Catégorie oBox : OBOXMA

Después de amenazar a Canadá hace más de un mes con otra subida de aranceles, parece que Trump le ha perdido el gusto a la guerra comercial, o quizá se le ha olvidado.

Es como si nadie quisiera recordarle al profesor que hay que entregar los deberes.

Amenaza de aranceles en octubre

Donald Trump anunció en Verdad Social que aumentaría los aranceles a los productos canadienses en un 1 por ciento después de que la administración Ford publicara un anuncio durante el primer partido de la Serie Mundial.

El anuncio en cuestión mostraba fragmentos de un discurso de Reagan en el que se le oía decir: « Cuando alguien dice, impongamos aranceles a las importaciones extranjeras, parece que está haciendo lo patriótico al proteger los productos y empleos estadounidenses….pero a la larga, esas barreras comerciales perjudican a todos los trabajadores y consumidores estadounidenses. Los aranceles elevados conducen inevitablemente a represalias por parte de los países extranjeros y al desencadenamiento de feroces guerras comerciales. »

Trump casi inmediatamente tuvo una rabieta, publicando « LOS ARANCELES SON MUY IMPORTANTES PARA LA SEGURIDAD NACIONAL, Y LA ECONOMÍA, DE LOS EE.UU. Basado en su comportamiento atroz, TODAS LAS NEGOCIACIONES COMERCIALES CON CANADÁ SE TERMINAN POR LA PRESENTE. »

Trump afirmó que le dijo al gobierno de Ontario que retirara el anuncio, pero no le hicieron caso.

Sí, es triste que un líder mundial haga un berrinche por un anuncio de ataque bastante insulso (¿alguna vez ha visto los que publica su administración?), pero esta es la realidad en Estados Unidos.

Una amenaza olvidada

Parece como si Trump se hubiera olvidado por completo de la amenaza, y no parece que nadie tenga prisa por recordárselo. Los periodistas estadounidenses no le han insistido (como canadiense, se lo agradezco) y, según informa Politico, no se ha creado ningún documento oficial sobre la subida del 10%.

Tal vez todo esté perdonado después de que Carney se disculpara con Trump en la cumbre de Cooperación Económica Asia-Pacífico en Corea del Sur.

Quizá Carney pueda aprovechar el encanto con el que el recién elegido alcalde de Nueva York, Zohran Mamdani, hipnotizó a Trump durante el fin de semana.

Por su parte, Doug Ford no se disculpó por el anuncio: « Están hablando de ello en Estados Unidos, y no hablaban de ello antes de que yo pusiera el anuncio. Me alegro de que Ronald Reagan fuera un libre comerciante », dijo Ford.

Según los expertos, la subida del 10% podría poner en grave peligro la industria automovilística canadiense, dependiente del acero, incluso más de lo que ya lo han hecho los aranceles vigentes.

Un funcionario estadounidense sugirió que el Gobierno de Trump había optado por aplazar la imposición de aranceles adicionales -y, en su lugar, por lanzar la amenaza- mientras ambas partes se preparan para futuras conversaciones.

Ucrania golpea la flota energética rusa en aguas internacionales, lo que supone una escalada decisiva en su campaña para perturbar los ingresos de Moscú en tiempos de guerra. A finales de noviembre, drones navales ucranianos atacaron dos petroleros -el Kairos y el Virat- cuando transitaban por el Mar Negro frente a la costa de Turquía, lejos de las aguas territoriales rusas. Ambos buques están vinculados a la llamada « flota en la sombra » rusa, la red de viejos petroleros que eluden las sanciones y mantienen el flujo de petróleo ruso a pesar de las restricciones occidentales. Funcionarios de seguridad ucranianos afirmaron que los buques no transportaban crudo en ese momento, sino que se dirigían a cargar exportaciones rusas sancionadas, lo que los convierte en objetivos de gran valor en el esfuerzo de Kiev por socavar el sustento financiero de Moscú. Los ataques inutilizaron ambos petroleros y obligaron a las autoridades marítimas regionales a intervenir de urgencia, lo que puso de manifiesto que no se trataba de un acto de sabotaje interno, sino de una operación marítima transfronteriza en un corredor internacional estratégicamente sensible.

Kyiv is widening its campaign against Russia’s energy architecture, seeking to deprive it of vital revenue, but that strategy comes with risks https://t.co/UfhCtv6a9y

— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) December 3, 2025

Después de que los ataques iniciales inutilizaran los dos petroleros objetivo, el alcance total de los daños se hizo evidente cuando los equipos de emergencia se acercaron a los buques. Los drones no se habían limitado a detener su tránsito, sino que habían desgarrado las secciones inferiores de los cascos, provocando una inundación progresiva que obligó a las tripulaciones a desconectar los sistemas eléctricos para evitar incendios. Los registros de tráfico marítimo muestran que ambos barcos estuvieron a la deriva durante horas, dando señales de socorro mientras las autoridades regionales emitían alertas de navegación para evitar colisiones. Los remolcadores enviados desde puertos cercanos se esforzaron por estabilizar los petroleros, cuyos sistemas de lastre en mal estado los hicieron escorar bruscamente con el oleaje. Las evaluaciones preliminares compartidas con las aseguradoras indicaron que las salas de máquinas de ambos buques habían absorbido una cantidad considerable de agua, lo que hacía casi imposible realizar reparaciones a corto plazo y aumentaba la probabilidad de que quedaran fuera de servicio durante meses. Las secuelas pusieron de relieve cómo un solo golpe ejecutado con precisión puede extenderse hacia el exterior, deteniendo operaciones, desencadenando costosos esfuerzos de recuperación e introduciendo una nueva incertidumbre en la tensa cadena de exportación rusa.

