Can you talk about your political background? Any people, events, or texts that influenced you? It’s difficult to give one person because the collective was always important to me, I think collectives are vital for people to flourish as human beings, so I never want to put people on a pedestal. But I would say that obviously Crass was really big for me, because at a time when there was a massive stigma around things like women’s sexual health or Britain’s “adventures” throughout the world, I absolutely admired that they were never afraid to speak out. I am a person of the left, my family were trade unionists, I was a trade union rep for a while, my brothers were, my dad was, so that’s where I came from. But in the context of the left I had questions, I didn’t think it was right to verbally support regimes that suppressed people, because I could see some of the regimes of the “left” around the world, and to me they were almost as bad as the regimes on the right. So I think Crass underlined that, one of the phrases that they had was “left or right it’s all shite”, I’m paraphrasing a little bit, but that started me questioning things that I’d never previously thought about, being very entrenched in being a person of the left. Then it was the Falklands War – I was coming towards the end of my secondary school in Birmingham, I was very aware of it, the schoolkids would turn up waving Union Jacks and stuff, and to me from whichever perspective you tried to look at it, it was colonialism, and I could never, ever tie myself to any brand of colonialism. But the intimidation of people that spoke out against it at that time, you could get punched in the face as quickly as you’d said something. I just got shoved, but you almost had to be very brave to really stand up and speak. More so then than now, patriotism was extremely important to quite a lot of people, even if they didn’t understand the context of what was going on, the default position was “oh you must stand behind the troops”. Well of course, anyone who goes into uniform, and acts upon the wishes of the State – we don’t want them to get killed, you know? Same on the Argentinian side, even though it was a fascist regime. There’s one book in particular that really did something for me, and I never knew about it, it just arrived one day in my hands: Days of War, Nights of Love by CrimethInc., that book to me was incredible. I’d read lots and lots of books and pamphlets before, but this one phrased it in such a down-to-earth, simple way, and it brought humour into it and humour is essential if we’re gonna liberate ourselves as human beings. Where would you draw the line in terms of bands Napalm might refuse to perform with? On the flipside, is there actually a moment where it’s okay to party with someone who doesn’t share your values? We’ve always either jumped off bills, or given the promoter a choice, whether it’s with openly fascist bands or with fascist tendencies, we’ve done that every time. I can make that choice, I don’t have to play that gig, or Napalm as a collective doesn’t have to play that gig. So yeah we have done that. But that doesn’t mean to say that I’m not going to play on a bill with a band that has someone that’s, just for example, a Trump supporter. What’s the point of that? Because at some point you have to understand that if we’re going to move forward as human beings we actually have to talk, and have dialogue, and be around people that we don’t necessarily agree with. I think sometimes the left struggles with that concept, it just shuts everybody out. But freedom for everybody, not just for me, not just for you – it means everybody, even people that we don’t agree with. Vanessa Castillo, NPR Any music or art scene is just a microcosm of what’s out there in the rest of the world. People might try to tell you otherwise, but it’s no different. So in daily life we’re going to have to deal with things that we don’t particularly like, we’re gonna have to bite our tongue a little bit, and it’s the same in the music scene. I have played and will play with bands where I don’t share the views of those people, but it doesn’t mean I shouldn’t play with them, and of course there are different degrees. There are people who have conservative viewpoints far removed from mine, but I actually like them as people. I don’t hate them as people, I don’t exclude them; we diverge – but that shouldn’t stop you from connecting with your fellow human beings. If bands and fans have a responsibility to challenge oppression in practice, what does that look like? Napalm does, of course, we’ve never not done that, because it’s important to do it. At the end of the day we’re a purveyor of art, so the way we do that we include it in our lyrics, we include in our art, when we play gigs we speak about it on stage, we’re never afraid to do that. If you’ve ever seen any live stuff of Napalm Death you will see that, and that’s any gig, doesn’t matter where we are in the world, it’s consistent. So that’s really all I can say to that, unfortunately I don’t have a magic machine that can change everything, but we do what we are able and capable of doing. Because let’s be honest, not everybody in the world, if we are going to move to a point where we have true freedom, not everybody can do everything. Some people are capable of some things, others can do others. For me what I do in my life and what I do with my art, I do as I see fit and as I can do. Many people in the mainstream have heard of Napalm Death, but they probably never get past that to the lyrics. Do you feel like with your best efforts you still end up being a commodity? When I go to metal festivals where Napalm get asked to play I will meet a lot of people who are on the same wavelength as us. Just because their music doesn’t translate into that wider effect it doesn’t mean it’s less relevant. It’s almost accidental sometimes, that a lot of bands where their lyrics don’t get talked about but the desire and the will are definitely there. It’s obviously not the bands’ fault, but yeah it’s difficult … sometimes I get frustrated because the things that Napalm does that you would hope would have an impact in a certain direction and it just doesn’t, you know. Sometimes you’re just at the hands of fate (and I use this word very loosely), what you do is you put your stuff out there, and sometimes it can be a glorious accident that what you did achieves the effect that you wanted, and actually I would say 90 times out of 100 you’re not going to achieve what you wanted, you know. But on the other occasion you do. People that don’t know bands from the inside out, probably their minds would be blown by the amount of stuff that just kind of sails down the river, that never gets talked about, and the moments that do hit home are few and far between, so it can be tricky like that. Animal liberation was always a thing for me, that’s frustrating to me because we’re not getting far enough, even though people talk about “a nation of animal lovers” we’re still now really not significantly further down the line in giving liberation to sentient beings, ending the misery of the abattoir. So that frustrates