Trump’s “Board of Peace” in Gaza I Escalation/De-escalation in Greenland

Photo Source:
NIAS Course on Global Politics
National Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS)
Indian Institute of Science Campus, Bangalore
For any further information or to subscribe to GP alerts send an email to subachandran@nias.res.in

CWA # 1940

Conflict Weekly

Trump’s “Board of Peace” in Gaza I Escalation/De-escalation in Greenland

Conflict Weekly #316, 23 January 2026, Vol 7, No. 3

IPRI Team
23 January 2026

Brighty Ann Sarah, Lekshmi MK and Anu Maria Joseph

Conflict Weekly Focus Note
The War in Gaza:
Trump’s Board of Peace and the Challenges to Phase Two
Brighty Ann Sarah

In the news
On 21 January, President Trump warned that Hamas has three weeks to surrender their weapons, or the group will “be blown away…That's what they agreed to. They've got to do it.”

On 21 January, in Gaza, the Israeli forces ordered dozens of Palestinian families in the southern Gaza Strip to leave their homes in the first forced evacuation since the October ceasefire. Israeli tank shelling across Gaza also killed 13 people including journalists and children. On 20 January, Israel demolished structures inside the UN Palestinian refugee agency's East Jerusalem compound which the agency condemned as a violation of international law.

On 16 January, President Trump announced the formation of the Gaza “Board of Peace,” shortly after the announcement of a 15-member Palestinian technocratic committee. He remarked that it would be “the Greatest and Most Prestigious Board ever assembled at any time, any place.”

Issues at large
First, the long-drawn post-ceasefire plans and unfulfilled phase one commitments. The phase one, which commenced with the establishment of the ceasefire in October 2025 remains to be fully achieved. The phase one included an immediate and sustained halt to all hostilities, a hostage-prisoner exchange, Israeli military withdrawal to agreed boundaries demarcated as the “Yellow Line,” full reopening of the Rafah crossing and unrestricted two-way movement, and the increased and unrestricted flow of humanitarian aid into the enclave.

Second, the persisting Israeli ceasefire violations and Hamas’ resistance. The core objective of phase two of the peace plan is the complete disarmament of Hamas and the demilitarization of the enclave. The ceasefire has been consistently threatened by mutual violations and escalating hostilities. Israel also maintains control over nearly 53 per cent of Gaza's territory beyond the "Yellow Line" with no substantial withdrawal and enforces severe restrictions over aid movement. Hamas, while returning all living hostages and 27 of 28 deceased remains, has delayed the final body's handover and is accused of sporadic provocations. The group has also deepened its political consolidation in pockets across the enclave. Hamas maintains its demands for Israeli withdrawal, an end to occupation, and credible progress toward Palestinian statehood.

Third, the intentions and complexities of the Board of Peace and the technocratic committee. According to its charter, the Board of Peace, would be chaired by President Trump, with an Executive Board appointed by him. He also holds the right to veto decisions, drive the agenda, dissolve the board and designate the successor. The Board was intended to oversee the reconstruction of Gaza, but the charter notably lacks any mention of the enclave and positions itself as an international organisation with a global mandate to promote stability and “secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict.” This marks a significant shift from the mandate of the board approved by the UN Security Council in November 2025 which pertained exclusively to Gaza. Washington has also invited several countries, while permanent membership mandates a USD 1 billion payment towards the operations of the board and the reconstruction of the region.

Fourth, mixed international reception to Trump's Board of Peace. The invitation to join the Board had been extended to nearly 60 countries, including India, Pakistan, China and Russia. While several countries including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, UAE, Turkey, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Israel have accepted the invitation, several key Western states have rejected participation. France declined the invite, stating that it “raises serious questions, in particular with respect to the principles and structure of the United Nations, which cannot be called into question.” Norway and Sweden also joined in rejecting the invite citing concerns over the board supplanting the UN. Germany also raised concerns over Trump’s predetermined authorities on the board, while the UK expressed reservations over its makeup. China also rejected the invitation and reiterated its commitment to the principles of the UN, while Russia has yet to make a public statement.

In perspective
First, the lukewarm response to the Board, by both the growing tension between Washington and its European allies, and concerns over the overarching powers of the chairman. Most countries have expressed reluctance to endorse the board as it appears to encroach on the role of the UN.