En el último año, Ucrania ha atacado repetidamente la infraestructura energética de Rusia en ataques confirmados por funcionarios regionales rusos e informes independientes. Los drones ucranianos han atacado refinerías de petróleo en regiones como Riazán, Krasnodar y San Petersburgo, interrumpiendo temporalmente las operaciones de procesamiento, según las autoridades regionales y los medios de comunicación estatales rusos. Varios depósitos de combustible e instalaciones de manipulación de petróleo también han sido alcanzados en ataques atribuidos a Ucrania, incluidos sitios cerca de San Petersburgo y en las regiones del sur de Rusia. Kiev ha declarado que estas operaciones pretenden reducir la capacidad de Rusia para financiar su guerra mediante la exportación de energía. Las evaluaciones de los servicios de inteligencia occidentales y los análisis de Reuters han señalado que los repetidos ataques han obligado a cerrar temporalmente varias refinerías, lo que ha llevado a Rusia a desviar parte del suministro de crudo y a acelerar los trabajos de reparación. Estos incidentes confirmados constituyen el telón de fondo de la reciente ampliación de los ataques de Ucrania a objetivos marítimos vinculados al sistema ruso de exportación de petróleo.

« La solución más radical es aislar a Ucrania del mar, entonces la piratería será, en principio, imposible »

-Vladimir Putin

Los últimos ataques de Ucrania se desarrollan en un contexto de intensa polémica en torno al plan de paz entre Trump y Rusia, que los principales medios estadounidenses y europeos han calificado de profundamente desestabilizador para Kiev. Según The New York Times y France 24, la propuesta que están debatiendo Trump y Vladimir Putin exigiría a Ucrania ceder territorio y abandonar su antiguo intento de ingresar en la OTAN, condiciones que las autoridades ucranianas han rechazado pública y firmemente. El Washington Post ha informado de que el plan ha alarmado a los gobiernos europeos, que temen que legitime las ganancias territoriales de Rusia y debilite los acuerdos de seguridad colectiva en el continente. Reuters ha señalado igualmente que los dirigentes ucranianos ven las negociaciones con profundo recelo, interpretándolas como un marco diplomático construido en gran medida sin la participación de Ucrania. Mientras se desarrollan estos debates, Ucrania sigue llevando a cabo ataques contra infraestructuras energéticas rusas, acciones que ponen de relieve la determinación de Kiev de hacer valer su propia influencia en un momento en el que los debates internacionales sobre su futuro se desarrollan en gran medida por encima de sus intereses.

Tras los ataques con drones del 29 de noviembre contra los petroleros Kairos y Virat, vinculados a Rusia, el gobierno ucraniano confirmó la operación, enmarcándola como un golpe a la capacidad de Moscú para financiar la guerra a través de las exportaciones de petróleo. Aunque el Presidente Zelenskyy ha instado anteriormente a los socios internacionales a que incluyan en una lista negra y bloqueen la flota rusa en la sombra -calificando a estos buques de importante mecanismo de evasión de sanciones-, no ha hecho ningún comentario público específico sobre este ataque en concreto. Putin, por el contrario, respondió con amenazas explícitas, denunciando el ataque como piratería y declarando: « La solución más radical es aislar a Ucrania del mar, entonces la piratería será, en principio, imposible » Advirtió además de que Rusia « intensificaría los ataques contra instalaciones y buques ucranianos… y tomaría medidas contra petroleros de países que ayudan a Ucrania » Por ahora, no hay constancia verificada de que Donald Trump haya comentado los ataques a los petroleros.

⚡️ Russian tanker reportedly hit by sea drones in Black Sea near Turkish coasthttps://t.co/ujHugS4ZmK

— The Kyiv Independent (@KyivIndependent) December 2, 2025

Trump is becoming the «Sleepy Joe» of his own attacks. For years, he built a central pillar of his political message on the claim that Joe Biden lacked energy, stamina, and alertness — a narrative he reinforced with constant mockery, viral clips, and the now-iconic nickname he repeated at every rally. Now Trump is literally sleeping on the job, caught nodding off for about an hour while his Cabinet praised him on camera, and he can no longer hide it as close-up shots of his drooping eyelids ricochet across every network. What might have passed once as an awkward moment is turning into a pattern, documented by mainstream outlets and fact-checkers, even as some conservative commentators on Fox News scramble to spin his mid-meeting naps as a sign of brilliance or a clever power move. The result is a surreal split-screen: Trump still branding Biden as «Sleepy Joe» in his rhetoric, while the visual evidence increasingly suggests that the president who looks exhausted on camera is Trump himself.

President Donald Trump appeared to struggle to stay awake at a White House event for the second time in a month on Tuesday, as his Cabinet officials provided updates on their work.

