Easy-to-Read View RSS

The United States carried out this Wednesday (22) the first military attack in the Pacific Ocean as part of its supposed campaign to combat drug trafficking. The operation, carried out by direct order from Donald Trump, killed two people on a vessel that, according to the US government, was transporting drugs in international waters close to the coast of Colombia.

The action marks the expansion of the offensive that began in September, which had already produced at least seven bombings in the Caribbean and caused dozens of deaths.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed the attack and released a video showing a speeding boat being struck by an explosion.

“Yesterday, at the direction of President Trump, the Department of War conducted a lethal kinetic attack on a vessel. There were two narco-terrorists on board. Both were killed, and no American forces were harmed,” the secretary stated.

Hegseth also stated that “narco-terrorists who intend to bring poison to our shores will not find safe haven anywhere in our hemisphere” and compared drug trafficking groups to Al-Qaeda.

The military offensive, described by the White House as part of the “total war against the cartels”, has already left more than 30 people dead and is considered by jurists and diplomats as the most aggressive United States operation in Latin America since the invasion of Panama in 1989.

Since the beginning of September, Washington has claimed to combat transnational drug networks, but has not presented evidence or revealed the identities of the victims.

The White House also did not disclose the exact location of the bombings — the international database Acled (Armed Conflict Location and Events) identified the approximate areas of the attacks only based on press reports, and with the lowest possible degree of precision.

Trump’s rhetoric associates Latin American cartels with the war on terrorism discourse.

“Just as al-Qaeda waged war on our homeland, these cartels are waging war on our border and our people. There will be no refuge and no forgiveness — only justice,” the Republican said.

The declaration reflects the attempt to justify the unrestricted use of force in the name of national security, expanding the Executive’s power over military operations outside American territory.

The new attack reignites diplomatic tensions with Colombia, whose coast was the likely scene of the operation.

The Colombian Ministry of Foreign Affairs denounced the episode as “comparable to the application of the death penalty in foreign territory”. Vice Chancellor Mauricio Jaramillo classified the action as “disproportionate and outside international law”, stating that “the occupiers had no possibility of defending themselves” and that “there was no process or court order”.

President Gustavo Petro, in turn, accused the United States of “opening a new theater of war in the Caribbean” and stated that “the solution to this crisis is to remove Trump from power”.

The climate between the two countries deteriorated rapidly. Trump accused Petro of being an “illegal drug leader” and promised to cut subsidies and increase trade tariffs against Bogotá.

The Colombian reacted by calling the Republican “rude and ignorant” and ordered the return of his ambassador to Washington. The American then publicly attacked him again, calling him a “miscreant” and a “bad guy”, to which Petro responded by promising to take him to court for the “slanders uttered”.

The military escalation also deepens the crisis between Washington and Caracas. US government sources told the press that Trump’s strategy is to “apply maximum pressure on Nicolás Maduro to remove him from power, including by force”.

In August, Washington doubled to US$50 million the reward for the capture of the Venezuelan president, accused of leading the alleged Cartel de los Soles — an organization whose existence is disputed by experts and the Venezuelan government itself.

Maduro reacted by declaring that the country is ready to respond to any attack. “If the foreigners attack, we will respond,” said the president.

Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López stated that Bolivarian forces are prepared “for drone attacks, aerial campaigns or sabotage conducted by US special forces.”

Military rhetoric and the deployment of warships, F-35 fighters and a nuclear submarine to the Caribbean indicate a long-range offensive, not restricted to drug trafficking.

Washington claims to act against criminal networks, but the geographic reach and volume of troops — around 10,000 troops — suggest an effort at political intimidation amid Trump’s diplomatic isolation. Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa, on the other hand, praised American actions, in the context of his own “war against gangs”, which earned him support from Washington.

International law experts consulted by Folha and European outlets maintain that the American offensive, at the very least, lacks a legal basis.

International law prohibits attacks against people who do not present an imminent threat, except in cases of declared war or explicit authorization from the UN Security Council. “Without process, without court order and without immediate threat, this is a summary execution,” a Colombian jurist told the BBC.

Even the justification for combating drug trafficking is contested by analysts. Data from the DEA (US Drug Enforcement Agency) itself indicates that most of the cocaine destined for the American market enters through the Pacific Ocean and the Mexican border — not through the Caribbean, where the attacks occurred —, while the synthetic drugs that fuel the opioid crisis, such as fentanyl, originate mostly in China.

For diplomats and multilateral organizations, Trump’s offensive represents “a historic setback” and reopens the precedent of extraterritorial interventions that marked the Cold War.

The new phase of the North American naval war in Latin America is seen as a movement of a political nature, aimed both at Trump’s electoral campaign and at Washington’s strategic repositioning in the face of governments that challenge its influence.

By bringing the rhetoric of drug trafficking closer to the language of the war on terror, the Republican reinforces the ideological character of his foreign policy and reintroduces South America as a zone of military confrontation under the mantle of “hemispheric security”.

This Thursday (23), the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) arrested 31 people linked to sports betting schemes in the NBA, the main basketball league in the United States. Among those detained are Portland Trail Blazers coach Chauncey Billups and Miami Heat point guard Terry Rozier.