me, because in the end, the reason we do this is not because it makes us feel good, and this is my perspective, yes you have to take pleasure from something but I don’t do it to put myself on a pedestal, I do it because of artistic satisfaction, artistic achievement, and also that we achieve results in terms of general liberation. So needless to say, Napalm has been going since 1981, have we achieved the things that we might necessarily wish to see in the world? No we haven’t, of course we haven’t, but we’re gonna keep pluggin’ away for as long as we are, and that’s it really. I do get frustrated but you can’t stay frustrated for too long because that’s not gonna help you in the end, you have to move past it and start on the next thing. You often speak against violence, how do you feel about anarchists joining military formations to resist the Russian invasion of Ukraine? I believe in non-violent anarchism, I think violence is never the answer, and I underline that because how are we going to move forward if we just keep doing the same thing that the old regimes have made us believe are legitimate to do so, to commit State sponsored murder against other people? I just think that’s something we have to completely eradicate. Vanessa Castillo, NPR I can’t give you the absolute answer about how, it would be naive to even try and do that, but I think we have to move towards that point of consciousness. And I would be surprised if Russian anarchists were fighting for the Russian military, because the sort of policies that Putin has been pushing in the last 10 years have no basis in human dignity, human rights; discrimination against trans people, gay people, people who are murdered in Russia. I’m sure there’s other places too, even in the UK, but the intimidation, the threats, the violence over there is another level. And on the Ukrainian side of course we know about these very ultra-nationalist, fascist groups that seem to mingle in a very strange way with the rest of the population, when you were seeing in Maidan Square ten years ago the fascist groups … so it’s a very difficult one. Finally, what’s the future for Napalm? Will we see you on a 50-year tour in a few years? I will continue, not speaking for the other guys you know, I will continue to the point where I feel that what Napalm offers live and on record is creative and interesting and exciting. If it starts to feel not that anymore I just wouldn’t do it. Honestly I don’t do things for gain, for prestige, for any of that stuff; yes it’s nice that people appreciate the band and stuff, but for me it’s more about those other achievements and if that at any point becomes compromised then I just wouldn’t do it. I don’t want to inflict a 50% version of Napalm Death on people, that undermines everything we’ve done for the last forty years. Artistic integrity is really important to us on all levels of the band basically. You know that it’s become even more of a thing these days that bands will have VIP elements to their tours, they’ll charge people extra money for some crappy fuckin’ five minutes with them, and Napalm is completely opposed to that. What’s problematic about it for me is you’re enforcing the dynamic that people are able to buy your time, buy this added significance and I don’t like that, it leaves a really fucking bad taste in my mouth, so we don’t do it. It makes me feel really uncomfortable, like a show pony, turning up in a room somewhere that people have paid all this extra money to get the Willy Wonka gold ticket, it makes my skin crawl. On a personal level I just find that stuff really uncomfortable, the whole concept of people being more important than others. For me it goes to my historic thoughts about the monarchy, which needless to say I think should be dissolved completely, I still don’t get it, how they still have this place on the pedestal like higher than all of us, and I just think it’s absolutely ridiculous. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This interview first appeared in the Winter 2026 27 issue of Freedom anarchist journal. The post Barney Greenway: “Moments that hit home are few and far between” appeared first on Freedom Press.

BRUSSELS ― European governments and corporations are racing to reduce their exposure to U.S. technology, military hardware and energy resources as transatlantic relations sour.  For decades, the EU relied on NATO guarantees to ensure security in the bloc, and on American technology to power its business. Donald Trump’s threats to take over Greenland, and aggressive comments about Europe by members of his administration, have given fresh impetus to European leaders’ call for “independence.” “If we want to be taken seriously again, we will have to learn the language of power politics,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said last week. From orders banning civil servants from using U.S.-based videoconferencing tools to trade deals with countries like India to a push to diversify Europe’s energy suppliers, efforts to minimize European dependence on the U.S. are gathering pace. EU leaders warn that transatlantic relations are unlikely to return to the pre-Trump status quo. EU officials stress that such measures amount to “de-risking” Europe’s relationship with the U.S., rather than “decoupling” — a term that implies a clean break in economic and strategic ties. Until recently, both expressions were mainly applied to European efforts to reduce dependence on China. Now, they are coming up in relation to the U.S., Europe’s main trade partner and security benefactor. The decoupling drive is in its infancy. The U.S. remains by far the largest trading partner for Europe, and it will take years for the bloc to wean itself off American tech and military support, according to Jean-Luc Demarty, who was in charge of the European Commission’s trade department under the body’s former president, Jean-Claude Juncker. Donald Trump’s threats to take over Greenland, and aggressive comments about Europe by members of his administration, have given fresh impetus to European leaders’ call for “independence.” | Kristian Tuxen Ladegaard Berg/NurPhoto via Getty Images “In terms of trade, they [the U.S.] represent a significant share of our exports,” said Demarty. “So it’s a lot, but it’s not a matter of life and death.” The push to diversify away from the U.S. has seen Brussels strike trade deals with the Mercosur bloc of Latin American countries, India and Indonesia in recent months. The Commission also revamped its deal with Mexico, and revived stalled negotiations with Australia. DEFENDING EUROPE: FROM NATO TO THE EU Since the continent emerged from the ashes of World War II, Europe has relied for its security on NATO — which the U.S. contributes the bulk of funding to. At a weekend retreat in Zagreb, Croatia, conservative European leaders including Merz said it was time for the bloc to beef up its homegrown mutual-defense clause, which binds EU countries to an agreement to defend any EU country that comes under attack. While it has existed since 2009, the EU’s Article 42.7 mutual defense clause was rarely seen as necessary because NATO’s Article 5 served a