Second, the implementation of the second phase is challenged by mutual resistance from Hamas and Israel. As Israel and Hamas have persistently rejected the main terms, and the ceasefire marked by violations, the progress of the second phase is likely to be an arduous process and even risks the renewal of intense conflict.

Conflict Weekly Focus Note
Continuing Tensions over Greenland:
Trump’s escalation-deescalation approach and Europe’s defence
Lekshmi MK

In the news
On 22 January, President Trump said a “framework of a future deal” on Greenland was discussed in the World Economic Forum in Davos with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and called the talks “very productive.” On 21 January, he argued that control over Greenland is critical for US national security and NATO’s strategic posture, though European leaders reacted with scepticism. Earlier, he stated there was “no going back” on his goal to control Greenland. On 19 January, he remarked he no longer felt obliged to think “purely of Peace” and had earlier threatened additional tariffs on European countries.

On 20 January, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen spoke of building a “new independent Europe.” On 19 January, EU leaders discussed reactivating EUR 93 billion in tariffs and considered using the Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI). Also on that day, the European countries sent military personnel to Greenland, signalling collective support for Denmark. Denmark and Greenland consistently stated that Greenland is “not for sale” and that sovereignty and autonomy are non-negotiable.

On 20 January, Russia’s Foreign Minister questioned Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland, calling it a result of colonial conquest and adding a wider geopolitical dimension to the issue.

Issues at large
First, Trump’s escalation-deescalation approach on Greenland. His approach includes - tariff threats, strong claims over ownership were later softened through references to “frameworks” and continued dialogue with NATO partners. This pattern reveals applying pressure to shift negotiations, then step back to retain diplomatic space, creating uncertainty among allies and complicates alliance management. In the Arctic context, this alternating posture tests institutional limits, and introduces unpredictability into transatlantic relations and regional governance.

Second, Denmark and Greenland’s firm assertion of sovereignty, and its challenges. Denmark and Greenland’s response highlights the difficulty of defending sovereignty in a region amid external pressure. Their firm stance on Greenland is not for sale, reflecting a need to protect territorial integrity, political autonomy, and indigenous governance arrangements. At the same time, Greenland’s autonomy arrangements, environmental concerns, and resource control further complicate the situation. This creates a delicate balance between engagement and resistance. The issue lies in ensuring that sovereignty is preserved without escalating tensions or isolating partners.

Third, Europe’s political and military assertion. Europe’s actions reflect a broader need to protect alliance principles while responding to strategic pressure in the Arctic. Political statements, military presence in Nuuk, and consideration of economic tools show an effort to reinforce Denmark without undermining NATO cohesion. Europe has to balance deterrence with diplomacy, ensuring that its response does not escalate tensions but still signals commitment to sovereignty and international law. Europe’s posture is therefore not reactive alone but part of a strategic effort to preserve stability, credibility, and trust within transatlantic relations.

In perspective
First, Trump’s focus on Greenland is likely to remain unchanged. Despite de-escalatory remarks, Trump’s repeated references to Greenland’s military location and resource value show a sustained strategic interest in the Arctic. His position reflects that the issue is not temporary rhetoric but part of a long-term approach that may continue to influence US engagement with allies over Arctic affairs.

For Europe, Greenland has become a test of cohesion and collective security. Europe must carefully balance its response to strategic pressure while preserving NATO unity and alliance norms. Political statements, military signalling, and economic preparedness show an effort to defend territorial integrity without escalating tensions. How Europe handles this situation will reflect its ability to act collectively, uphold legal principles, and maintain credibility in protecting regional stability and shared security commitments.

For Denmark and Greenland, sovereignty will remain a continuing challenge. Greenland’s strategic value places Denmark and Greenland in a difficult position of defending autonomy while maintaining cooperative relations with powerful allies. Protecting territorial integrity, local governance, and resource control requires constant balancing between engagement and resistance.

Conflict Weekly Column: Conflicts in Africa
Another major kidnapping in Nigeria and Election announcement in Guinea-Bissau
Anu Maria Joseph

What happened this week?
1. Guinea-Bissau
On 22 January, the military authorities in Guinea-Bissau announced the presidential and legislative elections for 6 December. Announcing the elections, transitional President Horta N'Tam signed a decree on 21 January. The decree read: “All the conditions for organising free, fair and transparent elections have been met."