According to the investigation, the basketball scheme generated millions of dollars between 2022 and 2024. Rozier combined his gambling actions with illegal bettors, passing on confidential information. Investigators monitored suspicious betting movements related to the player, who has played for the Boston Celtics and Charlotte Hornets. In the analysis carried out, he had atypical performances in the games in which possible frauds occurred.

According to the United States Attorney in Brooklyn, Joseph Nocella, bettors exploited privileged information mainly on the Charlotte Hornets, Portland Trail Blazers, Los Angeles Lakers and Toronto Raptors teams.

In turn, Coach Billups, a member of the NBA Hall of Fame, is accused of involvement in a fraud unrelated to the world of basketball.

He is investigated for participating in rigged poker games. In the scheme, linked to the mafia, criminals set up sequenced shuffling mechanisms and marked decks, as well as installing cameras to view players’ cards.

To attract newcomers, mobsters paid well-known figures to participate in tournaments, and Billups was one of them.

According to the Reutersplayers from the most popular North American sports have already been punished in similar investigations. In addition to basketball, athletes from the NFL (American football), MLB (baseball) and NHL (ice hockey) have already been punished. As the report points out, the number of fraud accusations related to betting is increasing, following the release of online betting in more US states and greater accessibility.

Brazilian takes on the ‘Blazers’

With Billups’ arrest, Brazilian Tiago Splitter takes interim command of the Portland Trail Blazers.

An NBA champion as a player for the San Antonio Spurs in 2014, Splitter was an assistant on the Oregon team’s coaching staff.

He recently arrived at Portland after excelling as coach of Paris Basketball, with which he won the French title in his first experience in charge of a team.

This creamy coconut pavé with chocolate wafer is one of the most delicious desserts out there!

The new economic sanctions imposed by Donald Trump’s government against Russia’s two largest oil companies — Rosneft and Lukoil — caused an immediate rise of almost 5% in the price of international oil and an escalation in tensions between Washington and Moscow. Brent reached US$65.50 and WTI surpassed US$61, in the biggest jump in weeks, reflecting fears of global supply shortages, as Russia is the world’s second largest oil producer.

The impact was immediate: refineries in China and India, the main buyers of Russian oil, announced a reduction or suspension of imports. The market reacted with uncertainty, and OPEC countries promised to “compensate for possible production deficits”, fearing a new energy crisis.

“Restricting Russian oil will destabilize the markets and harm the American consumer,” warned President Vladimir Putin, accusing Trump of “acting on political impulses that put the global economy at risk.”

Moscow reacts: “The USA is our enemy”

The Russian response was immediate and forceful. Former president Dmitry Medvedev, now vice-president of the Security Council and one of Putin’s main allies, classified the sanctions as “an act of war” and stated that “the US has entered the path of confrontation once and for all”.

“The cancellation of the summit in Budapest by Trump. New sanctions against our country by the US. What else? There will be new weapons, in addition to the infamous [mísseis] ‘Tomahawks’?” said Medvedev. “The US is our enemy, and your loudmouth ‘peacemaker’ [Trump] now it has now entered the path of war against Russia once and for all. The decisions taken are an act of war against Russia – and now Trump has completely sympathized with insane Europe.”

The statements, in an almost warlike tone, came after the cancellation of the meeting between Trump and Putin, which was to be held in Hungary to discuss a ceasefire in the war in Ukraine. The Kremlin interpreted the gesture as a diplomatic rupture and intensified military demonstrations — including the launch of nuclear ballistic missiles in simultaneous tests, seen by analysts as a direct message to Washington.

Sanctions that isolate and inflame

The US Treasury’s measures block all goods and assets of Russian companies on American territory and prohibit transactions with their subsidiaries. More than an economic blow, experts estimate that the sanctions affect the central structure of Russia’s financing, as oil accounts for more than 30% of state revenue.

However, Trump’s decision does not occur in a vacuum. At the same time as he tries to put pressure on Moscow, the Republican faces growing internal and external pressures: energy inflation in the USA, criticism from European allies about the risk of destabilization and the loss of international credibility after successive reversals in his foreign policy.

Trump tries to appear strong in front of Putin, but he acts erratically and reactively. Its sanctions punish the entire world — especially energy-dependent countries — while fueling Russian nationalism. Trump repeats the historic error of using economic sanctions as a political weapon, which also penalizes the American consumer.

Rising oil and diplomatic crisis

The spike in prices is already causing side effects. In addition to the increase in fuel costs in the US and Europe, China and India — which had been supporting part of Russian exports — are beginning to reduce operations to avoid retaliation from Washington. The blockade threatens to disrupt global energy trade, putting pressure on emerging economies and raising transport and production costs.

In reaction, Putin once again defended the diversification of Russian partners, strengthening ties with countries not aligned with the West and with the expanded Brics bloc, in which Brazil and China have a strategic role.

The return of the logic of war

The new round of sanctions marks a turning point in Trump’s policy, which until then avoided direct measures against Moscow. Now, by toughening his tone, the Republican rekindles rhetoric of confrontation between nuclear powers, with the potential to further fragment the international order.

The gesture is seen by analysts as a domestic policy move disguised as diplomacy, seeking to regain support among Republican hawks and military sectors — at the cost of a dangerous escalation.

“Every new ultimatum from Trump is a step towards direct conflict. Diplomacy has been replaced by economic blackmail,” declared Medvedev.