similar purpose. But Europe’s governments have started to doubt whether the U.S. really would come to Europe’s rescue. In Zagreb, the leaders embraced the EU’s new role as a security actor, tasking two leaders, as yet unnamed, with rapidly cooking up plans to turn the EU clause from words to an ironclad security guarantee. “For decades, some countries said ‘We have NATO, why should we have parallel structures?’” said a senior EU diplomat who was granted anonymity to talk about confidential summit preparations. After Trump’s Greenland saber-rattling, “we are faced with the necessity, we have to set up military command structures within the EU.” At a weekend retreat in Zagreb, Croatia, conservative European leaders including Merz said it was time for the bloc to beef up its homegrown mutual-defense clause, which binds EU countries to an agreement to defend any EU country that comes under attack. | Marko Perkov/AFP via Getty Images In comments to EU lawmakers last week, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said that anyone who believes Europe can defend itself without the U.S. should “keep on dreaming.” Europe remains heavily reliant on U.S. military capabilities, most notably in its support for Ukraine’s fight against Russia. But some Europeans are now openly talking about the price of reducing exposure to the U.S. — and saying it’s manageable. TECHNOLOGY: TEAMS OUT, VISIO IN The mood shift is clearest when it comes to technology, where European reliance on platforms such as X, Meta and Google has long troubled EU voters, as evidenced by broad support for the bloc’s tech legislation. French President Emmanuel Macron’s government is planning to ban officials from using U.S.-based videoconferencing tools. Other countries like Germany are contemplating similar moves. “It’s very clear that Europe is having our independence moment,” EU tech czar Henna Virkkunen told a POLITICO conference last week. “During the last year, everybody has really realized how important it is that we are not dependent on one country or one company when it comes to some very critical technologies.” France is moving to ban public officials from using American platforms including Google Meet, Zoom and Teams, a government spokesperson told POLITICO. Officials will soon make the switch to Visio, a videoconferencing tool that runs on infrastructure provided by French firm Outscale. In the European Parliament, lawmakers are urging its president, Roberta Metsola, to ditch U.S. software and hardware, as well as a U.S.-based travel booking tool. In Germany, politicians want a potential German or European substitute for software made by U.S. data analysis firm Palantir. “Such dependencies on key technologies are naturally a major problem,” Sebastian Fiedler, an SPD lawmaker and expert on policing, told POLITICO. Even in the Netherlands, among Europe’s more pro-American countries, there are growing calls from lawmakers and voters to ring-fence sensitive technologies from U.S. influence. Dutch lawmakers are reviewing a petition signed by 140,000 people calling on the state to block the acquisition of a state identity verification tool by a U.S. company. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in late January, German entrepreneur Anna Zeiter announced the launch of a Europe-based social media platform called W that could rival Elon Musk’s X, which has faced fines for breaching the EU’s content moderation rules. W plans to host its data on “European servers owned by European companies” and limits its investors to Europeans, Zeiter told Euronews. So far, Brussels has yet to codify any such moves into law. But upcoming legislation on cloud and AI services are expected to send signals about the need to Europeanize the bloc’s tech offerings. ENERGY: TIME TO DIVERSIFY On energy, the same trend is apparent. The United States provides more than a quarter of the EU’s gas, a share set to rise further as a full ban on Russian imports takes effect. But EU officials warn about the risk of increasing Europe’s dependency on the U.S. in yet another area. Trump’s claims on Greenland were a “clear wake-up call” for the EU, showing that energy can no longer be seen in isolation from geopolitical trends, EU Energy Commissioner Dan Jørgensen said last Wednesday. The Greenland crisis reinforced concerns that the bloc risks “replacing one dependency with another,” said Jørgensen, adding that as a result, Brussels is stepping up efforts to diversify, deepening talks with alternative suppliers including Canada, Qatar and North African countries such as Algeria. FINANCE: MOVING TO EUROPEAN PAYMENTS Payment systems are also drawing scrutiny, with lawmakers warning about over-reliance on U.S. payment systems such as Mastercard and Visa. The digital euro, a digital version of cash that the European Central Bank is preparing to issue in 2029, aims to cut these dependencies and provide a pan-European sovereign means of payment. “With the digital euro, Europeans would remain in control of their money, their choices and their future,” ECB President Christine Lagarde said last year. In Germany, some politicians are sounding the alarm about 1,236 tons of gold reserves that Germany keeps in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. “In a time of growing global uncertainty and under President Trump’s unpredictable U.S. policy, it’s no longer acceptable” to have that much in gold reserves in the U.S., Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, the German politician from the liberal Free Democratic Party, who chairs the Parliament’s defense committee, told Der Spiegel. Several European countries are pushing the EU to privilege European manufacturers when it comes to spending EU public money via “Buy European” clauses. Until a few years ago, countries like Poland, the Netherlands or the Baltic states would never have agreed on such “Buy European” clauses. But even those countries are now backing calls to prioritize purchases from EU-based companies. MILITARY INVESTMENT: BOOSTING OWN CAPACITY A €150 billion EU program to help countries boost their defense investments, finalized in May of last year, states that no more than 35 percent of the components in a given purchase, by cost, should originate from outside the EU and partner states like Norway and Ukraine. The U.S. is not considered a partner country under the scheme. For now, European countries rely heavily on the U.S. for military enablers including surveillance and reconnaissance, intelligence, strategic lift, missile defense and space-based assets. But the powerful conservative umbrella group, the European People Party, says these are precisely the areas where Europe needs to ramp up its own capacities. When EU leaders from the EPP agreed on their 2026 roadmap in Zagreb, they stated that the “Buy European” principle should apply to an upcoming Commission proposal on joint procurement. The title of the EPP’s 2026 roadmap? “Time for independence.” Camille Gijs, Jacopo Barigazzi, Mathieu Pollet, Giovanna Faggionato, Eliza Gkritsi, Elena Giordano, Ben Munster and Sam Clark contributed reporting from Brussels. James Angelos contributed reporting from Berlin.

