Scientists predict a future ocean will divide East Africa as tectonic forces continue to reshape the continent.

Africa is undergoing a profound geological transformation as the East African Rift System continues to widen, setting the stage for the eventual formation of a new ocean. The rift, stretching from the Red Sea to Mozambique, marks the boundary where the Somali Plate is pulling away from the Nubian Plate, a process that began 35 million years ago and is still unfolding today.

This gradual but relentless split is driven by tectonic forces beneath the rift, where molten rock from the African Superplume is thinning the Earth’s crust and pushing the plates apart at a rate of six to seven millimeters per year. While imperceptible on a daily scale, this movement has already produced cracks, fissures, and increased volcanic activity across Ethiopia, Kenya, and Tanzania.

Notable signs of this split include the 35-mile-long fissure in Ethiopia’s Afar Desert, which formed in 2005, and the massive fault line that disrupted roads near Mai Mahiu, Kenya, in 2018. Over time, the Indian Ocean is expected to flood the widening valley, ultimately separating Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania, and Ethiopia into a new landmass.

The implications of this transformation are significant. Landlocked nations like Uganda and Rwanda may gain access to new coastlines, reshaping trade and economic opportunities. The East African Great Lakes, home to 25% of the world’s unfrozen freshwater, could eventually merge with the new ocean, fostering marine ecosystems and biodiversity. However, the environmental shifts could also disrupt local climates and agriculture, necessitating adaptation from communities that rely on the region’s natural resources.

Geological activity in the region remains intense, with volcanic eruptions from Mount Nyiragongo (Congo) and Ol Doinyo Lengai (Tanzania) continuing to shape the evolving landscape. While destructive, these forces also contribute to fertile soils that support millions of people.

The East African Rift mirrors other continental transformations, such as the Red Sea’s formation, when the Arabian Peninsula drifted away from Africa, and Iceland’s active rift system, where tectonic movements create geothermal energy.

Though this split is expected to take one to five million years, its effects are already visible. The slow birth of a new ocean will eventually redraw Africa’s geography, marking one of the most dramatic changes in the planet’s geological history.

Moscow aims to preserve its strategic foothold in Syria as it negotiates with the country’s new leadership following Bashar Assad’s removal.

A high-ranking Russian delegation led by Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov and Kremlin envoy Alexander Lavrentiev seeks to safeguard Moscow’s military interests following the removal of its longtime ally, former Syrian President Bashar Assad. This marks the first Russian diplomatic mission to Syria since Assad’s fall, underscoring the urgency for Moscow to secure its strategic foothold in the region.

Russia’s military involvement in Syria, which began in 2015, was instrumental in propping up Assad’s regime during the civil war. Now, with Assad out of power, Moscow is recalibrating its approach to ensure its investments in key military bases remain intact. The Tartous naval facility, Russia’s only repair and resupply hub in the Mediterranean, and the Hmeimim airbase, a cornerstone for Russian air operations, are central to these discussions. These bases not only bolster Russia’s Mediterranean presence but also serve as logistical hubs for its expanding influence in Africa through military contractor deployments.

Sources close to the talks confirm that the delegation’s agenda includes securing guarantees from Syria’s new leadership to retain operational control over these bases. These negotiations reflect Moscow’s broader strategy of maintaining its geopolitical leverage in the Middle East, despite the loss of a key ally.

The stakes are high for Russia as regional and international actors monitor its moves in post-Assad Syria. With these bases critical to Russia’s Mediterranean and African operations, their retention will signal Moscow’s enduring influence in the region. However, the outcome of these talks remains uncertain, particularly given Syria’s shifting internal power dynamics and potential competing interests from other global powers.

As Moscow adapts to a post-Assad Syria, the visit underscores Russia’s determination to preserve its strategic assets and ensure its role as a key player in the Middle East.

Danish PM rallies European allies as Trump intensifies efforts to claim the Arctic island, raising global security stakes.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen is spearheading a whirlwind diplomatic mission across Europe to counter U.S. President Donald Trump’s renewed push to claim Greenland, a mineral-rich Arctic territory. With stops in Berlin, Paris, and Brussels, Frederiksen aims to rally European leaders, including German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, French President Emmanuel Macron, and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, in a united front against Trump’s escalating rhetoric.