Russian rhetoric echoes a growing sense of geopolitical encirclement, fueled by expanded European sanctions and NATO support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, the war — about to turn four years old — drags on with no prospect of peace, and the economic and human cost is growing at an alarming rate.

An empire in decline

By targeting Russian oil, Trump strikes at the heart of the global economy — but he also exposes the contradictions of a country that, in the name of hegemony, destabilizes the very system it created. The US, which presents itself as a defender of “market freedom”, increasingly resorts to economic blockade and isolation as instruments of power, transforming allies into hostages and adversaries into permanent enemies.

Sanctions are the new battleground of American imperial politics. But the multipolar world no longer bends so easily.

The offensive against Moscow, combined with the crisis with China and the wear and tear with European allies, reinforces the image of a power in decline, trapped in an erratic foreign policy and driven by electoral impulses.

Trump’s sanctions not only raised the price of oil — but also accentuated the war of narratives that defines the new global scenario. For Russia, it is about defending its sovereignty in the face of a Western siege. For the US, to reaffirm its leadership through economic coercion. The result, however, is a more unstable, more expensive and more dangerous world.

Brazil and the United States agreed for Sunday (26), in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, the first formal meeting between presidents Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Donald Trump since the beginning of the trade crisis triggered by the North American government.

The meeting is scheduled to take place on the sidelines of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) summit, which brings together ten countries in the region and will last until the 28th.

Diplomats from both countries say there is “willingness on both sides” for the conversation to take place. The White House has not yet officially confirmed the time.

Itamaraty set aside part of Sunday morning for bilateral meetings with Lula, and, so far, only the agenda with the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, has been confirmed.

According to Ambassador Everton Frask Lucero, director of the Department of India, South and Southeast Asia, “there is room on Lula’s agenda on Sunday morning” for a meeting with the North American leader.

It will be the first face-to-face meeting between Lula and Trump since the Republican imposed 50% tariffs on Brazilian products in July.

At the time, the President of the United States claimed that the measure responded to the “witch hunt” against Jair Bolsonaro. The decision increased diplomatic tension between the two countries and led Brazil to activate the Reciprocity Law, authorizing the government to apply equivalent sanctions to Washington.

Tensions began to revert in September, during the United Nations General Assembly, when Trump mentioned Lula cordially in his speech and the two had a brief meeting behind the scenes. The gesture paved the way for the resumption of diplomatic dialogue.

Itamaraty bets on a “neutral country” and seeks to avoid political embarrassment

According to sources at Palácio do Planalto, the choice of Malaysia as the host of the meeting is part of a strategy to reduce the political exposure of the meeting and prevent Lula from being placed in a vulnerable position in front of Trump.

The Brazilian government had been resisting the idea of ​​an official invitation to the White House, considered an unfavorable environment for the president due to Trump’s history of public embarrassments with other foreign leaders.

“There is willingness on both sides for the face-to-face meeting to take place in Malaysia. The teams are working to include the commitment in the official agendas,” a diplomatic source told g1.

Planalto assesses that the conversation, if confirmed, will take the dialogue “to another level” and could “reorganize the relationship between Trump and Lula and the agenda between the two countries”.

Brazilian diplomacy understands that the meeting in Asia reinforces the autonomy of the country’s foreign policy, by placing Brazil at the center of a multipolar scenario.

Throughout the week, Lula will also participate in business meetings and activities with leaders from Indonesia, Vietnam and Malaysia, seeking to expand trade and partnerships in Southeast Asia.

Rapprochement after dialogue between Mauro Vieira and Marco Rubio

Sunday’s meeting was preceded by a round of talks between Chancellor Mauro Vieira and the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, held last week in Washington.

It was the first high-level meeting since the worsening of the tariff crisis, and, according to the joint statement released after the meeting, there were “very positive conversations on trade and ongoing bilateral issues”.

The note, also signed by US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, drew attention for not linking the tariffs to Jair Bolsonaro’s conviction or to the decisions of Minister Alexandre de Moraes, of the Federal Supreme Court — a retreat from previous statements by the Trumpist wing.

For Brazilian diplomats, the gesture is a sign that there is guidance to seek a negotiated solution to the trade dispute.

During a 30-minute phone call in early October, Lula had already asked Trump to revoke the tariff. The government’s expectation is that the topic will return to the center of the face-to-face conversation.

Brazil intends to reaffirm sovereignty and condemn interventions in South America

In addition to trade issues, Lula should use the meeting to reiterate the Brazilian position against any form of intervention in South America.

The gesture responds to Trump’s escalation of hostilities against governments in the region. In recent weeks, the North American president authorized military operations in the Caribbean under the pretext of combating drug trafficking and even called Colombian Gustavo Petro a “drug trafficker”, an accusation also directed at Nicolás Maduro.

Lula’s advisors say that the tone of the dialogue will be calm, but firm, and that the president will take advantage of the opportunity to reinforce the defense of a “zone of peace” on the continent.

Itamaraty considers that Brazil must reaffirm its role as a mediator and not aligned with geopolitical blocs, preserving its independence amid the dispute between Washington and Caracas.

The diplomatic stance adopted by Brasília — of dialogue, but without unilateral concessions — contrasts with the White House’s protectionist discourse and reflects the attempt to rebuild commercial bridges without giving up national sovereignty.