More artists have canceled their performances at the Kennedy Center after its Trump-acolyte-dominated board’s recent vote to add the president’s name to the performing arts center earlier this month.  The latest includes The Cookers, a jazz ensemble, which called off their New Year’s Eve show on Monday.  The band did not explicitly mention the name change, but in a statement wrote, “Jazz was born from struggle and from a relentless insistence on freedom: freedom of thought, of expression, and of the full human voice. Some of us have been making this music for many decades, and that history still shapes us.” “We are not turning away from our audience, and do want to make sure that when we do return to the bandstand, the room is able to celebrate the full presence of the music and everyone in it,” they continued. “We remain committed to playing music that reaches across divisions rather than deepening them.” The group’s drummer, Billy Hart, told the New York Times that the Kennedy Center’s renaming “evidently” played a role in the decision. The move follows Chuck Redd’s decision to drop out of a Christmas Eve concert, prompting Richard Grenell, the center’s interim president and former acting director of national intelligence during Trump’s first term, to threaten a $1 million lawsuit against Redd over what Grenell blasted as a “political stunt.” Other artists to cancel upcoming events include folk singer Kristy Lee and Doug Varone and Dancers, a dance company based in New York City. The center’s board, most of whom were handpicked by Trump, voted earlier this month to rename the Kennedy Center to “The Donald J. Trump and The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts. The decision has proven deeply unpopular, with one poll of over 1500 US adults conducted from December 20-22 by The Economist and YouGov finding only 18 percent approved. It has since sparked legal concerns, with many pointing to President Lyndon Johnson’s signing of a law that designated the arts institution as a “living memorial” to the late President Kennedy. Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-OH), an ex officio member of the center’s board, has since filed a lawsuit against Trump, claiming that renaming required an act of Congress.  In a social media post, Doug Varone and Dancers said that though they had opposed Trump’s move to fire board members who didn’t align with the president’s views in February, they decided to move ahead with an April 2026 performance to honor the “dance audiences in DC.” “However, with the latest act of Donald J. Trump renaming the Center after himself, we can no longer permit ourselves nor ask our audiences to step inside this once great institution,” the dance company wrote on Monday. “The Kennedy Center was named in honor of our 35th President, who fervently believed that the arts were the beating heart of our nation, as well as an integral part of international diplomacy.” “The artists who are now canceling shows were booked by the previous far left leadership,” Grenell wrote in a lengthy rant on X posted on Monday. “Boycotting the Arts to show you support the Arts is a form of derangement syndrome.” 

The president of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts is threatening legal action against a jazz musician who cancelled his Christmas Eve performance after the institution’s board of trustees, handpicked by President Donald Trump, voted last week to change the name of the performing arts institution. The letter from Richard Grenell, the Kennedy Center president, to Chuck Redd, a drum and vibraphone player, says that they will seek $1 million in damages for “this political stunt.” “Your decision to withdraw at the last moment—explicitly in response to the Center’s recent renaming, which honors President Trump’s extraordinary efforts to save this national treasure,” the letter, shared to the Associated Press, reads, “is classic intolerance.” And, Grenell continues, “Your action surrenders to the sad bullying tactics employed by certain elements on the left, who have sought to intimidate artists into boycotting performances.”  > “Your action surrenders to the sad bullying tactics employed by certain > elements on the left, who have sought to intimidate artists into boycotting > performances.”  The move from Grenell, who was appointed by Trump earlier this year, comes after the center’s board of trustees voted to rename the institution the Trump-Kennedy Center. It took less than 24 hours from the board’s meeting in Palm Beach to workers showing up at the building to affix “THE DONALD J. TRUMP AND” above “THE JOHN F. KENNEDY MEMORIAL CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS.”  The institution’s website now shows: “The Trump Kennedy Center.” Members of the Kennedy family have denounced the action. As The New York Times reported, “Even though Mr. Trump had already been calling it that for months in trollish posts online, he acted shocked that his handpicked board had thought to do this for him.” President Trump told reporters that he was “honored” and “surprised” by the vote.  Redd has hosted the annual “Jazz Jams” Christmas Eve concert since 2006. He told AP that once he saw the name change earlier this month, he “chose to cancel our concert.” According to the AP, Redd often included a student musician in the show, which, he said, is “one of the many reasons that it was very sad to have had to cancel.” Grenell also took personal jabs at Redd in the letter, claiming that his show wasn’t popular. “The contrast between the public’s lack of interest in your show with the success we are experiencing under our new chairman is drastic,” Grenell wrote. Trump’s board elected him as chairman in February. “The most avant-garde and well-regarded performers in your genre will still perform regularly,” he added, “and unlike you, they’ll do it to sold–out crowds regardless of their political leanings.” The center’s website still describes Redd as “an accomplished performer.” Despite Grenell’s insistence that the Kennedy Center has experienced “drastic” success under new management, The Washington Post reports that even before the renaming, ticket sales had tanked. “Nearly nine months after Trump became chair of the center and more than a month into its main season,” the Post noted, “ticket sales for the Kennedy Center’s three largest performance venues are the worst they’ve been in years, according to a Washington Post analysis of ticketing data from dozens of recent shows as well as past seasons. Tens of thousands of seats have been left empty.” Days after the renaming, Representative Joyce Beatty, a Democrat of Ohio, filed a lawsuit against President Trump and center representatives. The suit holds that the move was illegal because an act of Congress is required to rename the building. Representative Beatty is an ex officio member of the Kennedy Center’s board and called into the board meeting where the change was voted on.  “For the record. This was not unanimous,” she wrote on X. “I was muted on the call and not allowed to speak or voice my opposition to this move. Also, for the record, this was not on the agenda. This was not consensus. This is censorship.”