The urgency of the mission reflects Copenhagen’s rising alarm over Trump’s insistence on acquiring Greenland, a Danish territory since 1953. Trump has hinted at using military force or economic pressure to secure control of the Arctic island, citing its strategic importance for American security and its untapped mineral wealth. Frederiksen’s efforts also come amid intensifying competition in the Arctic from Russia and China.

“Denmark is a small country, but we are part of a strong European community,” Frederiksen said Tuesday morning. “Unity is crucial in these geopolitical times, with war on the continent and challenges to the polar security architecture. Europe must do much more to stand on its own.”

The Financial Times recently reported on a contentious 45-minute call between Frederiksen and Trump, which left officials in Copenhagen deeply concerned. Trump’s revived ambitions for Greenland, previously dismissed during his first term, have taken on a more serious tone, forcing Denmark to rethink its Arctic security strategy.

In response, the Danish government announced a €2 billion investment in Arctic defense, including new ships, long-range drones, and enhanced satellite capabilities. Frederiksen’s diplomatic outreach underscores Denmark’s reliance on European and NATO partnerships to counter growing geopolitical threats to its sovereignty.

As the Arctic heats up both literally and geopolitically, Frederiksen’s mission aims to ensure that Greenland remains a cornerstone of Denmark’s territorial integrity and a symbol of European unity in an increasingly fractured global landscape.

USAID’s decision to suspend $125.5 million in aid to Somalia has sparked concerns about the impact on the country’s development and stability. The move, part of a broader freeze on U.S. international assistance except for Israel and Egypt, halts critical programs supporting education, food security, and governance reforms in Somalia. These initiatives included classroom renovations, malnutrition relief, and sustainable livelihood projects, which were vital for a population grappling with poverty, food shortages, and fragile institutions.

This suspension comes as Somalia heavily relies on international aid to address its challenges. The freeze risks derailing progress, leaving vulnerable communities at greater risk and threatening efforts to stabilize the region. Critics warn that the decision could weaken Somalia’s resilience and provide extremist groups like al-Shabaab with opportunities to exploit the worsening conditions. With U.S. foreign aid priorities shifting, Somalia faces heightened uncertainty, underscoring the urgent need for diversified support and sustainable solutions.

The USAID funding freeze is a stark reminder of Somalia’s vulnerability to external political decisions. While the U.S. realigns its foreign aid priorities, the Somali population faces heightened uncertainty about the future of essential programs supporting education, food security, and economic development.

This suspension serves as a wake-up call for Somalia to diversify its funding sources and strengthen domestic resilience while urging the U.S. to reconsider its approach to foreign aid in regions where stability and development are critical to broader global security.

Tense negotiations lead to an agreement on deporting Colombian migrants, averting escalating economic retaliation between two key allies.

The United States and Colombia reached a high-stakes agreement late Sunday, resolving a contentious dispute over the deportation of Colombian migrants and averting the imposition of severe tariffs and sanctions. This development follows a tense diplomatic standoff marked by escalating rhetoric between U.S. President Donald Trump and Colombian President Gustavo Petro.

At the heart of the disagreement was Trump’s campaign-driven push to deport undocumented migrants en masse, a key pillar of his 2024 presidential platform. Colombia, a significant U.S. ally in Latin America, initially refused to accept deportees transported on U.S. military aircraft, citing concerns over human dignity. Petro had demanded that deportations occur on civilian planes and under humane conditions.

The breakthrough agreement now requires Colombia to accept its citizens deported from the United States without restriction, including their transportation aboard U.S. military aircraft. In return, the U.S. will hold off on implementing punitive measures such as a 25% tariff on Colombian goods, which Trump had threatened to double within a week.

While the White House has described the deal as a “positive step,” some sanctions, including visa restrictions for Colombian officials and enhanced customs inspections, remain in place until the first repatriation flights land in Colombia.

Colombia’s Foreign Ministry emphasized its commitment to treating deported citizens with dignity while ensuring their reintegration. The ministry stated that Foreign Minister Luis Gilberto Murillo and Ambassador Daniel García-Peña would travel to Washington for high-level discussions to monitor the agreement’s implementation.