Trip to Asia reinforces diplomatic turn and diversification of partnerships

Lula’s trip to Asia is scheduled to last a week and begins in Indonesia, where the president participates in a meeting with businesspeople and visits the ASEAN headquarters. On Saturday (25), he will arrive in Malaysia for bilateral commitments and signing ceremonies.

The Brazilian presence at the summit symbolizes the effort to reposition the country in forums in the Global South, at a time when Washington is facing diplomatic isolation and wear and tear due to its policy of sanctions and tariffs.

For the Brazilian government, the meeting with Trump — if it takes place — does not represent a subordinate rapprochement, but a demonstration of political maturity in the face of a partner with which it maintains structural differences.

Planalto sees dialogue as part of the strategy to return to normality in international relations, in line with Lula’s declared objective of “replacing Brazil in the world”.

The expectation is that, after the meeting, technical teams from both countries will come forward with concrete proposals to review the surcharges imposed on Brazilian products.

The Brics Grain Exchange proposal, officially launched in 2024, constitutes one of the most ambitious de-dollarization initiatives of the decade. This platform aims to directly challenge Chicago’s preponderant role in the global establishment of agricultural commodity prices, with relevant impacts on the international financial system based on the US dollar.

Its implementation represents a technical alternative to the existing model and stands as an instrument aimed at de-dollarization and the promotion of food sovereignty, with the aim of modifying the performance of international financial institutions in the commodities sector.

The Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT), the main global reference in the commodities market, together with the use of the dollar in negotiations, works as a restrictive mechanism for the commercial autonomy of large producers such as Brazil, Russia, India and China – four of the five main global grain producers.

In view of this scenario, there is growing mobilization on the part of the United States to safeguard its strategic role and limit advances that could alter the current configuration.

This article presents a critical analysis of the advances and possible impacts of the BRICS initiative in the multipolar geopolitical context.

Context and Central Motivation

The proposal for the creation of the Brics Grain Exchange was formally presented in October 2024, during the 16th Brics Summit, held in Kazan, Russia, under the leadership of President Vladimir Putin.

However, the topic had already figured in the group’s discussions since its inception, as evidenced in the “Bric’s Joint Statement on Global Security”, approved in June 2009, in Yekaterinburg, Russia.

The Kazan Declaration highlights the importance of resilient supply chains and agricultural trade for food security in developing countries and net food importers.

Furthermore, the Russian side’s initiative to create a grain trading platform within BRICS (“Brics Grain Exchange”) was officially welcomed and debated for potential future expansions, including other agricultural sectors.

The action signals a collective ambition to reconfigure the power dynamics associated with one of the most strategic sectors of the global economy.

Read more: A change will come: Blues, Brics and the multipolar transition

The expansion of BRICS in 2025, incorporating Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia, Indonesia and Iran, and with 11 partner countries, now represents around half of the world’s population and a significant portion of global food production and consumption.

Recent data indicates that current BRICS members account for approximately 44% of global grain production and consumption, and approximately 40% of global exports originate from the bloc and its partners.

Despite their productive capacity, the Brics countries remain “price takers” in markets whose values ​​are mainly defined by Western exchanges such as the CBOT.

Driving Forces

1.Geopolitical Pillar: Dedollarization and Autonomy
The central objective lies in reducing dependence on the US dollar in international commodity transactions, seeking greater decision-making autonomy and reducing the structural power of the US over the international financial system.

Trading grains in national currencies – or in the future, in a common BRICS unit of account – seeks to overcome challenges imposed by sanctions and legal restrictions from great powers. In this context, Russia assumes a prominent role as promoter of the proposal, especially after 2022.

This initiative is part of a broader agenda to strengthen the representation of the Global South and build an alternative global architecture.

2.Economic Logic: Price Control and Production Valuation
The project aims to correct the paradox of Brics being an agricultural power and, yet, not defining the prices of the main products it sells.

The creation of “independent price indicators” aims for a fairer assessment of agricultural products, benefiting producers in the Global South. Some analysts believe that, depending on coordination between major exporters, the initiative could approach a dynamic similar to that of OPEC in oil.

3.Food and Nutrition Security Imperative
The platform presents itself as a tool to mitigate acute price volatility and supply crises, offering more predictable channels and less subject to speculation.

For importing countries, the expectation is greater predictability in access to food and reduced vulnerability associated with speculative markets, in line with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Structure, Operation and Potential Impacts

1.Operational Design
The central model provides for direct transactions between producers and buyers, with settlement in national currencies.

The Russian proposal, formally endorsed in Kazan and reiterated in ministerial meetings, is being structured by an interministerial group led by the Russian Ministry of Economic Development.

Future expansion is expected to include other strategic commodities, such as energy and metals.

2.Impacts and Expectations
Different Brics members may experience different impacts:

• Brazil may see a strengthening of agribusiness and a reduction in exposure to exchange rate volatility;
• Russia can consolidate leadership in wheat exports and strengthen institutional mechanisms to circumvent sanctions;
• China and India can guarantee stable access to grain markets, giving greater prestige to the Yuan and Rupee;
• South Africa and African countries can benefit from better logistical conditions and affordable prices;
• Members of the Middle East can achieve safer food supply routes.

3.Global Systemic Impacts
The initiative represents a direct challenge to the traditional system centered on the CBOT and the dollar, with the possibility of altering the flow of global liquidity and generating impacts such as inflationary pressure in the United States in the event of a reduction in demand for dollars.