KYIV — For Ukrainians, the shattered eastern city of Pokrovsk — where troops are locked in battle with the Russians this Christmas — conjures up associations with one of their country’s most enduring cultural legacies: the Carol of the Bells. Western audiences may know the haunting, repeated melody from the Hollywood film Home Alone and the TV series Ted Lasso, but there are more poignant and political resonances for Ukrainians this winter as Pokrovsk is so closely connected with the carol’s composer, Mykola Leontovych. Leontovych did not — as widely believed — compose the carol in Pokrovsk but the city played a crucial role in the development of both his music and the patriotic Ukrainian politics that led to his persecution by the Russians and ultimately his murder by Soviet agents in 1921. Leontovych was based in Pokrovsk in the first decade of the 20th century, teaching at a music school and running a railway workers’ choir. He drew inspiration there from distinctively Ukrainian folk traditions, and he would later base the Carol of the Bells on a seasonal chant called Shchedryk. (Pokrovsk is dubbed the hometown of Shchedryk.) “Leontovych came to Pokrovsk with only the bag on his back, but it was there that he developed as a composer, and caught the attention of gendarmes as he stood up for the rights of workers. He even sang the Marseillaise with the local choir that he ran,” said Larysa Semenko, author of the book “Our Silent Genius, Leontovych.” Semenko was also quick to point out that the Ukrainian political dimension to the Carol of the Bells was nothing new. “It was never just a Christmas song, but a Ukrainian cultural message to the world, a greeting card of the nation’s deep-rooted spirituality and resilience in the face of threat. The same threat our nation is fighting today,” she said. SONG OF AN INDEPENDENT UKRAINE Leontovych is widely seen as a hero who took on Russia with his music a century ago, just as Ukrainians today are turning to guns, shells and drones to preserve their national identity from devastation by Moscow. As soon as Leontovych’s version of Shchedryk premiered in Kyiv in 1916, it was spotted as a potential hit by the leaders of the Ukrainian National Republic, the country’s short-lived attempt to break free from Moscow after World War I. The new government decided to send a national choir on tour across Europe with Leontovych’s choral songs in 1919 to promote recognition of the Ukrainian National Republic. The world did not recognize the new nation, but Shchedryk won it a place in global culture. “Even before the translation, it was a hit. In Paris, in Prague, all around Europe, princes and kings were fascinated to find out such a rich and old culture existed on their continent,” Semenko said. Before the European tour, the singers from the Ukrainian choir had to evacuate to the West of Ukraine as Bolsheviks overran Kyiv. After their European success, they went to Canada and the United States, already as the Ukrainian National Chorus, bringing Shchedryk to the North America in 1922. As soon as Leontovych’s version of Shchedryk premiered in Kyiv in 1916, it was spotted as a potential hit by the leaders of the Ukrainian National Republic. | Kostiantyn Liberov/Libkos/Getty Images “Shchedryk, which was a hit and always played as an encore, enchanted Europe and America, and helped Ukrainians to declare their nation and state to the world, said Anatoliy Paladiychuk, researcher and author of the project “Kamianets Notes and Wings of Shchedryk.” In 1936, the American composer Peter J. Wilhousky wrote English lyrics, adapting Shchedryk into the version familiar in West as the Carol of the Bells for an NBC radio performance. Leontovych did not live to see this worldwide success. Under the pretext that they were fighting bandits, the Soviet secret service killed him in January 1921 in his parents’ house in the western region of Vinnytsia. Ukrainians only learned the truth about his death after the opening of Soviet archives in the 1990s. “Just like they do in occupied territories of Ukraine now, Russian authorities saw a threat in Ukrainian culture. That was the start of great terror against Ukrainian freedom fighters, politicians, and educators. Leontovych was one of many who were killed,” Semenko said. HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF Almost 105 years after Leontovych’s death, Russia is once again trying to snuff out Ukrainian nationhood. While fighting has raged over Pokrovsk for more than 18 months, Moscow now claims it has occupied it. The Ukrainian army insists its forces are back in parts of Pokrovsk after withdrawal in November. Kyiv also says small groups of Russian soldiers are infiltrating to pose for pictures with flags for propaganda purposes, but don’t fully control the ruins. The Ukrainian army insists its forces are back in parts of Pokrovsk after withdrawal in November. | Ukrinform/NurPhoto via Getty Images “Our active operations in the Pokrovsko-Myrnoрrad agglomeration area continue. In Pokrovsk itself, in the past few weeks, we were able to regain control of about 16 square kilometers in the northern part of the city,” Ukrainian Army Commander Gen. Oleksandr Syrskyi said in a post on Telegram. Syrskyi vowed Ukraine would continue to fight for Pokrovsk and bolster its forces in the ruined city against hundreds of thousands of Kremlin soldiers. American historian Timothy Snyder — a leading expert on Ukraine — also drew on the Carol of the Bells to stress the continuity between Russian colonialism a century ago and President Vladimir Putin’s onslaught against the country. “Ukrainian culture is very significant in our world, but our awareness of it is minimal: the assassination of Leontovych and the transformation of Shchedryk is just one minor example of this colonial history, one that is continued during Russia’s present invasion of Ukraine,” Snyder said in a post on Substack on Dec 14.