2. Nigeria
On 21 January, Reuters reported that 168 worshippers were kidnapped from three churches this week in the northern Kaduna state. Initially, the Nigerian police denied the claims; however, later the police spokesperson said that the earlier statement was "not a denial of the incident but a measured response pending confirmation of details from the field, including the identities and number of those affected." Amnesty International criticised the Nigerian government for denying the kidnapping and added: "Authorities must also take immediate and concrete measures to prevent rampant abductions that are gradually becoming the norm in Nigeria."

On the same day, separately, Reuters reported that the Nigerian forces rescued previously taken 62 hostages and killed two militants in multiple operations across Kebbi and Zamfara states.

What are the issues?
1. Guinea-Bissau: The controversial coup, ECOWAS' concern and Africa's coup belt
Guinea-Bissau's military staged the coup on 26 November after suspending the elections. They said the move was to block a plot by unnamed politicians who have "the support of a well known drug baron" to destabilise the country. It was the fourth military takeover since the country gained independence. However, the coup turned controversial when the opposition, several civil society groups and political leaders from neighbouring countries alleged that Emabalo orchestrated the coup to block the announcement of the opposition's election victory.

Meanwhile, ECOWAS has been pressuring the transitional government to organise elections within a short transitional timeframe. The bloc suspended the country from decision-making bodies and threatened sanctions. It also rejected a one-year transitional timeline suggested by the military. ECOWAS's strong stance comes in the wake of an increasing number of coups and strengthening military governments in West Africa.

Since 2020, West Africa has witnessed five military coups. Mali in August 2020; Burkina Faso in January 2022 and September 2022; Niger in July 2023; Guinea in September 2022; and Gabon in August 2023. Guinea-Bissau was the sixth one. In January 2024, Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso left ECOWAS and formed the Alliance of Sahel States. The bloc recently formed a military force and is encouraging other military-run governments in the region to join the bloc. With the expansion of AES, ECOWAS and the AU fear the strengthening of military governments and a potential backsliding of democracy in the region.

2. Nigeria: The new wave of kidnapping and challenged efforts
The number of kidnapping incidents increased in Nigeria since November, especially in the states of Zamfara, Kaduna, Borno, Niger and Kebbi. This escalation, in particular, came after the security issues in Nigeria started gaining international attention when US President Trump threatened military action in Nigeria for an alleged "Christian genocide."

In December 2025, the US carried out airstrikes in collaboration with the Nigerian government in Sokoto state. The attack prompted the armed men/bandits in Sokoto state to flee to neighbouring Niger, Kaduna and Zamfara states. The previous week, the US Africa Command (AFRICOM) announced continued support to Nigeria in its fight against insurgency.

Kidnappings and killings have continued on a larger scale despite the US assistance and renewed counterinsurgency efforts by the Nigerian security forces. 30 people were killed, and several were abducted in Kasuwan Daji market in Niger state on 6 January. In Kano state, thousands fled amidst fear of being killed by bandits the previous week. Besides, Trump has linked US military attacks as a response to the killing of Christians in the country, despite Nigerian President Bola Tinubu clarifying that the targets are not exclusively Christians. Trump's religious framing, threats of unilateral actions and Nigeria's incapacity and dependence on US security assistance have increased fears of creating a perception of external leverage over the country's internal security issues.

What does it mean?
In Guinea-Bissau, the election announcement is a positive development following the coup, indicating a return to constitutional democratic rule. According to the transitional charter, the transitional leader and key officials are barred from running in the elections. However, given the trend of coup leaders extending the transition and consolidating their power through unconstitutional means in West African countries, it's less likely that Guinea-Bissau will be an exception. ECOWAS' pressure has played a crucial role in restoring constitutional order quickly. However, it's uncertain whether the pressure will transform into restoration of the constitutional order amidst the strengthening military-run governments in West Africa.

In Nigeria, long-term security will depend on the local response, the presence of state forces and the technical and military capacity to enable a timely response. However, the increasing scale of banditry indicates the challenges in achieving lasting security gains despite US assistance, especially in the regions marked by weak governance and unresolved local grievances. Besides, Trump’s stance and increasing sovereignty concerns imply that Nigeria needs to balance security cooperation against external control over domestic security policies.