Challenges, Skepticism and Future Perspectives

1. Structural and Political Obstacles
Among the main challenges, the conciliation of divergent interests between large exporters and importers within the BRICS stands out.

Creating an exchange from scratch requires robust infrastructure, settlement systems, arbitration rules and regulatory harmonization between different national legal realities.

Furthermore, the market is still dominated by large multinational trading companies (ADM, Bunge, Cargill, Dreyfus), which hold the majority of exports with a broad consolidated structure.

Brics’ track record in reaching consensus to implement projects of great technical complexity inspires caution.

2.Future Perspectives
Although there is strong political mobilization, practical implementation is a long-term issue, remaining “still without clear definitions”.

The experience of the New Development Bank (NDB) indicates that institutional movements of this size require time and coordination.

The success of the Grains Exchange could generate a multiplier effect on other commodities and on the international financial architecture.

Conclusion

The Brics Grain Exchange proposal represents an initiative with relevant transformative potential, although faced with considerable structural and political challenges.

It reflects the bloc’s ambition to not only integrate, but also influence and remodel the current global system, based on the projection of its collective weight in agribusiness.

Regardless of the developments, the political formalization of the proposal constitutes a political milestone for the Global South, signaling the transition from rhetoric to concrete institutionality.

What is in dispute is more than grain pricing: it is about the very contours and dynamics of world order in the 21st century

References:
(1) https://admin.bricscouncil.ru/assets/b64d1ad3-88ea-489e-997d-0efb49507365
(2) https://www.gov.br/mre/pt-br/canais_atendimento/imprensa/notas-a-imprensa/xvi-cupula-do-brics-2013-kazan-russia-22-a-24-de-outubro-de-2024-declaracao-final
(3) https://brics.br/pt-br/noticias/brics-compartilha-solucoes-para-promover-a-seguranca-alimentar-global
(4) https://brics.br/pt-br/sobre-o-brics/dados-sobre-o-brics

After 40 years of the military dictatorship in Uruguay (1973–1985), an agent from the authoritarian period will serve another life sentence for the crimes of kidnapping, torture and murder. Former marine and former military commander Jorge Néstor Troccoli, 78, was convicted in Italy for involvement in the deaths of three people. As an officer in the secret service of the Uruguayan Navy (Fusna), he was the link with Ocoa (anti-subversive operations coordination body).

The Third Court of Assisi of the Court of Rome handed down the decision this Tuesday (21). In addition to life imprisonment, the former officer will have to spend one year and six months in daytime isolation. All of the crimes attributed to Troccoli occurred within the scope of Operation Condor – the repression network that united the dictatorships of the Southern Cone to eliminate opponents of the regimes in the 1970s and 1980s. Countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Uruguay participated in the alliance.

Two of the three victims – the couple Raffaella Giuliana Filippazzi and Augustin Potenza – were persecuted by the government of Paraguayan dictator Alfredo Stroessner. According to Ansa, they “were kidnapped in Montevideo on May 27, 1977 while they were in a local hotel. After being arrested, they were handed over to the S2 Fusna unit, Navy riflemen led by Troccoli”, who murdered them. His remains were only found in 2016, in a mass grave in Asunción, capital of Paraguay.

The third victim described by the prosecution is that of Uruguayan teacher and member of the People’s Victory Party (PVP) Elena Quinteros, considered a missing politician. Kidnapped on June 24, 1976, the activist was taken to an illegal detention center in Montevideo, from where she managed to escape. However, when seeking refuge at the Uruguayan embassy on the 30th, she was arrested, tortured and killed by S2 Fusna in the diplomatic representation itself.

It is not the first conviction for Troccoli, who has been detained in Italy since July 2021. A Uruguayan by birth, he became a naturalized Italian and began living in the European country in 2007. Even without being extradited, the former commander was previously convicted of the disappearance and execution of around 20 people. Another 13 agents of the dictatorship were convicted.

To the website Opera MundiAlessia Merluzzi, representative of the Uruguayan State, said that the new conviction “makes up for lost time” and the “years of absence of justice”, by reaffirming “the importance of the human being, the need to protect the dignity that each body and each life must have”.

Super simple and easy to make sausage gratin recipe.

The resignation of Argentina’s Foreign Minister, Gerardo Werthein, marks another chapter in the growing instability in Javier Milei’s government. The chancellor, who had been appointed less than a year ago to lead the ultra-liberal and pro-United States diplomatic turn, decided to leave his post after successive frictions with Santiago Caputo, the president’s trusted advisor and central figure of the hardest core of the Casa Rosada.

Sources close to the government confirmed that Werthein handed in his resignation letter on Thursday night (16), bringing forward his departure, which was only scheduled for after the mid-term elections, next Sunday. The gesture occurred after the chancellor felt politically isolated and disowned by Milei — who, even in the face of virtual attacks from Caputo’s allies, chose to remain silent.

In the shadow of Santiago Caputo

The growing influence of Santiago Caputo — appointed as the president’s communication and political “guru” — has provoked a succession of conflicts within the government. Werthein resisted the idea of ​​having Caputo formally in the cabinet, fearing the emptying of the chancellery and the advancement of foreign policy decisions without the participation of Itamaraty.