During a roughly 75-minute stretch, Trump's eyes were closed or he visibly struggled to keep them… pic.twitter.com/vTDA2gFCOD

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) December 3, 2025

But that storyline is boomeranging back: during another Cabinet meeting filmed on camera, Trump spent more than an hour visibly battling — and often losing — a fight against sleep, his eyes closing for long stretches as his own secretaries showered him with praise. It wasn’t the first such moment, but it’s becoming harder and harder for him to hide, especially when close-up shots capture every slow blink. And despite Trump insisting he’s «sharper than I was 25 years ago,» the footage told a very different story — one of a president now displaying the very signs of fatigue he once weaponized against his rival.

«You’ll never see me sleeping in front of cameras.»

-Donald Trump

On the campaign trail

Trump’s greatest hits against Biden’s supposed sleepiness now read like a setup for his own predicament. Back in November 2021, after Biden visibly closed his eyes during the COP26 climate summit in Scotland, Trump blasted out an email to supporters sneering that «Nobody that has true enthusiasm and belief in a subject will ever fall asleep!» He kept leaning on the same theme over the next years, branding Biden «Sleepy Joe» at rallies and, after Biden’s fiery State of the Union in early 2024, complaining that «most of the time, he looks like he’s falling asleep.» In June 2024, he escalated to the blanket claim that «He falls asleep at every single event.»

By September 2024, Trump was still drilling the same line on the campaign trail, mocking Biden for supposedly dozing on the beach and asking his crowd, «How do you fall asleep when cameras are raging, right?»

He even told podcast host Andrew Schulz: «You’ll never see me sleeping in front of cameras.»

Those quotes now collide awkwardly with the images of Trump apparently nodding off for close to an hour in front of his own Cabinet.

As Trump sat at the center of the long Cabinet table, his secretaries took turns delivering glowing monologues about his leadership, his trade policies, his reshaping of federal agencies, and even his supposed global achievements — an orchestrated cascade of praise that often sounded more like a loyalty recital than a policy meeting. Yet while they lauded him with superlatives, Trump appeared to drift in and out of sleep, his eyes closing for long stretches as he nodded slightly in his chair, the contrast between their scripted enthusiasm and his visible fatigue growing more surreal by the minute. By the time Kristi Noem launched into her now-familiar detour «Thank you for no hurricanes this season.» The scene had become almost absurd: a president dozing through his own mythmaking, as his Cabinet embellished accomplishments he wasn’t even awake to hear.

An earlier Oval Office appearance

In that earlier Oval Office appearance, the pattern was already on display. Seated at the Resolute Desk for what was supposed to be a tightly choreographed event, Trump spent long stretches with his eyes drooping shut as aides and guests spoke just a few feet away, the pauses in his expression stretching well beyond a normal blink and turning into sequences where he looked completely disconnected from the room. Camera angles from different networks all captured the same thing: a president slipping into brief pockets of unresponsiveness while the microphones were still live. The images rocketed around social media not just because he looked tired, but because they clashed so directly with his own bravado, including his boast to a podcast host that «You’ll never see me sleeping in front of cameras.»

Ukraine hits Russia’s energy fleet in international waters, marking a decisive escalation in its campaign to disrupt Moscow’s wartime revenue. In late November, Ukrainian naval drones struck two tankers — the Kairos and the Virat — as they transited through the Black Sea off the coast of Turkey, far outside Russian territorial waters. Both vessels are tied to Russia’s so-called “shadow fleet,” the network of aging, sanctions-dodging tankers that keep Russian oil flowing despite Western restrictions. Ukrainian security officials said the ships were not carrying crude at the time but were en route to load sanctioned Russian exports, making them high-value targets in Kyiv’s effort to undermine Moscow’s financial lifeline. The strikes disabled both tankers and forced emergency responses from regional maritime authorities, underscoring that this was not a domestic act of sabotage but a cross-border, maritime operation in a strategically sensitive international corridor.

Kyiv is widening its campaign against Russia’s energy architecture, seeking to deprive it of vital revenue, but that strategy comes with risks https://t.co/UfhCtv6a9y

— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) December 3, 2025

After the initial strikes disabled the two targeted tankers, the full extent of the damage became clear as emergency responders approached the vessels. The drones had not merely halted their transit — they had torn into the lower sections of the hulls, causing progressive flooding that forced crews to shut down power systems to avoid electrical fires. Maritime traffic records show both ships drifting for hours, signaling distress as regional authorities issued navigation alerts to prevent collisions. Tugboats dispatched from nearby ports struggled to stabilize the tankers, whose compromised ballast systems left them listing sharply in the swells. Preliminary assessments shared with insurers indicated that the engine rooms of both vessels had taken on significant water, making short-term repairs nearly impossible and raising the likelihood that they will be sidelined for months. The aftermath underscored how a single precisely executed strike can ripple outward — halting operations, triggering costly recovery efforts, and inserting new uncertainty into Russia’s tightly stretched export chain.

Over the past year, Ukraine has repeatedly targeted Russia’s energy infrastructure in strikes confirmed by Russian regional officials and independent reporting. Ukrainian drones have hit oil refineries in regions such as Ryazan, Krasnodar, and St. Petersburg, temporarily disrupting processing operations according to regional authorities and Russian state media. Several fuel depots and oil-handling facilities have also been struck in attacks attributed to Ukraine, including sites near St. Petersburg and in Russia’s southern regions. Kyiv has stated that these operations are intended to reduce Russia’s ability to finance its war through energy exports. Western intelligence assessments and Reuters analyses have noted that repeated strikes have forced temporary shutdowns at multiple refineries, prompting Russia to reroute some crude supply and accelerate repair efforts. These confirmed incidents form the backdrop for Ukraine’s recent expansion of attacks to maritime targets linked to Russia’s oil-export system.