The European Broadcasting Union cleared Israel to take part in next year’s Eurovision Song Contest, brushing aside demands for its exclusion and sparking an unprecedented backlash. “A large majority of Members agreed that there was no need for a further vote on participation and that the Eurovision Song Contest 2026 should proceed as planned, with the additional safeguards in place,” the EBU said in a statement Thursday. Following the decision, broadcasters in Spain, Ireland, the Netherlands and Slovenia said they disagreed with the EBU and announced they would not participate in the 70th-anniversary Eurovision in Vienna because Israel was allowed to take part. The boycotting countries said their decision was based on Israel’s war in Gaza and the resulting humanitarian crisis, as they launched a historic boycott that plunges Eurovision into its deepest-ever crisis. “Culture unites, but not at any price,” Taco Zimmerman, general director of Dutch broadcaster AVROTROS, said Thursday. “Universal values such as humanity and press freedom have been seriously compromised, and for us, these values are non-negotiable.” On the other side of the debate, Germany had warned it could pull out of the contest if Israel was not allowed to take part. Before the voting took place, Golan Yochpaz, a senior Israeli TV executive, said the meeting was “the attempt to remove KAN [Israeli national broadcasters] from the contest,” which “can only be understood as a cultural boycott.” Ireland’s public broadcaster RTÉ said it “feels that Ireland’s participation remains unconscionable given the appalling loss of lives in Gaza and the humanitarian crisis there, which continues to put the lives of so many civilians at risk.” Spanish radio and television broadcaster RTVE said it had lost trust in Eurovision. RTVE President José Pablo López said that “what happened at the EBU Assembly confirms that Eurovision is not a song contest but a festival dominated by geopolitical interests and fractured.” The EBU in Geneva also agreed on measures to “curb disproportionate third-party influence, including government-backed campaigns,” and limited the number of public votes to 10 “per payment method.” RTVE called the change “insufficient.” Controversy earlier this year prompted the changes, when several European broadcasters alleged that the Israeli government had interfered in the voting — after Israel received the largest number of public votes during the final. The EBU has been in talks with its members about Israel’s participation since the issue was raised at a June meeting of national broadcasters in London. Eurovision is run by the EBU, an alliance of public service media with 113 members in 56 countries. The contest has long proclaimed that it is “non-political,” but in 2022, the EBU banned Russia from the competition following the Kremlin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Palestinian militant group Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, killing about 1,200 people in Israel, a large majority of whom were civilians, and taking 251 hostages. The attack prompted a major Israeli military offensive in Gaza, which has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians, many of them civilians, displaced 90 percent of Gaza’s population and destroyed wide areas. The ceasefire brokered by U.S. President Donald Trump in October 2025 led to the release of the remaining 20 Israeli hostages. Shawn Pogatchnik contributed to this report.

Global pop star Sabrina Carpenter may be “Man’s Best Friend” — but not Donald Trump’s, becoming the latest celebrity to condemn the president’s use of her music. In response to a video posted by the White House using one of her songs, the “Espresso” singer replied Tuesday that “this video is evil and disgusting. Do not ever involve me or my music to benefit your inhumane agenda.” The video of agents arresting individuals — an apparent part of Trump’s immigration crackdown — is overlaid with Carpenter’s song “Juno.” The White House’s caption reads, “Have you tried this one?” in reference to one of the lyrics. In a statement, the White House continued to reference Carpenter’s music. “Here’s a Short n’ Sweet message for Sabrina Carpenter: we won’t apologize for deporting dangerous criminal illegal murderers, rapists, and pedophiles from our country. Anyone who would defend these sick monsters must be stupid, or is it slow?” said White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson, referencing Carpenter’s “Short n’ Sweet” album and “Manchild” song. Carpenter is the latest in a long line of musicians condemning Trump and demanding that he stop using their songs, dating back to his 2016 campaign. In 2024, Beyoncé threatened a cease and desist order to the Trump campaign after it used her song “Freedom” in a video. That song later became former Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign song. Swedish band ABBA, rock band Foo Fighters and singer-songwriter Kenny Loggins have also demanded the president stop using their music at rallies and in videos over the years.

Alcohol has been enjoyed in societies for thousands of years, playing a role in celebrations and gatherings across the world. While misuse continues to cause harm, it’s encouraging to see that, according to World Health Organization data, trends are moving in the right direction. Consumers are better informed and increasingly aware of the benefits of moderation.   While Diageo is only relatively young — founded in 1997 — our roots run deep. Many of our brands date back centuries, some as far back as the 1600s. From iconic names such as Guinness and Johnnie Walker to modern innovations like Tanqueray 0.0, we are proud to continue that legacy by building and sustaining exceptional brands that resonate across generations and geographies. We want to be one of the best performing, most trusted and respected consumer products companies in the world — grounded in a strong sense of responsibility.  That means being transparent about the challenges, proactive in promoting responsible drinking, and collaborative in shaping the future of alcohol policy. We are proud of the progress made, but we know there is more to do. Lasting change requires a whole-of-society approach, bringing together governments, health experts, civil society and the private sector.   We believe a more balanced, evidence-based dialogue is crucial; one that recognizes both the risks of harmful drinking and the opportunities to drive positive change. Our brands are woven into cultural and social traditions around the world, and the industry contributes significantly to employment, local economies and public revenues. Recognizing this broader context is essential to shaping effective, proportionate and collaborative alcohol policies. Public-private collaboration brings together the strengths of different sectors, and these partnerships help scale impactful programs.  > We believe a more balanced, evidence-based dialogue is crucial; one that > recognizes both the risks of harmful drinking and the opportunities to drive > positive change. Across markets, consumers are increasingly choosing to drink more mindfully. Moderation is a long-term trend — whether it’s choosing a non-alcoholic alternative, enjoying fewer drinks of higher quality, or exploring the choice ready-to-drink formats offer, people are drinking better, not more, something Diageo has long advocated. Moderation is not a limitation; it’s a mindset. One of the ways we’re leading in this space is through our expanding non-alcoholic portfolio, including the acquisition of Ritual Beverage Company in the US and our investment in Guinness 0.0. This growing diversity of options empowers individuals to choose what’s right for them, in the moment. Moderation is about choice, and spirits can also offer creative ways to moderate, such as mixing alcoholic and non-alcoholic ingredients to craft serves like the ‘lo-groni’, or opting for a smaller measure in your gin and tonic.  