Conflict Weekly Column: Conflicts in the Middle East
Syria: The State victory over the Syrian Democratic Forces
Brighty Ann Sarah

What happened this week?
On 21 January, Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdogan stated that Kurdish forces in northern Syria must “lay down weapons and disband” now to avoid further bloodshed, and that any provocation would be a “suicide attempt.” The US envoy Tom Barrack also stated that the offer of integration into the central Syrian state was the "greatest opportunity" the Kurds have. He added that the original purpose of the SDF of battling Islamic State, had “largely expired,” and that the US had no long-term interest in retaining its presence in Syria. On the same day, Syria's government accused the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces of drone attacks that killed 11 soldiers, threatening to violate the four-day ceasefire between the government and the SDF.

On 20 January, Syria's defence ministry announced a four-day ceasefire following a new agreement with the SDF and the government, and that it has seized swathes of territory from in the northeast including major oil fields.

On 19 January, Syria and the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) struck a deal to bring Kurdish civilian and military authorities under central government control. The deal ended days of fighting and the Syrian forces captured key territories of SDF control including Deir al-Zor, the country’s main oil- and wheat-producing area, and Raqqa, home to key hydroelectric dams along the Euphrates. The 14-point deal published by Syria's presidency featured the signatures of both Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa and SDF head Mazloum Abdi.

What are the issues?
1. The terms of the US-brokered ceasefire deal
The 14-point agreement of ceasefire and the full integration of the SDF into the state military apparatus was aimed to end hostilities and reassert central state authority over north-eastern Syria. Major provisions of the agreement include an immediate and nationwide ceasefire across all fronts and the dissolution of the SDF and the individual integration of its fighters into Syria’s Ministries of Defence and Interior after security vetting, granting them appropriate ranks, and benefits. Further, full administrative and military handover of key territories of SDF control including Deir ez-Zor and Raqqa will be implemented. The handover also includes control over critical oil and gas fields, hydroelectric dams. The SDF will also transfer control over ISIS prisons, detention centres, and camps to the Syrian government, and withdraw its military and security forces east of the Euphrates River as a preliminary step.

2. Turkey’s interests and investments in Syria and the SDF factor
Ankara’s interests in post-Assad Syria hinge on eliminating the major security concerns posed by the SDF’s affiliation with the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), regarded as a terrorist organisation that has waged armed insurgency in Turkey since 1986. Integrating the SDF will ensure the neutralisation of the PKK elements in the SDF along the Syria-Turkey border to and prevent cross-border attacks. Following the fall of the Assad regime, Turkey had made significant investments in Syria’s reconstruction, securing over USD 11 billion in power and aviation contracts. The investments largely aim to utilise the vast natural-gas resources in the north-eastern regions under the SDF control. For Turkey, the integration of the SDF into the central command and the expulsion of YKK elements unlocks the resource-rich areas under Syria’s centralized control and potential Turkish-backed development, while bolstering bilateral ties, and regional influence in a unified Syria.

3. The endgames for the government and the military
For the al-Sharaa government, the dissolution of the SDF is a step towards the reestablishment of a unified, centralized Syrian state under Damascus' sovereign control and eliminating separatist threats. This would involve dismantling the long-standing semi-autonomous Kurdish administration in the northeast, including the Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, eliminating parallel military establishments, and reintegrating all territories and populations into the folds of centralized decision-making. Al-Sharaa has framed this as ending Syria's “state of division” to achieve “unity and progress for all,” and consolidating his authority post-Assad by extending state institutions everywhere,

For the Syrian military, this agreement signals the objective of creating a unified, professional national army under exclusive central command, free of factional or autonomous units that could challenge its command. This mandates the dissolution of the SDF as an independent entity and the individual integration of its approximately 100,000 fighters, ensuring no SDF units or parallel command structures remain active. By absorbing vetted SDF personnel and reclaiming strategic sites the military also benefits additional forces and neutralised threats. Further, neutralising a key adversary like the SDF also positions the army as the sole defender of a reconstituted, sovereign Syria while reducing risks of internal fragmentation.