«The most radical solution is to cut Ukraine off from the sea, then piracy will be impossible in principle.»

-Vladimir Putin

Ukraine’s latest strikes unfold against a backdrop of intense controversy surrounding the Trump–Russia peace plan, which major U.S. and European media have described as deeply destabilizing for Kyiv. According to The New York Times and France 24, the proposal being discussed between Trump and Vladimir Putin would require Ukraine to cede territory and abandon its long-standing bid for NATO membership — conditions Ukrainian officials have publicly and firmly rejected. The Washington Post has reported that the plan has alarmed European governments, who fear it would legitimize Russia’s territorial gains and weaken collective security arrangements on the continent. Reuters has similarly noted that Ukrainian leaders view the negotiations with deep suspicion, interpreting them as a diplomatic framework built largely without Ukraine’s participation. As these debates unfold, Ukraine continues to carry out strikes on Russian energy infrastructure — actions that underscore Kyiv’s determination to assert its own leverage and agency at a moment when international discussions about its future are taking place largely above its head.

Following the November 29 drone strikes on the Russian-linked tankers Kairos and Virat, the Ukrainian government confirmed the operation, framing it as a blow to Moscow’s capacity to fund the war through oil exports. While President Zelenskyy has previously urged international partners to blacklist and block Russia’s shadow fleet — calling these vessels a major mechanism of sanctions evasion — he has not issued a specific public comment on this particular attack. Putin, by contrast, responded with explicit threats, denouncing the strike as piracy and declaring: «The most radical solution is to cut Ukraine off from the sea, then piracy will be impossible in principle.» He further warned that Russia would “intensify strikes on Ukrainian facilities and vessels … and take measures against tankers of countries that help Ukraine.” As of now, there is no verified record of Donald Trump commenting on the tanker strikes.

⚡️ Russian tanker reportedly hit by sea drones in Black Sea near Turkish coasthttps://t.co/ujHugS4ZmK

— The Kyiv Independent (@KyivIndependent) December 2, 2025

Hours before a new round of US–Russia contacts aimed at exploring a possible framework for peace, Vladimir Putin delivered one of his most confrontational statements in months, vowing that Russia would seize the entire Donbas region and warning that Europe could face war if it chose to challenge Moscow. His comments, made just as American representatives prepared to arrive in Moscow for preliminary talks, underscored a widening gap between diplomatic efforts and the Kremlin’s increasingly erratic rhetoric. By insisting that Donetsk and Luhansk would fall «militarily or otherwise» while cautioning Europe that Russia was «ready» for conflict, Putin set a tense tone that threatened to overshadow any tentative steps toward negotiation.

Putin says Russia will take all of Ukraine's Donbas region militarily or otherwise https://t.co/UTBT7eQsC4 https://t.co/UTBT7eQsC4

— Reuters (@Reuters) December 4, 2025

In his televised remarks on the battlefield situation, Putin hardened Russia’s position on the Donbas, presenting the fate of the region as non-negotiable and setting out a blunt ultimatum for Kyiv. He stated that Russia’s goal was to assert full control over Donetsk and Luhansk, describing this as a matter of time rather than choice. As he put it, «Either we liberate these territories by force of arms, or Ukrainian troops leave these territories.» By framing the issue in such stark terms, he effectively ruled out any compromise over the status of the Donbas and signaled that Moscow is prepared to sustain a long and costly campaign. Putin went further by insisting that Russia would secure these territories «militarily or otherwise», a phrase that leaves the door open to additional tools of pressure, from political coercion to economic leverage, while reinforcing the impression that, in his view, the end state is fixed and only the method remains in question for the Kremlin.

When he turned to Europe, Putin’s rhetoric grew even more confrontational, shifting from territorial claims in Ukraine to a direct warning aimed at Western capitals. Addressing the possibility of a deeper European role in the conflict, he delivered a stark message that cast Russia as fully prepared for a wider confrontation. «If Europe suddenly wants to fight with us and starts it, we are ready right now», he said, presenting Moscow as both confident in its military strength and unafraid of escalation. He then added a chilling line about the consequences of such a clash:

«There would be no one to negotiate with in Europe.»

Taken together, these comments amount to a threat that any move by European states to challenge Russia more directly could trigger a level of destruction that would obliterate the very partners Washington is trying to involve in a peace framework, undercutting diplomatic efforts and amplifying concerns about how unrestrained and volatile the Kremlin’s messaging has become.

Ukraine wants «real peace, not appeasement»

Ukraine’s response to Putin’s latest comments was immediate and defiant, with both President Volodymyr Zelensky and senior officials rejecting any suggestion that Kyiv might retreat from the Donbas or accept Moscow’s territorial demands as the price of peace. Zelensky and his team have repeatedly stressed that Ukraine will not withdraw its troops from the territories it still controls in Donetsk and Luhansk, nor legitimize Russia’s claim over land seized by force, framing Putin’s ultimatum as a continuation of the same coercive tactics that began with the 2014 annexation of Crimea. Ukrainian diplomats underlined that peace talks must not become a new version of appeasement, with Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha insisting that Ukraine wants «real peace, not appeasement» and warning against repeating the historical mistakes of rewarding aggression. Kyiv has also bristled at the broader threat directed at Europe, arguing that Putin’s warning that «there would be no one to negotiate with in Europe» only proves why the EU and NATO must stay united behind Ukraine, maintain sanctions and military support, and refuse any deal that would cement Russian control over occupied regions.