Governments are increasingly taking proportionate approaches to alcohol regulation, recognizing the value of collaboration and evidence-based policy. There’s growing interest in public-private partnerships and regulatory rationality, working together to achieve our shared goal to reduce the harmful use of alcohol. In the UK, underage drinking is at its lowest since records began, thanks in part to initiatives like Challenge 25, a successful public-private collaboration that demonstrates the impact of collective, targeted action.  > Moderation is not a limitation; it’s a mindset. Diageo has long championed responsible drinking through campaigns and programs that are measurable and scalable. Like our responsible drinking campaign, The Magic of Moderate Drinking, which is rolled out across Europe, and our programs such as Sober vs Drink Driving, and Wrong Side of the Road, which are designed to shift behaviors, not just raise awareness. In Ireland, we brought this commitment to life at the All Together Now music, art, food and wellness festival with the launch of the TO.0UCAN pub in 2024, the country’s first-ever non-alcoholic bar at a music festival. Serving Guinness 0.0 on draught, it reimagined the traditional Irish pub experience, offering a fresh and inclusive way for festival-goers to enjoy the full energy and atmosphere of the event without alcohol.  Another example comes from our initiative Smashed. This theatre-based education program, developed by Collingwood Learning and delivered by a network of non-government organizations, educates young people and helps them understand the dangers of underage drinking, while equipping them with the knowledge and confidence to resist peer pressure. Diageo sponsors and enables Smashed to reach millions of young people, teachers and parents across the globe, while ensuring that no  alcohol brands of any kind are mentioned. In 2008, we launched DRINKiQ, a first-of-its-kind platform to help people understand and be informed about alcohol, its effects, and how to enjoy it responsibly. Today, DRINKiQ is a dynamic, mobile-first platform, localized in over 40 markets. It remains a cornerstone of our strategy.  > Diageo has long championed responsible drinking through campaigns and programs > that are measurable and scalable. In the UK, our partnership with the Men’s Sheds Association supports older men’s wellbeing through DRINKiQ. Most recently, this collaboration expanded with Mission: Shoulder to Shoulder, a nationwide initiative where Shedders are building 100 buddy benches to spark over 200,000 conversations annually. The campaign promotes moderation and connection among older men, a cohort most likely to drink at increasing or higher risk levels. Across all our partnerships, we focus on the right message, in the right place, at the right time. They also reflect our belief that reducing harmful drinking requires collective action.  Our message is simple: Diageo is ready to be a proactive partner. Let’s build on the progress made and stay focused on the shared goal: reducing harm. With evidence-based policies, strong partnerships and public engagement, we can foster a drinking culture that is balanced, responsible and sustainable. Together, we can make real progress — for individuals, communities and society as a whole. 

U.S. President Donald Trump has said he wants to “help” Britain get a better trade deal, as he prepares to fly to the U.K. for his second state visit. “Basically, I’m there also on trade,” the president told reporters outside the White House on Tuesday ahead of his flight to London. “They want to see if they can refine the trade deal a little bit. We’ve made a deal, and it’s a great deal. “I’m into helping them. Our country is doing very well … They’d like to see if they could get a little bit better deal, so we’ll talk to them.” Trump’s words will be music to the ears of trade negotiators who hope to use the state visit to charm the president into dropping 25 percent tariffs on steel and aluminum, in line with the deal agreed earlier in May. Negotiators are also pressing the U.S. for preferential treatment on future pharmaceutical tariffs, contingent on the outcome of a U.S. investigation. In addition, the Scottish government has been lobbying hard for reductions to duties on Scotch whisky, which is subject to the blanket 10 percent “reciprocal” tariff applied to most U.K. goods. But Trump, a vocal admirer of the royal family, made clear that his priority was to meet the king and queen. “Primarily it’s to do with Prince Charles and Camilla,” he said. “They’re friends of mine for a long time … It’s an honor to have him as King. I think he represents the country so well … He’s such an elegant gentleman.”

On Wednesday evening, Emily Cleary, a 47-year-old journalist and public relations consultant from Buckinghamshire in the U.K., was sitting watching TV with her 12-year-old son when she got a BBC alert that Charlie Kirk had been shot. She’d never heard of him, but she soon gathered from the coverage that he was associated with President Donald Trump. “You might have seen him, Mummy,” her son insisted. “He’s the man on TikTok with the round face who shouts all the time.” He began filling her in on a long, detailed list of Kirk’s views. “He thinks that if a 10-year-old gets pregnant she should be forced to keep it,” he explained. In the U.S., Kirk was a well-known figure on both sides of the political spectrum thanks to his proximity to the Trump family and profiles in outlets such as POLITICO Magazine and The New York Times Magazine. On the other side of the Atlantic, a schism appeared this week between those perplexed at why Prime Minister Keir Starmer was making statements about a seemingly obscure American podcaster, and those who already viewed him as a celebrity. Debates about the activist’s legacy sprung up in online spaces not usually known for politics, such as Facebook groups intended for sharing Love Island memes or soccer fan communities on X, with some people saying they will “miss his straight talking.” Parents of teens were surprised to find themselves being educated by their children on an issue of apparent international political importance. To some, this was all the more bewildering given the U.K. offshoot of Kirk’s Turning Point was widely mocked as a huge failure when it tried launching at British universities. But Emily’s son learned about Kirk somewhere else: TikTok’s “for you” page. “He hadn’t just seen a few videos, he was very knowledgeable about everything he believed,” she said, adding that her son “didn’t agree with Kirk but thought he seemed like a nice guy.” “It really unnerved me that he knew more about this person’s ideas than I did.” Kirk first rose to prominence in the U.S. when he cofounded Turning Point USA in 2012. It aimed to challenge what it saw as the dominance of liberal culture on American campuses, establishing a network of conservative activists at schools across the country. Kirk built Turning Point into a massive grassroots operation that has chapters on more than 800 campuses, and some journalists have attributed Trump’s 2024 reelection in part to the group’s voter outreach in Arizona and Wisconsin. But across the pond, Turning Point UK stumbled. Formed in 2019, it initially drew praise from figures on the