According to interlocutors, the minister had already expressed discomfort with what he called “parallel diplomacy”, in reference to Caputo’s actions with American advisors before the meeting between Milei and Donald Trump, in Washington. The episode, which ended in international embarrassment, worsened internal wear and tear.

The fiasco with Trump and the loss of trust

The bilateral meeting between Milei and Trump, which was supposed to consolidate the ideological alliance between Buenos Aires and Washington, ended up turning into a diplomatic incident. The former US president conditioned economic support for Argentina on the victory of the governing party La Libertad Avanza in the legislative elections — a statement interpreted as political interference and which generated strong internal repercussions. Trump said it would not be worth investing in a government that could not continue its policies.

The Wall Street Journal revealed that the financial agreement between Argentina and the United States could include access for North American companies to Argentine uranium. The White House seeks to limit Chinese influence in the region.

The Casa Rosada blamed Werthein for the “misunderstanding”, arguing that he had not adequately explained the nature of the elections to Trump. Privately, however, Argentine diplomats classified the accusation as “absurd” and attributed the error to a lack of coordination between the Ministry and Milei’s closest circle. Trump himself later made it clear that he knew well what the midterm elections were about.

A government in permanent crisis

The resignation of Werthein — the second chancellor to leave the post in less than a year, after the fall of Diana Mondino — reinforces the perception that the Milei government is experiencing a structural crisis of management and political command.

Since the beginning of his term, the president has relied on a restricted group of advisors — nicknamed the “iron triangle” — made up of Santiago Caputo, Karina Milei (sister and general secretary of the Presidency) and spokesperson Manuel Adorni. This nucleus, which concentrates strategic and communication decisions, has increased tensions with allied ministers and governors.

For political analysts, Werthein’s departure represents more than a change of names: it is the symptom of an administration hostage to internal disputes, personalism and improvised impulses.

Weakened diplomacy and political rearrangements

The chancellor’s resignation comes amid speculation about a broad ministerial reform after the elections. Possible replacements include Nahuel Sotelo, secretary of Worship (coordinates the relationship between the government and the Catholic Church and other religions) and ally of Caputo; Úrsula Basset, director of Human Rights; Luis María Kreckler, consul in São Paulo; and Guillermo Francos, current Chief of Staff.

Meanwhile, the San Martín Palace is plunged into a leadership vacuum. Shortly before leaving office, Werthein signed the transfer of 83 diplomats to embassies and consulates, a decision that angered the government and will be reviewed. The chancellor’s final gesture was interpreted as an act of autonomy — or defiance — in the face of the growing power of the presidential environment.

A warning about the future of the Milei government

The diplomatic and political crisis opened by Werthein’s resignation casts doubt on Milei’s ability to sustain internal cohesion amid economic turmoil and social wear and tear. It also calls into question the government’s external diplomacy focused on unconditional support for the USA and Israel, which has been isolated internationally since the accusations of the Palestinian genocide, and can only count on singular support from the USA, Germany, the Czech Republic and Argentina.

In addition to personal disputes, the episode exposes the imbalance between ideology and management at the heart of the Argentine government: a president surrounded by ideological loyalists, but institutionally isolated, as his coalition fragments and his ministers fall one by one.

In a context in which Milei promises “second generation reforms”, the chancellor’s resignation may just be the harbinger of a new cycle of instability — political, diplomatic and, above all, internal.

In a decision considered explosive, the Israeli Parliament (Knesset) approved this Wednesday (22) the first vote on a bill that imposes Israeli sovereignty over the occupied West Bank, effectively equivalent to the annexation of a Palestinian territory — an open violation of international law and UN (United Nations) resolutions.

The proposal, presented by deputy Avi Maoz, leader of the ultranationalist Noam party, was approved by 25 votes to 24 in the preliminary reading, in a plenary session with large abstentions from parliamentarians from Likud, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s party, who formally opposed the text.

Now, the project will go to the Foreign Relations and Defense Committee for analysis, before three other votes necessary for its final approval.

Between political calculation and diplomatic confrontation

The vote takes place in a context of strong diplomatic tension, a month after US President Donald Trump publicly warned that he would not support a formal annexation of the West Bank. The move was seen as an open challenge to Washington, especially as it occurred during US Vice President JD Vance’s visit to Israel, the aim of which was to reinforce the ceasefire in Gaza.

Netanyahu’s own party classified the vote as “an irresponsible provocation of the opposition”, warning that the gesture could jeopardize relations with the US. Even so, support for the project came from within the government base: ministers from the radical wing, such as Itamar Ben-Gvir (National Security) and Bezalel Smotrich (Finance), voted in favor.

Smotrich celebrated the result on social media, stating that “the time has come to apply total sovereignty over all of Judea and Samaria — the heritage of our ancestors.”

Netanyahu isolated and pressured by his right

Although he has positioned himself against the project, Netanyahu faces growing pressure from the far right, which demands the consolidation of Israeli control over the occupied territories. The abstention of the majority of Likud deputies reflects internal discomfort: part of the group fears a diplomatic collapse with the US and Arab countries that normalized relations with Israel in the Abraham Accords.

Likud’s own parliamentarian Yuli Edelstein broke with the government and cast the decisive vote to approve the proposal. “Israeli sovereignty throughout our homeland is the order of the day,” he declared, signaling the weakening of the prime minister’s authority within his coalition.

