The Baseline News
22 January
Facts first. Bias removed. Form your own judgement.
Today’s Headlines
President Trump links NATO commitments to a new strategic arrangement involving Greenland and ‘U-turning’ on tariff threats.
The White House announces a new “Board of Peace” aimed at reshaping U.S. foreign intervention, a replacement for the UN?
Ukraine’s president publicly criticises European governments over military and financial support.
The UK House of Lords approves legislation banning social media use for under-16s, putting the ball firmly in The House of Common’s court.
The Forgotten Story: Sudan’s humanitarian crisis deepens with limited international attention- the hidden war.
Trump, NATO & Greenland - A Strategic Bargain or An Embarrassing Climb-down?
What’s been said:
International reporting - Reuters, Associated Press, BBC News
President Trump said Greenland’s location makes it important for U.S. and NATO security, especially as competition grows in the Arctic. Danish leaders responded by saying Greenland is not for sale and that its future is for its people to decide. NATO officials said the alliance is based on shared defence, not bargaining over territory.
Left-leaning framing - The Guardian, Al Jazeera, The New York Times
Coverage warns that linking military protection to control or influence over land is dangerous. Commentators argue this kind of thinking ignores Greenland’s right to independence and risks damaging trust between allies.
Right-leaning framing - Wall Street Journal, Fox News, National Review
Commentary argues that Trump is simply being realistic. With Russia and China increasing their presence in the Arctic, the U.S. needs to protect its interests, and allies should be honest about what security actually costs.
What Has Actually Happened:
President Trump publicly connected U.S. security interests in Greenland to NATO discussions. European governments rejected the idea that alliances or territory should be negotiated this way. No deal or formal proposal exists yet. Although Trump, after discussions at Davos has hailed his trip a “incredible time” and promised the Greenland deal would be “amazing” after his U-turn on further European Tariffs.
Why This Matters:
This episode highlights a growing question: are alliances built on shared values, or on leverage and strategic necessity? It also highlights the strategic importance of the arctic to global superpowers. Why?
The Baseline:
Does this feel like a smart strategy or unnecessary pressure?
What feels more important: protecting national interests or respecting allies’ independence?
Would you judge this differently if another country tried the same approach? What if China made the same argument for assuming control over Taiwan? Or if France took this approach to Belgium?
Trump’s “Board of Peace” - A replacement for the UN?
What’s Been Said:
International reporting - Reuters, Associated Press
The White House announced a new advisory group called the “Board of Peace.” Its job is to review U.S. involvement in wars and foreign military actions. The board cannot make decisions on its own and will advise the president.
Left-leaning framing - Vox, The Atlantic, MSNBC
Coverage questions whether the board actually limits presidential power or simply changes the language without changing who makes the final call. It’s framed as a “pay-to-play” with there being a $1 billion entry fee, potentially fostering inequality and privileging wealthier states.
Right-leaning framing — Washington Examiner, The Federalist,
Supporters say the board reflects public frustration with long, expensive wars and could push the U.S. toward fewer military interventions. The right frame that the UN is 'broken' in failing to prevent war and resolving conflict, and the board of peace is ‘action-oriented’ with the $1 billion fee ensuring serious commitment to world peace.
What Has Actually Happened:
An executive order established the board, composed of former diplomats, military officials, and political appointees. Its mandate remains loosely defined, and its recommendations are non-binding. Trump is framing it as a replacement for the UN. Several traditional allies have declined to join due to Russia’s potential involvement. 20+ countries have already accepted membership.
Why This Matters:
It touches on who should decide when a country goes to war and how seriously peace is treated as a goal. It’s potentially the beginning of the end for the UN and the beginning of a new global political structure.
The Baseline:
Is this a genuine check on war-making, or symbolic politics?
What would real restraint require in practice?
Who should hold ultimate authority over peace and war? Why is Trump the chair? Is ultimate authority left in America’s hands?
Ukraine’s President Blasts Europe
What’s Been Said:
International reporting - BBC News, Reuters
President Volodymyr Zelensky said delays in European military support are weakening Ukraine’s defence and allowing the war to drag on. European leaders said they remain committed but face political, financial, and logistical limits.
Left-leaning framing - Politico Europe, The Guardian
Coverage focuses on political pressure inside Europe, including public fatigue with the war and concerns over costs.
Right-leaning framing - Wall Street Journal, Der Spiegel opinion, Fox News
Commentary argues that hesitation sends the wrong signal to Russia and that delayed support makes future conflict more likely.
What Has Actually Happened:
In a public address, Zelensky criticised European leaders by name, citing delayed weapons deliveries and stalled funding packages. European officials responded by reaffirming support while pointing to domestic political constraints. “WHAT’S MISSING? Time, or political will? Too often in Europe, something else is often more urgent than justice.”
Why This Matters:
It highlights the gap between promises made during war and the reality of sustaining them over time. It also indicates Ukraine’s clear reliance on allies in helping them fight off Russian expansionism, showing a real frustration for ‘lack of action’ from Europeans.
The Baseline:
Is Europe letting Ukraine down, or facing unavoidable limits?
What responsibility comes with long-term promises?
When does caution become harmful?
UK House of Lords Approves Social Media Ban for Under-16s
What’s Been Said:
Domestic reporting - BBC News, Financial Times
The House of Lords approved a law that would restrict under-16s from using social media, citing concerns over mental health and online safety. How the rules will be enforced is still unclear.
Left-leaning framing - The Guardian, New Statesman
Supporters focus on protecting children but warn about privacy issues and the risk of increased monitoring.
Right-leaning framing - The Telegraph, Spectator
Coverage supports giving parents more control but questions whether government rules can actually work online.
What Has Actually Happened:
The bill passed its final stage in the House of Lords- leaving the ball firmly in the government’s court in deciding if they should follow Australia in banning social media for under-16s.
Why This Matters:
The debate reflects wider concerns about children, technology, and how much control the state should have.
The Baseline:
Does this feel like protection or overreach?
Who should be responsible: parents, tech companies, or the government?
What trade-offs are acceptable for safety?
The Forgotten Story - Sudan’s Deepening Crisis
What’s Been Said:
International reporting - United Nations OCHA, Reuters, BBC News
Sudan’s civil war continues, with millions forced from their homes and severe food shortages spreading. Aid organisations struggle to reach those in need.
Left-leaning framing - Al Jazeera, The New Humanitarian
Coverage focuses on civilian suffering and how little attention the crisis receives internationally. There is mass-displacement, famine-risk and clear international neglect due to lack of aid and international pressure.
Right-leaning framing - Wall Street Journal, Foreign Policy
Analysis focuses on regional instability, refugee flows, and the risks of state collapse in the Horn of Africa. The brutal war threatens wider violence and destabilisation in Africa, allowing for Sudan to be exploited by countries such as Russia or hostile militias
What’s Has Actually Happened:
Sudan remains locked in civil war with no effective ceasefire. Humanitarian access is limited, death toll estimates continue to rise, and international diplomatic engagement has slowed. The war is funded by foreign nations with interests within Sudan, such as the UAE, Egypt and Iran and is argued that these countries are only exacerbating the crisis.
Why This Matters:
Some crises don’t end; they just stop being talked about.
The Baseline Choice
Why do some wars fade from attention?
Does distance reduce responsibility?
What do we owe people when there’s no clear strategic interest?
How should western nations approach Sudan?
You’ve now reflected on these events, how they made you feel, what judgments you formed, and why.
That process is building your political judgement.
— The Baseline