The standoff escalated after Trump’s initial announcement of tariffs on Colombian goods, which prompted a retaliatory move by Petro, who imposed reciprocal tariffs on U.S. imports. Petro framed the issue as a matter of national sovereignty, rejecting any attempt by the United States to dictate terms.

“A migrant is not a criminal and must be treated with the dignity that a human being deserves,” Petro said, adding that Colombia would only accept deportees under humane conditions.

Colombia’s resistance reflects a broader unease in Latin America regarding Trump’s immigration policies, which include mass deportations, increased military presence at the U.S.-Mexico border, and the suspension of asylum appointments.

The agreement comes amid Trump’s ramped-up deportation efforts, which have already seen over 1,000 migrants detained in the first days of his second term. These operations are part of an ambitious plan to crack down on undocumented migrants, an initiative that includes expanding detention facilities and increasing border enforcement personnel.

However, critics argue that the focus on deportations, including those involving relatively small numbers of Colombian migrants, is more about political optics than practical necessity. Deportations of Colombian nationals are unlikely to significantly impact the estimated 11 million undocumented migrants living in the U.S.

Further complicating matters is Colombia’s economic reliance on the United States, its third-largest trading partner in Latin America. The threat of tariffs posed a significant risk to Colombia’s export-driven economy, particularly in agriculture and manufacturing.

Despite the agreement, tensions remain. The Trump administration’s heavy-handed approach has drawn criticism from human rights advocates, who argue that leveraging economic sanctions to enforce deportations undermines diplomatic relations and humanitarian principles.

Meanwhile, Colombia faces its own challenges. The country’s limited resources to reintegrate deportees, coupled with concerns over potential security risks, could strain its social and economic fabric. Petro’s government must balance its commitment to protecting its citizens abroad with maintaining a constructive relationship with Washington.

The U.S.-Colombia deportation deal underscores the complexities of balancing immigration enforcement with diplomatic relations. While the immediate crisis has been averted, the broader implications of Trump’s immigration policies—both domestically and internationally—remain a contentious issue.

As the Trump administration pushes forward with its aggressive deportation strategy, it risks further alienating key allies in the region. For Colombia, the challenge lies in navigating the fallout while safeguarding its national interests and ensuring the humane treatment of its citizens.

The deal represents a temporary truce in what could become a long-term test of U.S.-Latin American relations under Trump’s leadership. How this agreement unfolds will likely shape the dynamics of bilateral cooperation in the months to come.

Arrests in France highlight the rise of incendiary rhetoric targeting Paris amid deteriorating relations with Algeria.

The arrest of several Algerian ultranationalist social media influencers in France over inciting violence and glorifying terrorism has put a spotlight on the complex and deteriorating relationship between the two countries. These influencers, some with hundreds of thousands of followers on platforms like TikTok, have amplified anti-French sentiment and targeted both French authorities and critics of the Algerian regime.

The tensions come against a backdrop of historic grievances rooted in Algeria’s bloody war of independence and France’s colonial legacy. Recent developments, including French President Emmanuel Macron’s support for Morocco’s autonomy plan for Western Sahara and criticism of Algeria’s detention of French-Algerian writer Boualem Sansal, have only deepened the rift.

Among those arrested was an Algerian influencer operating under the alias “zazouyoucef,” who allegedly glorified terrorism and targeted opponents of Algerian President Abdelmadjid Tebboune. With over 400,000 followers on TikTok before his account was removed, his inflammatory content exemplifies a growing trend of ultranationalist rhetoric among members of the Algerian diaspora. Another influencer, known as Mahdi B., had amassed over 800,000 followers before his arrest and subsequent sentencing for similar offenses.

The proliferation of these accounts, often broadcasting in Algerian Arabic, demonstrates their dual appeal to audiences within Algeria and across the Algerian diaspora in Europe. While the French government has refrained from explicitly accusing Algeria of orchestrating the campaign, officials acknowledge the potent influence of Algerian state-controlled media, which has a history of stoking anti-French sentiment.

The role of social media in amplifying nationalist fervor is a growing concern. The simplicity of the messages—often framed around Algerian nationalism—resonates widely, particularly among younger members of the diaspora who feel disconnected from both their host country and ancestral homeland.