European leaders reacted to Putin’s latest threats with a mix of public condemnation and concrete moves to harden the continent’s defences, framing his comments as proof that Russia remains a direct and long-term danger to European security rather than a partner for compromise. In Brussels and key capitals, officials stressed that warning Europe it could be destroyed if it confronted Moscow would not split the alliance but instead reinforce the urgency of staying united behind Ukraine and resisting any peace terms built on territorial concessions.

EU institutions have kept up sanctions and financial support while exploring the use of frozen Russian assets to fund Kyiv’s war effort, and NATO’s new secretary general has underlined that the alliance is «ready and willing» to defend itself against any attack, explicitly responding to Putin’s war talk. At the same time, the EU is pushing ahead with its Readiness 2030 defence initiative, which seeks to massively increase joint spending on air and missile defence, artillery, drones and other critical capabilities, marking a strategic shift toward a more militarily assertive Europe designed precisely to deter the kind of escalation Putin is now openly threatening.

A network of influential US businessmen and Russian oligarchs

The current US effort to negotiate a Ukraine peace plan has increasingly centered on direct, often discreet discussions between American envoys and the Kremlin, with figures such as Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner holding extensive talks with Vladimir Putin on a 28-point framework that critics argue mirrors many of Russia’s demands while sidelining Kyiv.

Reports indicate that the US delegation has explored options involving partial sanctions relief or economic incentives for Moscow as part of a potential ceasefire, raising concern in Ukraine and Europe that Washington may be prioritizing geopolitical expediency over Ukrainian sovereignty. Adding to the controversy, investigative outlets have reported that a network of influential US businessmen and Russian oligarchs sees the negotiations as an opening for future energy, infrastructure, and investment deals — fueling suspicion that the proposed peace plan risks blending diplomatic concessions with lucrative private interests rather than ensuring a transparent, Ukraine-first process.

This week will bring a split screen that will reinforce growing doubts in Europe about the American commitment to the alliance that has served as the bedrock of Western unity since the end of World War II https://t.co/u2EQbm9iBh

— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) December 3, 2025

On December 3rd, the State Department used its official X account to turn an ongoing legal and political fight over the US Institute of Peace into a public branding moment. Alongside a photo of the Washington headquarters showing Trump’s name in new metal letters above the existing sign reading “United States Institute of Peace”, the department declared:

«This morning, the State Department renamed the former Institute of Peace to reflect the greatest dealmaker in our nation’s history. Welcome to the Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace. The best is yet to come.»

The announcement, issued on the eve of a US-brokered peace and economic agreement between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo to be signed in the building, signalled that the Trump administration now considers the congressionally created institute to be the Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace, a move that immediately drew criticism from former staff, diplomats and lawmakers who warned it was politicizing an institution designed to be independent.

This morning, the State Department renamed the former Institute of Peace to reflect the greatest dealmaker in our nation's history.

Welcome to the Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace. The best is yet to come. pic.twitter.com/v7DgkoZphn

— Department of State (@StateDept) December 3, 2025

Workers installed Trump’s name in large metal letters on the front of the Institute of Peace building on Constitution Avenue, a change photographed and published by the State Department when it announced the new branding. The modern glass-and-stone headquarters, normally marked only by the institute’s dove-and-olive-branch seal, now displays “Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace” above the original sign. The rebranding matches the narrative Trump has repeated throughout his second term, calling himself a president who would end “endless wars” and celebrating diplomatic deals as proof of that promise. In recent months he has also highlighted the State Department’s praise describing him as «the greatest dealmaker in our nation’s history», a line repeated in the official announcement. But reporting from outlets such as Reuters and CNN notes that many of the agreements Trump cites—often presented as breakthroughs—are in fact temporary ceasefires or limited frameworks in conflicts where tensions continue, making the contrast between his rhetoric and the situation on the ground a point of debate among analysts.

Criticism of Trump’s self-portrait as a peace-focused leader has sharpened as his Caribbean campaign against alleged Venezuelan drug boats has expanded and he now talks openly about sending troops. Since early September, the US military has carried out at least 14 to 21 strikes on small vessels in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, killing between 60 and 80 people, many of them on boats that left Venezuela, in what the administration describes as a fight against «narcoterrorists» tied to Nicolás Maduro. Trump has told reporters that a land assault on Venezuela would begin «very soon», while a notification to Congress described a «non-international armed conflict» with a Venezuelan cartel, language that effectively treats the campaign as a war.

A bipartisan group of senators has responded with a war-powers resolution, with Adam Schiff warning: «We are being dragged into a war with Venezuela without legal basis or congressional authorization», and analysts quoted in outlets such as Time, War on the Rocks and FactCheck.org say the pattern of undeclared strikes against an ill-defined enemy, justified as self-defense and launched without a clear mandate, echoes the early phases of the War on Terror, when operations in Afghanistan and then Iraq grew from limited missions into open-ended conflicts. That contrast is especially stark because Trump campaigned on promises to end what he called «endless wars» and told supporters:

«I’m not going to start a war, I’m going to stop the wars», a message his allies still use to defend the decision to rename the US Institute of Peace in his honor.

