Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney at the World Economic Forum in Davos:

For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. We join its institutions, we praised its principles, we benefited from its predictability. And because of that, we could pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection.

We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false, that the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient, that trade rules were enforced asymmetrically, and we knew that international law applied with varied rigor, depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.

…

This bargain no longer works.

Let me be direct. We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.

…

In the past few days, we’ve concluded new strategic partnerships with China and Qatar. We’re negotiating free trade pacts with India, ASEAN, Thailand, Philippines and Mercosur.

Guardian:

France’s president, Emmanuel Macron, called on fellow leaders to activate the EU’s powerful anti-coercion instrument – commonly known as the “big bazooka” – if Trump went ahead with his tariff threats, French media reported, citing his team.

After the talks broke up, the head of the European Council António Costa announced an emergency EU summit, which is likely to take place on Thursday. The EU, he said, showed “readiness to defend ourselves against any form of coercion”.

Italy’s prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, said Trump’s tariffs would be a mistake, and the Dutch foreign minister, David van Weel, described the US president’s threats to allies as “blackmail”, as reaction from European leaders continued to pile up.

The anti-coercion law, which has so far never been used, enables the EU to impose punitive economic measures on a country seeking to force a policy change.

In January 2026 this is how Americans allow their president to be seen in the world.

Leaving capitalization, grammar, sophomoric partisan language and blatant dishonesty aside, what strikes one about the message here is the closing sentence. „Retribution“ seems something quite different from „deportations“.

Ω Ω Ω

Berliner Zeitung:

Auch der Historiker Peter Brandt unterschrieb den Appell. Markus Wächter

Baud wird weder die Fälschung von Belegen noch der Aufruf zu Gewalt vorgeworfen – sondern eine politische Deutung, die von der vorherrschenden Interpretation abweicht.

…

Die Folgen sind gravierend: Konten werden gesperrt, Vermögen eingefroren, Bewegungsfreiheit eingeschränkt. Baud will juristisch dagegen vorgehen. Zugleich beschreibt er die praktische Lage in drastischen Worten. In einem Gespräch mit seinem Verleger Karsten beklagt er, er sei „im Grunde genommen gefangen in einem Lager, das Belgien heißt“.

Gegen ihn gelte in der EU ein Reiseverbot, somit könne er nicht in sein Heimatland, die Schweiz, zurückkehren. In Belgien wiederum könne er seine Konten nicht nutzen, da sie gesperrt seien. Wer weder reisen noch über eigenes Geld verfügen kann, ist nicht verhaftet, aber faktisch handlungsunfähig. Ohne verfügbare Mittel kein Anwalt, ohne Bewegungsfreiheit kaum Zugang zu Gerichten. Der Rechtsstaat existiert formal weiter – praktisch wird der Betroffene ausgeschaltet. Es ist kein Verfahren, das zu einem Urteil führt. Es ist ein Ausschluss, der vollzogen wurde, bevor ein Gericht gesprochen hat.

What really jumps out of course is the dissatisfaction both with the government in general and Merz specifically, however I think the polarization is also significant – fewer people feel they are unsure what they think.