Risk of end of the two-state solution

The eventual formal annexation of the West Bank would put an end to the viability of the two-state solution, defended by the UN and the majority of the international community as the only way out of the conflict. More than 700,000 Israeli settlers currently live in illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem — constructions considered illegal under international law.

In July 2024, the International Court of Justice reaffirmed that the Israeli occupation and settlements in Palestinian territory are illegal and must be withdrawn “without delay”.

International and regional reactions

The vote provoked an immediate and harsh reaction from governments and international organizations. The Palestinian Foreign Ministry stated that the measure “flatly violates international law and the historic rights of the Palestinian people.”

Hamas classified the project as an expression of the “colonial face of the occupation”, while Qatar condemned the initiative “in the strongest terms”, calling it a “direct challenge to international legality”. Jordan declared that the decision “weakens the two-state solution and threatens regional stability.”

Even the United Arab Emirates, Israel’s recent allies, warned that the annexation of the West Bank would represent “a red line”, capable of compromising the Abraham Accords.

Annexation and violence on the ground

Hours after the vote, Israeli forces invaded the village of Qusra, south of Nablus, demolishing walls and expanding the military presence. The village has been a recurring target of attacks by armed settlers and army operations.

Although the project still has to go through other stages, analysts such as political scientist Ori Goldberg assess that the vote has a “performative and symbolic” character, used as political pressure against Netanyahu and as a nationalist response to the ceasefire in Gaza, considered an imposition by the US and Arab powers.

However, they warn that symbolic gestures in Israel often produce fait accompli. The expansion of settlements and the administrative integration of the West Bank are already advancing rapidly, making annexation a de facto reality, even without an official decree.

A future increasingly distant from peace

With the advancement of this project, Israel is approaching a diplomatic and moral breaking point: the consolidation of a permanent occupation regime. Annexation — even if disguised as “sovereignty” — not only violates international law, but buries the last hope of coexistence between two peoples.

If approved definitively, the law will put Israel in open confrontation with the UN, its Arab partners and even the US, deepening Netanyahu’s isolation and pushing the region into a new era of uncertainty and radicalization.

Ce condiment polyvalent ne nécessite qu’un seul ingrédient (plus des édulcorants ou des herbes en option) et ajoute une touche gastronomique à n’importe quel repas.

The signing of a US$20 billion currency swap agreement between the Central Bank of Argentina (BCRA) and the United States Treasury Department, announced less than a week before the midterm elections in the South American country, goes far beyond a financial gesture. This is, first and foremost, a political intervention disguised as monetary cooperation — an effort by Donald Trump to keep afloat his far-right ally, Javier Milei, whose popularity and economic stability are rapidly deteriorating.

The pact is presented as a “bridge to stability”, but in practice it consolidates Argentina’s structural dependence on both speculative capital and multilateral organizations, especially the International Monetary Fund (IMF) — an institution that Trump himself has already criticized for “wasting American money” on bailouts for unstable countries.

Milei: austerity, submission and social collapse

Since taking office in 2023, Milei has led Argentina down a path of savage fiscal adjustment, reduction of ministries and cuts in social policies. The result was predictable: falling consumption, rising unemployment and economic stagnation. Even though inflation has receded, the achievement came at the cost of a deep recession and a deterioration of the social fabric, with almost half of the population living below the poverty line.

The Milei government, which proclaims itself “libertarian” and “anti-system”, ended up reproducing the old formula of subordination to the IMF — the same one that historically plunged the country into cycles of debt and external dependence. The new agreement with the USA only reinforces this bond, turning the White House into a political guarantor of the neoliberal shock program applied in Buenos Aires.

Trump: ideology above sovereignty

Donald Trump’s direct involvement in the negotiation exposes a glaring paradox: a president who preaches “America First” is channeling US strategic resources to support a foreign government — and still does so out of ideological affinity.

Trump explicitly conditioned the release of the package on the electoral victory of Milei’s party, La Libertad Avanza, on October 26. “If he loses, we won’t waste time with Argentina,” he said. The speech lays bare the interventionist and electoral nature of the operation, converting American foreign policy into a campaign instrument for an ultra-rightist ally.

Read more: Press freedom suffers serious deterioration in the USA and Argentina, warns SIP

The gesture contrasts with Washington’s hostile stance towards progressive governments in the region — such as that of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, in Brazil, who recently faced new tariffs imposed by Trump. Selectivity reveals that the so-called “support for democracy” in the US is nothing more than support for governments ideologically aligned with the White House.

A rescue without sovereignty

The billion-dollar aid — which still faces resistance from banks like JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs, concerned about payment guarantees — does not solve Argentina’s structural problems. On the contrary, it postpones the crisis and reinforces external control over the country’s exchange rate and fiscal policy.

The American Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, himself admitted that support depends on the continuity of the austerity program and pro-market reforms. In other words, money comes with obedience.

Analysts point out that the package may only postpone the inevitable devaluation of the peso and the renegotiation of the debt of almost US$60 billion with the IMF — the largest debt of a country to the fund among all countries.

The political and moral account

Trump’s operation with Milei is not just a financial deal: it is a political investment in an ultra-liberal and anti-social agenda that threatens to deepen inequality and weaken Latin American sovereignty.

By conditioning aid on electoral results, Washington openly violates the principle of non-interference, transforming Argentina into the stage for a geopolitical dispute disguised as economic cooperation.