What does it mean?
Eliminating the SDF is a monumental political win for President Ahmed al-Sharaa as the government stabilises from the fall of the previous regime. The move has dismantled the Kurdish administration in north-eastern Syria, diminishing separatist forces an bringing roughly one-third of the country, including resource-rich regions and key Arab-majority provinces like Deir ez-Zor and Raqqa under direct state control. This grants al-Sharaa more cohesive territorial authority, enabling centralized resource management for reconstruction and state-building. It also strengthens the new regime by establishing the Syrian state's control over ethnic lines and limiting Kurdish separatist efforts, minimizing internal fragmentation risks.

The event also underscores the regime’s growing ties with the US, as Washington, the most critical backer of the SDF due to the shared threat of ISIS, withdrew its support for the group and urged its integration into the state forces. It also facilitates closer ties with Turkey, strengthening the al-Sharaa government's regional standing and prospects of wider bilateral and economic cooperation.

Issues in Peace and Conflict This Week:
Regional Roundups
Brighty Ann Sarah, R Preetha, Lekshmi MK, Aparna A Nair, Yesasvi Koganti, Aishwarya D Pai, and Tonica Sharon

China, East Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific
Vietnam: To Lam re-elected as the general secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam; Xi lauds “shared future”
On 23 January, To Lam was re-elected for five years by all 180 members of the Communist Party's central committee at the end of a once every five-year Party congress aimed at setting priorities of leadership and policy. Considered a reformist, Lam vowed deeper economic and institutional reforms, including within the party, and promised annual economic growth above ten per cent through the decade, a target analysts have described as ambitious. The World Bank forecasts an average growth rate of 6.5 per cent in the near term. Reuters reported that China's President Xi Jinping congratulated To Lam, and said that the two communist neighbours formed a “community with a shared future of strategic importance.” In his message, President Xi praised the “remarkable results” of socialist construction and reform in Vietnam and stressed its growing international status and influence. He expressed his readiness to strengthen strategic communication, continue traditional friendship, and promote the common cause of socialism while contributing to regional and global stability.

China: US control of Venezuelan oil revenues poses challenges for debt restructuring, reports Reuters
On 23 January, Reuters reported that US control over Venezuela’s oil export revenues, now redirected to a Qatar-based account under Washington’s oversight, has disrupted oil shipments used to repay Chinese loans. Roughly 10 per cent of Venezuela’s estimated USD 150 billion foreign debt is owed to China and was being repaid through oil cargoes, which are now blocked. Beijing condemned the decision, saying its legitimate interests must be protected, while US officials reportedly stated that China could continue buying Venezuelan oil at fair market prices, but not as repayment for debt.

The Middle East and Africa
The War in Gaza: Trump’s Board of Peace signals expansion beyond Gaza ceasefire
On 22 January, US President Donald Trump announced the establishment of the Board of Peace at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The creation of the board was endorsed by a UN Security Council resolution linked to Trump’s Gaza peace plan, though the UN said its engagement would be limited to that context. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the board’s immediate focus would be on ensuring the Gaza ceasefire is implemented. “Once this board is completely formed, we can do pretty much whatever we want to do. And we'll do it in conjunction with the United Nations," Trump said. He denied that the board was meant to replace the UN, saying it would work in coordination with the UN and that the organisation's potential had not been fully utilised. Trump will chair the board; he has invited several world leaders to join the Board and stated that permanent members would be required to contribute USD one billion each. Thirty-five countries, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Qatar, Argentina, Indonesia, and Hungary, have accepted the invitation. France declined the invitation, while the UK said it was not participating at present.