The fiercest backlash has focused on whether part of this campaign may already cross the line into a war crime. Investigations by the Washington Post, Reuters and other outlets describe the first strike on a suspected Venezuelan drug boat on 2 September, in which 11 people were killed after a US missile destroyed the vessel off Trinidad. According to multiple sources cited by the Post, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave an oral order in advance that «the order was to kill everybody», and when two men were seen clinging to the wreckage, a second missile was fired to kill the survivors, an account Hegseth and the Pentagon dispute. Legal experts quoted by FactCheck.org, Reuters and the Guardian argue that, because drug traffickers are not combatants in a recognized armed conflict and shipwrecked survivors are protected under the laws of war, deliberately attacking those men could amount to murder or, if an order to show no quarter is proven, a war crime. For critics, seeing Trump’s name going up on the façade of what is now called the Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace at the exact moment Congress is fighting to rein in a potential war with Venezuela, and investigators are probing whether his first Caribbean strike broke the laws of war, turns the rebranding into a symbol of the gap between the image of a president who stops wars and the reality of a presidency that may be starting a new one.

Israel says it will begin allowing Palestinians to leave Gaza «in the coming days,» but the move falls far short of a full reopening of the Rafah border crossing. According to Israeli officials, only a narrow group of people — primarily the wounded, urgent medical cases, and others cleared on restricted humanitarian lists — will be permitted to exit. The announcement has fueled confusion among residents hoping for broader relief, yet both Israel and Egypt have made clear that normal cross-border movement remains off the table for now. Instead of a return to pre-war operations, the opening will function more as a tightly controlled humanitarian corridor, leaving the vast majority of Gazans unable to leave despite the headline of a “reopening.”

Israel said Wednesday that it would reopen the Rafah border crossing in the coming days, allowing Palestinians to leave Gaza. That could be a major development for residents of the devastated strip, for whom leaving has been extremely difficult – if… https://t.co/VbXZnVeJBM

— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) December 3, 2025

Israeli officials have framed the move as part of the ceasefire arrangements around Gaza, saying that the Rafah crossing will be used to facilitate humanitarian cases in coordination with Egypt and international partners. Cairo, for its part, has signaled that it will cooperate on evacuations for the wounded and gravely ill but continues to reject any arrangement that would turn Sinai into a long-term destination for displaced Gazans. Humanitarian organizations and UN agencies point out that tens of thousands of people in Gaza are in need of urgent medical treatment or evacuation, far beyond the limited numbers likely to be approved under the current mechanism. For them, Israel’s promise to let some Palestinians leave Gaza «in the coming days» underscores how tightly controlled and exceptional these exits will remain, rather than marking a real restoration of freedom of movement.

Egypt’s response undercut Israel’s framing almost immediately. While COGAT publicly said Rafah would reopen “in the coming days” for Palestinians to exit Gaza into Egypt under joint oversight with Cairo and the European Union, the Egyptian government flatly denied that any such coordination was underway. In a statement issued on Wednesday, Egypt’s state information service said it was not currently working with Israel to reopen the crossing and reminded all parties that, under the October ceasefire terms, Rafah is supposed to operate in both directions, not just as a one-way outlet for people leaving Gaza. That public rejection exposed a sharp gap between Israeli announcements and Egyptian policy, and cast further doubt on how, when, and under whose terms the crossing might actually function again.

No long-term resolution

Over the past several months, the situation between Israel and Gaza has been defined by cycles of intense fighting, shifting ceasefires, and growing humanitarian collapse inside the enclave. After Israel’s expanded military operations earlier in the year, large areas of Gaza were left severely damaged, with the population facing shortages of food, water, medical supplies, and power. Ceasefire negotiations, backed at various moments by the United States, Egypt, Qatar, and later the Trump administration, produced temporary pauses but no long-term resolution, as disputes over hostages, border control, and post-war governance repeatedly stalled progress. Israeli forces maintained tight restrictions on movement in and out of Gaza, while humanitarian agencies warned that the enclave’s health system was nearing breakdown and that tens of thousands of civilians required urgent evacuation or medical care. Against this backdrop, the question of reopening key crossing points — especially Rafah — has become a central point of contention, reflecting both the fragile nature of the current ceasefire and the unresolved political struggle over Gaza’s future.

Verteidigungsminister Pete Hegseth sieht sich mit Vorwürfen konfrontiert, er habe beim zweiten Angriff auf ein mutmaßliches Drogenboot des Kartells im vergangenen September den skandalösen Befehl gegeben, « alle zu töten ». Zum Zeitpunkt des zweiten Angriffs waren die Insassen des Bootes Berichten zufolge bereits gestrandet, und viele Experten halten diesen Folgeangriff für ein « Kriegsverbrechen ».

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is facing one of his toughest tests yet over boat strikes in the Caribbean and Pacific.

Damian Paletta brings you the latest news, information and analysis on what’s driving D.C. in the WSJ Politics newsletter. https://t.co/GekmTrWnN5

— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) December 2, 2025

Die Rechtmäßigkeit der Angriffe auf Überlebende

Republikanische und demokratische Abgeordnete haben Untersuchungen zu den Vorwürfen eingeleitet, dass die US-Streitkräfte auf Befehl von Verteidigungsminister Pete Hegseth Überlebende eines ersten Angriffs auf ein mutmaßliches Drogenschmugglerboot ins Visier genommen haben.