“The nationalist craze in part of the Algerian diaspora is new,” said historian Benjamin Stora, who has extensively studied Franco-Algerian relations. This rise in nationalist sentiment is fueled not only by historical grievances but also by Algeria’s perception of betrayal following France’s shift on Western Sahara.

French officials are particularly alarmed by the large audiences these influencers command and the potential for such rhetoric to incite real-world violence. Although no documented acts of violence have been directly linked to the content, the French Interior Ministry has emphasized the need for vigilance.

The resurgence of anti-French rhetoric and the arrests of influencers come at a time when relations between France and Algeria are at a nadir. Macron’s decision to back Morocco’s Western Sahara autonomy plan was seen as a strategic move to strengthen ties with Morocco, one of the few remaining allies France has in North Africa, especially after its fallout with several Sahel nations.

In contrast, Algeria viewed this shift as a betrayal, exacerbating tensions that had already been heightened by disagreements over migration and the detention of critics like Sansal. Algeria’s state-controlled media, echoing the regime’s sentiments, has aggressively attacked France, accusing it of infringing on Algerian sovereignty and undermining its stability.

While French officials stop short of accusing the Algerian regime of directly orchestrating the online hate campaigns, they acknowledge the possibility of indirect encouragement or tacit approval. “The Algerian regime is extremely fragile, and the more fragile it is, the more it hits France,” a French diplomat noted.

France’s Algerian diaspora, estimated at over 2 million, occupies a unique position in this conflict. Many in the community feel caught between their ties to their ancestral homeland and their lived reality in France, where integration challenges and discrimination often fuel alienation. This dynamic makes the diaspora particularly susceptible to nationalist rhetoric amplified through social media.

However, the actions of ultranationalist influencers threaten to deepen divisions both within the diaspora and between France and Algeria. Critics argue that the focus on anti-French sentiment detracts from addressing pressing issues in Algeria, such as economic stagnation, governance challenges, and political repression.

The arrests in France signal an attempt to curb the spread of incendiary rhetoric, but they also underscore the difficulty of managing such a complex and deeply rooted issue. As France and Algeria navigate this turbulent period, the role of social media in shaping public opinion and fueling diplomatic tensions cannot be overlooked.

Ultimately, resolving these tensions will require not only addressing the immediate issue of online hate campaigns but also fostering a broader dialogue that tackles historical grievances, mutual mistrust, and the socio-political challenges faced by the Algerian diaspora. Until then, the relationship between the two nations is likely to remain fraught, with social media serving as both a mirror and a magnifier of their discord.

A divisive idea met with firm opposition from regional allies and fears of permanent displacement

President Donald Trump’s controversial proposal to relocate Palestinians from Gaza to Egypt and Jordan has sparked sharp rejection from both nations and the Palestinians themselves. The idea, which Trump described as a solution to “clean out” the war-ravaged territory, highlights the deep geopolitical and humanitarian complexities surrounding Gaza’s future.

Trump floated the suggestion amid a fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hamas following a devastating 15-month war. Speaking over the weekend, he proposed that Egypt and Jordan temporarily or permanently absorb Gaza’s 2.3 million residents, framing the move as a pathway to peace.

However, this proposal immediately drew condemnation from all parties involved. Egypt and Jordan, two of the United States’ closest allies in the Middle East, issued strong statements opposing the plan. Egypt’s foreign ministry warned that such a move could expand the conflict, while Jordan’s Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi reiterated his country’s firm refusal to accept any resettlement of Palestinians.

Palestinian leaders also rejected the idea outright. Hamas and the Palestinian Authority condemned the plan as an attempt to ethnically cleanse Gaza, with fears that Palestinians forced to leave would never be allowed to return. This sentiment is deeply rooted in historical trauma, as the Palestinian Nakba of 1948 displaced over 700,000 Palestinians, with millions of their descendants still living as refugees across the region.

For Egypt and Jordan, the stakes are high. Both countries have maintained peace agreements with Israel while supporting the establishment of a Palestinian state. Accepting Gaza refugees could undermine those agreements, create significant security risks, and destabilize their own nations.

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi warned that relocating Palestinians to Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula would bring Hamas and other militant groups onto Egyptian soil, risking future wars and jeopardizing the historic Camp David peace treaty. Similarly, Jordan’s King Abdullah II has long rejected any plans that could turn Jordan into an alternative Palestinian homeland, a concept promoted by Israeli ultranationalists.