The War in Gaza: Turkey’s Foreign Minister to be a part of the US international “Board of Peace” initiative in Gaza
On 21 January, according to media reports, the Foreign Minister Fidan will represent Turkey’s president at the leaders-level “Board of Peace”. President Erdogan confirmed in parliament that the Foreign Minister will represent him in the initiative. This initiative was initially aimed at ending the conflict in Gaza, but President Trump has said that it would also resolve conflicts around the world. President Trump will preside over a ceremony marking the establishment of the Board of Peace on Thursday at the World Economic Forum's annual meeting in Davos. The Turkish Foreign Ministry announced that Foreign Minister Fidan will attend the signing ceremony on Thursday. The US had earlier announced that Foreign Minister Fidan was a member of the “Gaza Executive Board”, along with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, President Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and President Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

The War in Gaza: European states reconsider participation in the US-led Gaza Civil Military Coordination Center; Families in Gaza are forced to evacuate since the ceasefire
On 20 January, Reuters reported that several European states were reconsidering their participation in the US-led Civil-Military Coordination Centre (CMCC) for Gaza, citing a lack of progress and developments in the facilitation of humanitarian aid, post-war governance in Gaza, and monitoring of the Israel-Hamas equation as reasons. Similarly, diplomats cite growing frustration with the stagnant state, due to the reported absence of various European officials recently. Trump plans to enter a second phase of coordination with the proposed “Board of Peace.”

Reuters reported that Israeli forces had dropped leaflets on 19 January, ordering the immediate evacuation of dozens of Palestinian families in Bani Suhaila and eastern Khan Younis in 3 languages. The message stated, “Urgent message. The area is under IDF control. You must evacuate immediately,” affecting nearly 3,000 people. Hamas officials and residents claim that Israeli forces have repeatedly expanded the “yellow line” withdrawal boundary by 120–150 metres into Palestinian administered areas, underscoring the contested and shifting geography of control.

Syria: State forces accuse the SDF of ceasefire violation that killed 11 soldiers
On 22 January, Syria's government accused the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) of drone strikes that killed 11 soldiers. This is the first alleged violation since the four-day ceasefire between the government forces and the SDF was announced. The attack is reported to have occurred while the troops were securing a captured military base containing explosives. The SDF denied the accusations.

Syria: Turkey’s President Erdogan urges the SDF to disband and integrate into the state forces to avoid “bloodshed”
On 21 January, Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdogan stated that Kurdish forces in northern Syria must “lay down weapons and disband” now to avoid further bloodshed, and that any provocation would be a "suicide attempt." The statement follows the ceasefire agreement between Syria's government and the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in the northeast. The SDF had also agreed to integrate into the state forces backed by Turkey. Erdogan also stated that Ankara welcomed the ceasefire agreement and hoped that "full integration" would usher in a new era in Syria. Washington, which had been the SDF’s major ally, also urged the group to integrate into the central apparatus.

Protests in Iran: At least 5,000 killed, says an official; Judiciary considers execution under 'Mohareb' charge
On 18 January, an Iranian official stated that approximately 5,000 people died, including 500 security personnel, accusing “terrorists and armed rioters” of being allegedly backed by foreign states such as the US, Israel, and Kurdish separatist groups. The Iranian judiciary announced the execution of a few protesters under the charge of Mohareb (waging war against God), which carries the death penalty under the Iranian Law, despite US President Donald Trump’s threats of intervention if executions proceed. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned against impunity while rejecting claims that Iran would be pushed into war. According to Reuters, various rights groups reported that thousands were killed, with over 24,000 being arrested, and intense violence was witnessed in the Kurdish areas. Further, severe blackouts imposed on the Internet obstructed information gathering.

Europe and the Americas
The War in Ukraine: Kyiv, Washington and Kremlin prepare for trilateral peace talks as Putin holds talks with US envoys
On 23 January, media reported that Russia's President Vladimir Putin held talks with three US envoys, including Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner in Moscow ahead of planned trilateral peace talks involving the United States, Ukraine and Russia in Abu Dhabi. The Kremlin said the discussions were “substantive, constructive and very frank,” and agreed that security talks will be held in the UAE. It also emphasised that a lasting peace settlement is unlikely without resolving territorial issues first, notably Russia’s demand that Ukraine cede control of parts of eastern Donetsk. Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov reiterated that Russia views territorial concessions as a core requirement for a long-term settlement. Meanwhile, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky also said the territorial issue, especially the fate of Donbas, would be discussed at the US-brokered trilateral talks in Abu Dhabi. President Zelensky noted that the question of Donbas is “key” to negotiations, and stressed Kyiv’s continued refusal to surrender territory Kyiv still holds. The Abu Dhabi talks represent the first trilateral meeting involving Russia, Ukraine and the United States.