Die Untersuchung konzentriert sich auf einen Folgeangriff, der sich gegen Personen richtete, die bereits den ersten Angriff auf das Schiff überlebt hatten, das im Verdacht stand, in einen mit Kartellen verbundenen Handel verwickelt zu sein.

Das Weiße Haus verteidigte am Montag die Entscheidung eines US-Admirals, im September mehrere Angriffe auf das mutmaßliche venezolanische Drogenschmuggelschiff durchzuführen, und erklärte, er habe die Genehmigung von Verteidigungsminister Pete Hegseth.

Ein mögliches Kriegsverbrechen

Kritiker stellen jedoch die Rechtmäßigkeit der Angriffe auf die Überlebenden in Frage. Viele bezeichnen die Operation als potenzielles Kriegsverbrechen.

Viele Experten halten den zweiten Schlag für ein Kriegsverbrechen, weil er angeblich auf gestrandete Überlebende abzielte, die bereits außer Gefecht waren. Dies würde gegen das humanitäre Völkerrecht verstoßen, da die Grundsätze der Unterscheidung und der Verhältnismäßigkeit verletzt würden, der besondere Schutz, der Schiffbrüchigen und anderen Personen, die sich nicht im Kampf befinden, gemäß den Genfer Konventionen gewährt wird, ignoriert würde und möglicherweise die Verpflichtung, diejenigen, die keine militärische Bedrohung mehr darstellen, zu verschonen und, wenn möglich, zu retten, nicht eingehalten würde.

Auf die Frage von Reportern, ob er einen solchen Folgeschlag genehmigt oder unterstützt habe, antwortete Trump:

« Wir werden es uns ansehen, aber nein, ich hätte das nicht gewollt, einen zweiten Schlag. Der erste Schlag war sehr tödlich. Es war in Ordnung. »

Der republikanische Abgeordnete Don Bacon, Mitglied des Ausschusses für Streitkräfte des Repräsentantenhauses, sagte, die Anschuldigungen müssten untersucht werden:

« Wir sollten der Wahrheit auf den Grund gehen. Ich glaube nicht, dass er so dumm wäre, diese Entscheidung zu treffen und zu sagen: Tötet alle, tötet die Überlebenden, denn das wäre ein klarer Verstoß gegen das Kriegsrecht. Ich bin also sehr misstrauisch, dass er so etwas getan haben könnte, weil es gegen den gesunden Menschenverstand verstößt. »

14 Streiks

Ausgehend von den derzeit verfügbaren Zählungen in den Medien hat die Trump-Administration mit Stand vom 2. Dezember 2025 öffentlich bestätigt oder berichtet, dass sie seit Anfang September etwa 14 US-Militärschläge gegen mutmaßliche Drogenschmugglerboote in der Karibik und im Pazifik durchgeführt hat, was bedeutet, dass mindestens so viele Schiffe getroffen worden sind.

Die Schätzungen der Todesopfer reichen von mindestens 61 Personen bei 14 Angriffen laut FactCheck.org bis zu mehr als 70-80 mutmaßlichen Drogenhändlern, die bei « mehr als einem Dutzend » Angriffen getötet wurden, wie NPR und ABC News berichten.

Der Kongress fordert nun Zugang zu allen Audio- und Videoaufzeichnungen des umstrittenen zweiten Bootsangriffs, da die Trump-Regierung versucht, die Schuld von Pete Hegseth abzulenken.

The publisher of the Franklin the Turtle books condemned Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s use of the beloved children’s character in a meme making light of his department’s deadly strikes on boats in the Caribbean. https://t.co/4LmkOp5UCj

— The Daily Beast (@thedailybeast) December 2, 2025

El Secretario de Defensa, Pete Hegseth, se enfrenta a acusaciones según las cuales dio la escandalosa orden de « matar a todo el mundo » durante el segundo ataque a una embarcación de un presunto cártel de la droga el pasado mes de septiembre. Al parecer, en el momento del segundo ataque, los ocupantes de la embarcación ya estaban varados, y muchos expertos afirman que este ataque de seguimiento se considera un « crimen de guerra ».

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is facing one of his toughest tests yet over boat strikes in the Caribbean and Pacific.

Damian Paletta brings you the latest news, information and analysis on what’s driving D.C. in the WSJ Politics newsletter. https://t.co/GekmTrWnN5

— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) December 2, 2025

La legalidad de atacar a los supervivientes

Legisladores republicanos y demócratas han iniciado investigaciones sobre las acusaciones de que las fuerzas estadounidenses, siguiendo una orden del Secretario de Defensa Pete Hegseth, atacaron a los supervivientes de un ataque inicial contra una supuesta embarcación de contrabando de drogas.

El escrutinio se centra en un ataque de seguimiento llevado a cabo contra individuos que ya habían sobrevivido al primer ataque contra la embarcación, sospechosa de estar implicada en el tráfico vinculado a un cártel.

La Casa Blanca defendió el lunes la decisión de un almirante estadounidense de llevar a cabo múltiples ataques contra el supuesto barco venezolano de contrabando de drogas en septiembre, afirmando que contaba con la autorización del secretario de Defensa, Pete Hegseth.

