’s Venezuela policy argue that the administration’s chief anti-Maduro hawk is Trump himself. “I don’t deny that Rubio’s currency is currently very high with the president, who thinks he’s doing a good job. But Trump has been a pretty implacable opponent of Maduro for a long time. He has much different and more mixed feelings about other dictators and other parts of the world, but he has been more consistent on Maduro,” said Ryan Berg, head of the future of Venezuela initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “In many ways, Venezuela is unfinished business for Trump from his first presidency. [And] Venezuela really does touch all of the issues that are priority issues for Trump – drugs in the hemisphere, migration in the hemisphere, and China in the hemisphere.” Trump’s ultimatum raises the possibility that the administration could launch a “decapitation strike” aimed at killing Maduro, Berg said. Despite the inevitable condemnation that would it would draw from killing a national leader, the administration believes it would be justified because it does not consider Maduro to be a legitimate head of state – pointing to two presidential elections, in 2018 and 2024, he is widely believed to have stolen. “Maduro and those around him are betting that Trump is going to back down and on this, I think they could be very mistaken,” said Berg. “My sincere belief is that Trump is serious about this, and that we may well see strikes in Venezuela before Christmas.” But he added: “There is an effort within the administration to do this an easier way, which is to offer Maduro a chance to leave on his own terms through some kind of negotiated exit. He could get safe passage to some other place.” Yet if Trump is offering secure passage to Maduro to leave power – with Qatar, Cuba and even Turkey being touted as possible exile locations – there is still little guarantee that the Venezuelan leader will take it. “Not everybody’s motivated by a few hundred million bucks and a plane ride,” said one US businessmen with longstanding ties to Venezuela and experience of dealing with Maduro. “There are not many examples of people leaving the country with that kind of money living very long, so it’s not a very appetizing prospect for Maduro.” Steve Ellner, a former professor at Venezuela’s Universidad de Oriente and a veteran commentator on the country’s politics, argued that Trump’s resort to a threatening phone call may in itself be a response to the Venezuelan armed forces’ refusal to buckle before the overwhelming US military presence. “One of the things that Maduro has demonstrated is that there’s going to be resistance,” Ellner said. “If the Venezuelan military was going to overthrow Maduro out of fear of a US invasion, it would have happened by now.” He added: “Had Maduro not reacted the way he did with this [military] mobilization, had there not been pushback from Latin American leaders like [Colombia’s President Gustavo] Petro and [Brazil’s president] Lula and [Mexico’s President Claudia [Sheinbaum] … maybe there would have been boots on the ground or some kind of military action in Venezuela.” Trump, argued Ellner, was using intimidation to extract the greatest possible concessions from Maduro while “playing it by ear” before deciding on military action. “The way this played out was not a best-case scenario for the hawks, and that’s why, up until now, he hasn’t done anything on Venezuelan territory,” he said. “But that’s not to say that that might not happen. It very well might.”