The War in Ukraine: Putin to hold Ukraine talks with US envoys as Trump signals deal is reasonably close
On 22 January, Reuters reported that President Vladimir Putin is set to discuss a possible peace plan for Ukraine with US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner in Moscow, following President Donald Trump's statement that a deal to end the war was "reasonably close." Addressing the Russian Security Council, Putin also reportedly confirmed that discussions with the US envoys would focus on Trump’s proposed “Board of Peace,” and the possible use of frozen Russian assets. While the US engages separately with Russia, Kyiv, and European leaders on draft frameworks to end the conflict, a deal is yet to be reached, despite Trump’s repeated promises. The negotiations focused on ending the deadliest European conflict since World War II, Ukraine’s political and territorial future, assessing the durability of US-led peace, and the risk of Europe being sidelined. While Trump has expressed confidence that a deal is close, he has blamed both Putin and Zelenskiy for any failure and told Reuters last week that Zelenskiy is a key obstacle to reaching an agreement.

Europe on Arctic Security: European Commission prepares package to support Arctic security amid Greenland tensions with the US
On 20 January, European Commission President von der Leyen said that the European Union’s executive arm was working on a security package to support Arctic security and warned that the tariffs proposed by US President Trump on Greenland are a mistake, especially given the long-standing alliance between the two countries. She reiterated that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Denmark and Greenland are non-negotiable and that the EU would work with the US and other partners on wider Arctic security, as it can only be achieved together. She warned that the EU-US trade deal must be respected, cautioning that any escalation would only aid adversaries and said that the EU’s response would be united and proportional after President Trump intensified his push to wrest sovereignty over Greenland. The EU is also planning a “massive European investment surge in Greenland” to support the local economy, infrastructure, the European icebreaker capability and other equipment vital to Arctic security.

The UK and the Chagos Island Deal on Sovereignty: London defends it, as Trump calls it an act of “Great Stupidity”
On 20 January, the UK government defended its agreement to transfer sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius after US President Donald Trump criticised the deal, calling it “an act of GREAT STUPIDITY.” Although the Trump administration had earlier backed the UK-Mauritius deal, calling it a “monumental achievement," President Trump has now criticised it. He linked the handover of sovereignty over Diego Garcia to broader concerns about Western allies handing over strategically important territories. His remarks come amid his renewed pressure over Greenland.

Downing Street said the deal was necessary because court rulings had weakened the UK’s legal position, placing the base “under threat.” The Prime Minister’s official spokesperson said the US continues to support the agreement and noted that all Five Eyes allies back it. Trump, however, wrote on Truth Social that the UK was giving away Diego Garcia “for no reason whatsoever.” His comments contrast with earlier US support, when Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the deal as a “monumental achievement.”

Gaza and the Board of Peace: Trump withdraws Canada’s invitation to join following PM Carney’s speech
On 23 January, President Trump revoked the invitation to Canada to join the Board of Peace in response to Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney's speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos. "Please let this Letter serve to represent that the Board of Peace is withdrawing its invitation to you regarding Canada’s joining, what will be, the most prestigious Board of Leaders ever assembled, at any time," Trump wrote in a Truth Social post. In his speech, Carney had criticised powerful countries of wielding “economic integration as coercion.” He had urged countries to accept the end of a rules-based global order, warning that “we are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.” He asserted that "middle powers" must act together to prevent being victims of “American hegemony,” stating that “[middle powers] are not at the table, we are the menu.” Trump had sharply retorted Carney’s observations, claiming that Canada "lives because of the United States," and that Carney should be grateful for Washington’s’ generosity.

The US-Europe differences on Greenland: The EU is considering retaliatory measures, as Trump says "No going back"; European Commission President refers building a “new independent Europe”
On 20 January, the US President Donald Trump reiterated that there is “no going back” on his goal to control Greenland. Trump framed Greenland as “imperative for national and world security" after speaking to Mark Rutte, NATO Secretary General. Trump also shared an AI-generated image portraying Greenland as a part of the United States. Trump’s stance has threatened NATO unity, as both Denmark and the United States are alliance members. Denmark’s Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, warned that “the worst may still lie ahead.” According to Reuters, in response, the European Union is considering retaliatory trade measures against the United States, which include tariffs on 93 billion euros worth of US imports, which will automatically fall into effect on 6 February after a suspension. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, speaking at Davos, insisted on building a “new independent Europe.” Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, questioned Denmark's sovereignty over Greenland and called Greenland’s status a result of colonial conquest rather than a natural part of Denmark. Trump’s tariff threats revived talk of the "Sell America’ trade,” global markets fell, and gold prices reached record highs.