Un posible crimen de guerra

Sin embargo, los críticos cuestionan la legalidad de atacar a los supervivientes, y muchos califican la operación de posible crimen de guerra.

Muchos expertos consideran que el segundo ataque es un crimen de guerra porque supuestamente se dirigió contra supervivientes varados que ya estaban fuera de combate, lo que violaría el derecho internacional humanitario al vulnerar los principios de distinción y proporcionalidad, ignorar la protección especial concedida a los náufragos y otras personas fuera de combate en virtud de los Convenios de Ginebra, y potencialmente no respetar la obligación de preservar y, cuando sea posible, rescatar a quienes ya no supongan una amenaza militar.

Cuando los periodistas le preguntaron si había autorizado o apoyado ese ataque de seguimiento, Trump respondió:

« Lo estudiaremos, pero no, no habría querido eso, un segundo ataque. El primer ataque fue muy letal. Estuvo bien »

El representante republicano Don Bacon, miembro del Comité de Servicios Armados de la Cámara de Representantes, dijo que las acusaciones justificaban un escrutinio, declarando:

« Debemos llegar a la verdad. No creo que fuera tan insensato como para tomar la decisión de matar a todos, matar a los supervivientes, porque eso es una clara violación de la ley de la guerra. Así que sospecho mucho que hubiera hecho algo así porque iría en contra del sentido común »

14 ataques

Según los recuentos disponibles actualmente en los medios de comunicación, hasta el 2 de diciembre de 2025 la administración Trump ha reconocido públicamente o se ha informado de que ha llevado a cabo aproximadamente 14 ataques militares estadounidenses contra presuntos barcos de contrabando de drogas en el Caribe y el Pacífico desde principios de septiembre, lo que significa que al menos esa cantidad de buques han sido golpeados.

Las muertes estimadas oscilan entre un mínimo de 61 personas en 14 ataques, según FactCheck.org, y más de 70-80 presuntos traficantes muertos en « más de una docena » de ataques, según NPR y una cronología de ABC News.

El Congreso exige ahora acceso a cualquier grabación de audio o vídeo del controvertido segundo ataque en barco, mientras la administración Trump se mueve para desviar la culpa de Pete Hegseth.

The publisher of the Franklin the Turtle books condemned Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s use of the beloved children’s character in a meme making light of his department’s deadly strikes on boats in the Caribbean. https://t.co/4LmkOp5UCj

— The Daily Beast (@thedailybeast) December 2, 2025

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is facing allegations over claims that he issued a scandalous order to «kill everybody» during the second strike of an attack on a suspected cartel drug boat last September. At the time of the second strike, the occupants of the boat were reportedly already stranded, and many experts say that this follow-up strike is considered a «war crime».

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is facing one of his toughest tests yet over boat strikes in the Caribbean and Pacific.

Damian Paletta brings you the latest news, information and analysis on what’s driving D.C. in the WSJ Politics newsletter. https://t.co/GekmTrWnN5

— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) December 2, 2025

The legality of striking survivors

Republican and Democratic lawmakers have launched inquiries into allegations that U.S. forces, acting on an order from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, targeted survivors of an initial strike on an alleged drug-smuggling boat.

The scrutiny centers on a follow-up strike carried out against individuals who had already survived the first attack on the vessel, which was suspected of involvement in cartel-linked trafficking.

The White House on Monday defended a U.S. admiral’s decision to conduct multiple strikes on the alleged Venezuelan drug-smuggling vessel in September, stating that he had authorization from Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth.

«We’ll look into it, but no I wouldn’t have wanted that, a second strike. The first strike was very lethal. It was fine.»

A potential war crime

However, critics are questioning the legality of striking survivors, with many describing the operation as a potential war crime.

The second strike is considered by many experts to be a war crime because it allegedly targeted stranded survivors who were already out of combat, which would violate international humanitarian law by breaching the principles of distinction and proportionality, ignoring the special protection granted to shipwrecked persons and other individuals hors de combat under the Geneva Conventions, and potentially failing to respect the obligation to spare and, where possible, rescue those who no longer pose a military threat.

When asked by reporters whether he had authorized or supported such a follow-up strike, Trump responded:

«We’ll look into it, but no I wouldn’t have wanted that, a second strike. The first strike was very lethal. It was fine.»

Republican Rep. Don Bacon, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said the allegations warranted scrutiny, declaring:

«We should get to the truth. I don’t think he would be foolish enough to make this decision to say, kill everybody, kill the survivors because that’s a clear violation of the law of war. So, I’m very suspicious that he would’ve done something like that because it would go against common sense.»

14 strikes

Based on currently available media counts, as of December 2, 2025 the Trump administration has publicly acknowledged or been reported as carrying out roughly 14 U.S. military strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean and Pacific since early September, meaning at least that many vessels have been hit.

Estimated deaths range from a minimum of 61 people in 14 strikes according to FactCheck.org to more than 70–80 alleged traffickers killed in «more than a dozen» strikes according to NPR and an ABC News timeline.

Congress is now demanding access to any audio or video recordings of the controversial second boat strike, as the Trump administration moves to deflect blame away from Pete Hegseth.

The publisher of the Franklin the Turtle books condemned Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s use of the beloved children’s character in a meme making light of his department’s deadly strikes on boats in the Caribbean. https://t.co/4LmkOp5UCj

— The Daily Beast (@thedailybeast) December 2, 2025