Trump’s proposal also complicates his broader Middle East strategy, including efforts to broker normalization agreements between Israel and Arab states. Forcing Egypt and Jordan to accept refugees could alienate key regional allies, jeopardizing any potential progress toward Saudi-Israeli normalization.

While Trump has not outlined specific measures to pressure Egypt and Jordan, his administration’s track record suggests economic tools like tariffs or sanctions could be on the table. Both nations rely heavily on U.S. aid, with billions of dollars in military and economic support at stake. However, such tactics risk further destabilizing countries already grappling with economic crises and large refugee populations from other regional conflicts.

The proposal, while framed as a solution to Gaza’s humanitarian crisis, underscores the immense challenges of addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For Palestinians, remaining steadfast on their land is central to their identity and struggle for self-determination. Any attempt to forcibly relocate Gaza’s population would not only exacerbate their suffering but also ignite broader instability in a region already on edge.

The international community, particularly the United States, faces a difficult balancing act in addressing the aftermath of the Gaza war. Trump’s approach, however, risks deepening divisions and undermining prospects for lasting peace.

Danish officials reportedly “freaked out” after Trump’s insistence on acquiring Greenland and threats of tariffs.

Donald Trump has once again brought his ambitions to acquire Greenland into the spotlight, reportedly engaging in a tense and confrontational phone call with Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen. According to senior European officials, the fiery 45-minute conversation last week left Danish authorities in “crisis mode” as Trump pressed his case to purchase the vast Arctic territory.

Sources who were briefed on the call described it as “horrendous” and “a cold shower,” with one official emphasizing Trump’s aggressive tone and clear intent to push for Greenland’s sale. Another described the reaction within Denmark as sheer alarm, noting, “The Danes are utterly freaked out by this.”

Trump reportedly threatened Denmark with targeted tariffs should Frederiksen continue to refuse his demands. This comes as no surprise given the former president’s pattern of linking trade policies with foreign policy objectives. The Arctic island, which spans over 836,000 square miles, is rich in oil, gas, and rare earth materials critical for green technology, making it a valuable target for U.S. strategic and economic interests.

This is not the first time Trump has expressed interest in Greenland. During his first administration, his proposal to buy the territory sparked ridicule internationally, with Frederiksen calling the idea “absurd.” However, Trump’s latest push appears more serious and potentially volatile. Reports suggest that Trump has not ruled out using military force to secure Greenland if necessary, underscoring the geopolitical significance of the Arctic amid growing global competition with powers like China and Russia.

Frederiksen has reiterated that Greenland is “not for sale” and belongs to the Greenlanders. Echoing this sentiment, Greenland’s Prime Minister Múte Egede recently reaffirmed Greenland’s desire for self-determination. Egede stated, “We are Greenlanders. We don’t want to be Americans. We don’t want to be Danish either. Greenland’s future will be decided by Greenland.”

Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, gained home rule in 1979, although Denmark retains control over its foreign and security policies. For years, Greenland has sought greater independence, with Egede calling for an end to “the shackles of colonialism” during his New Year’s speech.

The U.S. has long recognized Greenland’s strategic importance. The island’s location offers control over Arctic shipping routes and proximity to Russian military installations, further emphasizing its value in the eyes of Washington. Trump’s insistence on acquiring Greenland appears to stem not only from economic considerations but also from a desire to counter global rivals in the Arctic.

However, this renewed push raises serious diplomatic concerns. Danish officials are reportedly grappling with how to respond, fearing potential economic repercussions or increased geopolitical tensions. As one former Danish official noted, “This is a very tough conversation to have with an administration that sees Greenland as a necessity for U.S. economic security.”

For Greenlanders, the renewed attention highlights their precarious position between global superpowers and their desire for greater autonomy. While Trump’s bold overtures may appeal to U.S. strategic interests, they risk further straining U.S.-Danish relations and ignoring Greenland’s aspirations for self-determination.

As tensions escalate, the question remains: Will this be another fleeting diplomatic controversy, or will Trump’s persistence push Greenland into the center of an Arctic geopolitical tug-of-war?