The US and Greenland: Europe considers counter-measures after Trump links tariffs to Greenland dispute
On 18 January, President Donald Trump’s threat to impose escalating tariffs on several European countries over the Greenland dispute triggered strong reactions and calls for coordinated European counter-measures. President Trump has vowed to levy increasing tariffs on goods from countries including Denmark, Sweden, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Finland, the United Kingdom, and Norway until the United States is allowed to pursue its goal of acquiring Greenland.

In response, European Union leaders and lawmakers are considering activating the Anti-Coercion Instrument, a powerful and rarely used economic tool designed to counter foreign trade coercion. The EU’s ambassadors were summoned to an emergency meeting in Brussels to discuss a unified response, which could include restrictions on US access to EU public tenders or services markets. Reactions across Europe have varied. French and German officials have supported potential counter-measures, while some diplomats urge caution to avoid escalating tensions. British officials have stressed the importance of cooperation rather than confrontation, and Italy described the tariff threat as a mistake.

The US: Pentagon places 1,500 troops on prepare-to-deploy orders amid protest against ICE in Minnesota
On 18 January, reports state that the Pentagon has prepared for mobilising almost 1,500 active-duty soldiers to Minnesota, where there have been massive protests against the government’s deportation drive. The military units have been placed on prepare-to-deploy orders in case the violence escalates, though it is unclear whether they will be deployed. President Trump threatened to use the Insurrection Act, a federal law that gives the president the power to deploy military or federalised National Guard forces inside the US to quell domestic uprisings if the state doesn’t stop attacks against immigration officials by protesters. The soldiers subject to deployment are based in Alaska. The tensions between residents and federal officers increased after Renee Good, a US citizen, was shot and killed by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer on 07 January in Minneapolis. Democrat leaders have accused President Trump, a Republican, of federal overreach after he had deployed troops in Democrat-run cities that have faced legal setbacks and challenges. He has also repeatedly cited a scandal around the alleged theft of federal funds for social welfare programmes in Minnesota and has singled out the state’s Somali community. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has mobilised the state’s National Guard to support law enforcement and emergency management agencies.

About the authors
Brighty Ann Sarah is pursuing postgraduation in the Department of International Studies, Stella Maris College, Chennai. She is also a Research Assistant at the National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bengaluru.

Lekshmi MK is pursuing postgraduation in the Department of Political Science, Madras Christian College, Chennai. She is also a Research Assistant at the National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bengaluru.

Anu Maria Joseph was a Project Associate at the National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bengaluru.

About the Conflict Weekly Regional Roundup Team
Brighty Ann Sarah and R Preetha are postgraduate students at the Department of International Studies, Stella Maris College, Chennai. Lekshmi MK is a postgraduate student at the Department of Political Science, Madras Christian College, Chennai. Rizwana Banu, and Aparna A Nair are undergraduate students at the Department of Political Science, Madras Christian College, Chennai.

Greenland: Trump’s escalation-deescalation strategy and Europe’s defence

The World This Week

January 2026 | CWA # 1938

Continuing Tensions over Greenland

CW Note

January 2026 | CWA # 1937

Anu Maria Joseph

Instability in Nigeria: Intensifying domestic responses, and questions over Trump’s intervention

CW Note

January 2026 | CWA # 1936

Brighty Ann Sarah

Protests in Iran: Continuing Stalemate and Shifting US Position

Conflict Weekly

January 2026 | CWA # 1935

IPRI Team

Protests in Iran | Instability in Nigeria

The World This Week

January 2026 | CWA # 1934

Global Politics Team

The US, Greenland and Trump's Claims

Conflict Weekly

January 2026 | CWA # 1933

IPRI Team

Protests in Iran, the US Military Intervention in Venezuela and Conflicts in Africa

NIAS Conflict Weekly | The World This Week

January 2026 | CWA # 1932

Global Politics Team