right of the U.K.’s then-ruling Conservative party, such as former member of parliament Jacob Rees-Mogg and current shadow foreign secretary Priti Patel. However, the official launch on Feb. 1 of that year quickly descended into farce: Its X account was unverified, leading student activists from around the country to set up hundreds of satirical accounts. Media post-mortems concluded the organization failed to capture the mood of U.K. politics. The British hard right tends to fall into two categories: the aristocratic eccentricity of Rees-Mogg, or rough-and-ready street-based movements led by figures such as former soccer hooligan (and Elon Musk favorite) Tommy Robinson. Turning Point USA — known for its highly-produced events full of strobe lights, pyrotechnics and thundering music — was too earnest, too flashy, too American. And although U.K. universities tend to be left-leaning, Kirk’s claim that colleges are “islands of totalitarianism” that curtail free speech didn’t seem to resonate with U.K. students like it did with some in the U.S. “For those interested in opposing group think or campus censorship, organisations and publications already exist [such as] the magazine Spiked Online,” journalist Benedict Spence wrote at the time, adding that “if conservatives are to win round young voters of the future, they will have to do so by policy.” Turning Point UK distanced itself from its previous leadership and mostly moved away from campuses, attempting to reinvent itself as a street-based group. However, five years later in early 2024, Kirk launched his TikTok account and quickly achieved a new level of viral fame on both sides of the Atlantic. Clips of his “Debate Me” events, in which he took on primarily liberal students’ arguments on college campuses, exploded on the platform. This also coincided with a shift in the landscape of the British right toward Kirk’s provocative and extremely online style of politics. Discontent had been swelling around the country as the economic damage of Brexit and the Covid-19 pandemic began to bite, and far-right movements distrustful of politicians and legacy media gained traction online. While some of Kirk’s favorite topics — such as his staunch opposition to abortion and support of gun rights — have never resonated with Brits, others have converged. Transgender rights moved from a fringe issue to a mainstream talking point, while debates over immigration became so tense they erupted in a series of far-right race riots in August 2024, largely organized and driven by social media. In this political and digital environment, inflammatory culture-war rhetoric found new purchase — and Kirk was a bona fide culture warrior. He called for “a Nuremberg-style trial for every gender-affirming clinic doctor,” posted on X last week that “Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America” and regularly promoted the racist “great replacement” conspiracy theory, which asserts that elites are engaged in a plot to diminish the voting and cultural power of white Americans via immigration policy. “The American Democrat Party hates this country. They want to see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white,” he said on his podcast in 2024. Harry Phillips, a 26-year-old truck driver from Kent, just south of London, began turning to influencers for his news during the pandemic, saying he didn’t trust mainstream outlets to truthfully report information such as the Covid-19 death toll. He first came across Kirk’s TikTok videos in the run-up to the 2024 U.S. presidential election. “I really liked that he was willing to have his beliefs challenged, and that he didn’t do it in an aggressive manner,” he said. “I don’t agree with everything, such as his views on abortion. But I do agree with his stance that there are only two genders, and that gender ideology is being pushed on kids at school.” Through Kirk, Phillips said he discovered other U.S. figures such as far-right influencer Candace Owens and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, whom he now follows on X, as well as more liberal debaters such as TikToker Dean Withers. “America’s such a powerful country, I think we should all keep an eye on what happens there because it can have a knock-on effect here,” he said. University students in the U.K. may not have been concerned about free speech in 2019, but Phillips definitely is. “I believe we’re being very censored by our government in the U.K.,” he said, citing concerns over the numbers of people reportedly arrested for social media posts. He also said Kirk was not just popular with other people his age, but older members of his family too — all of whom are distraught over his death. In May 2025, six years after the original Turning Point U.K. failed to take off, Kirk found his way back to U.K. campuses via the debate societies of elite universities like Oxford and Cambridge. He wasn’t the first far-right provocateur to visit these clubs, which have existed since the 19th century — conservative media mogul Ben Shapiro took part in a Cambridge debate in November 2023. Oxford Union’s most recent president, Anita Okunde, told British GQ these events were an attempt to make the societies, which were widely considered stuffy and stuck-up, “culturally relevant to young people.” Kirk’s hour-long video, “Charlie Kirk vs 400 Cambridge Students and a Professor,” has 2.1 million views on YouTube and has spawned multiple shorter clips, disseminated by his media machine across multiple platforms. Clips from the same debates also exist within a parallel left-wing ecosystem, re-branded with titles such as “Feminist Cambridge Student OBLITERATES Charlie Kirk.” Although Kirk has been lauded in some sections of the media for being open to debate, these videos don’t appear designed to change anyone’s opinion. Both sides have their views reinforced, taking whatever message they prefer to hear. Karen, a British mother in her late 50s who lives on a farm outside the city of Nottingham, said clips of Kirk getting “owned” by progressives are extremely popular with her 17-year-old daughter and her friends. “I had no idea who he was until she reminded me she had shown me some videos before,” said Karen, whose surname POLITICO Magazine is withholding to protect her daughter’s identity from online harassment. “I think he’s a bit too American for them,” she said. “He’s too in-your-face, and they think some of his opinions are just rage-baiting.” The U.K. political landscape is currently in turmoil, with Farage’s Reform U.K. leading the polls at 31 percent while Starmer’s center-left Labour lags behind at 21 percent. Given the unrest at home, it may seem unusual that so many people are heavily engaged with events thousands of miles away in Washington. Social media algorithms play a role pushing content, as do Farage and Robinson’s close relationships with figures such as Trump, Musk and Vice President JD Vance. In any case, young people in the U.K. are as clued into American politics as ever. Cleary’s 12-year-old son’s description of Kirk wasn’t the first time he surprised her with his knowledge of U.S. politics, either: He recently filled her in on Florida’s decision to end vaccine mandates for schoolchildren. “I’m happy that he is inquisitive and he definitely questions things,” she said. However, she wonders if this consumption of politics via social media will shape the way he and his peers view the world for the rest of their lives. “He even says to me, ‘No one my age will ever vote Labour because they’re no good at TikTok,’” she said. “And he says he doesn’t like Reform, but that they made really good social media videos.”