Trump, who promised to prioritize American workers and reduce spending abroad, today mobilizes billions of dollars to save a foreign government, not in the name of solidarity, but of ideological affinity.

American aid to Argentina is less a gesture of economic support and more a political maneuver to sustain Milei’s neoliberal experiment and reinforce Washington’s influence over the South American economy. If Milei loses autonomy, Trump loses coherence — and those who pay the price, once again, are the Argentine people.

In an interview with Red Portalheld during the 16th Congress of the PCdoB, in Brasília, Bui Van Nghi, ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam in Brazil, spoke about the country’s entry into BRICS, the social and economic advances achieved in recent decades, with the reduction of poverty, the foreign policy of cooperation and the strategic plans of the Communist Party of Vietnam.

Red: Vietnam recently became a BRICS partner. What does this mean for the country’s foreign policy?
Bui Van Nghi: Vietnam’s inclusion as a BRICS partner represents an important step in our foreign policy, highlighting our commitment to a peaceful, inclusive and multipolar world order. We see this partnership as an opportunity to deepen cooperation with emerging economies and strengthen support for South-South collaboration. As a country that has undergone a successful development transition while maintaining political stability, Vietnam brings valuable experience to the BRICS, generating new opportunities for trade, investment and knowledge exchange, especially for developing countries. Politically, it strengthens our role as a proactive and responsible member of the international community.

Red: What does BRICS represent for Vietnam today?
Nghi: It is an important mechanism for strengthening relations between emerging countries. We maintain diplomacy with almost every country in the world — around 194 nations — and participate in several international forums. We seek multilateral partnerships, strengthening political and economic dialogue between members, always respecting sovereignty, independence and non-interference.

Red: What about current international conflicts, such as those in Ukraine and Palestine?
Nghi: Vietnam advocates the peaceful resolution of disputes through dialogue and international law. We are concerned about the conflicts in Ukraine and Palestine and call on all parties to cease hostilities, protect civilians and seek negotiated solutions. We value the role of the UN and international conferences and maintain an attitude of understanding and empathy, hoping that differences are resolved without generating new problems.

Red: What about the US-led trade war?
Nghi: We believe that free and fair trade is essential. Vietnam participates in international economic organizations and values ​​cooperation in trade and economics. We must respect global principles, using markets as a source of development, not inequality.

Red: Since the end of the War in Vietnam, what have been the country’s most significant advances?
Nghi: The transformative milestone was the policy Renew (Renovation), launched in 1986, which directed the economy towards a market model with a socialist orientation. This has led to steady economic growth, poverty reduction and greater international integration. Today, we are one of the most dynamic economies in Southeast Asia, with almost universal diplomatic relations and active participation in organizations such as the UN, WTO, Asean and Apec.

Red: Vietnam is considered an example in poverty reduction. In 1992, about 31.5 million Vietnamese were in poverty. In 2020, there were only 600 thousand. What was the recipe to face this problem? How was this possible?
Nghi: Vietnam’s success in reducing poverty stems from a comprehensive, people-centered development strategy. This includes land reforms, investments in rural infrastructure, education, health and targeted social programs. The expansion of the private sector, combined with export-oriented industrialization, also created jobs and raised incomes. This achievement would not have been possible without the strategic vision and leadership of the Communist Party of Vietnam. The Party has placed social justice, inclusive growth and national unity at the center of its development policies. Long-term planning and consistent commitment to reform have ensured that economic growth translates into real benefits for the majority of the population.

Red: How has the country managed workforce transformation and urbanization?
Nghi: The structural transformation of the Vietnamese workforce was carefully managed through a combination of policies aimed at industrialization, education, urban planning, and rural development. The government invested heavily in job training and higher education to prepare the workforce for new sectors. At the same time, Vietnam has developed numerous industrial parks and special economic zones to attract investment and create jobs. Urban infrastructure was modernized to absorb rural migrants while maintaining public services. Furthermore, agriculture itself was modernized to become more efficient, allowing for greater productivity with fewer workers.

This balanced and forward-looking approach has helped Vietnam avoid major economic shocks while enabling millions of people to improve their living conditions.

Red: How does the Communist Party of Vietnam see the current situation, considering the loss of dynamism of capitalism in the West and the rise of socialist countries in the East?
Nghi: We live in an interdependent and globalized world. No country is completely independent; we need to cooperate and commit to each other. Vietnam adapts to global changes, using the market as a source of resources and investing in human development. The Communist Party carries out long-term planning, reviewing past experiences and defining five-year and strategic resolutions for 10 to 15 years, ensuring that policies benefit the entire population.

Red: How does the population participate in the Party’s strategic planning?
Nghi: Every five years, the Party holds a congress to review previous programs and define new resolutions. All levels of society, from grassroots organizations to trade unions and mass associations, are invited to contribute. There is a broad consultation process, ensuring unity and cohesion in the country’s development. Soon, we will have the draft resolution for the next congress, which will be debated on all bases before final approval.

President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva traveled this Tuesday (21) to Indonesia and Malaysia in order to strengthen commercial ties between Brazil and Southeast Asian countries, with agendas scheduled between October 23 and 28.

According to Itamaraty, the president’s first appointment will be in Jakarta, in the capital of Indonesia, where he will be received by the Indonesian president, Prabowo Subianto, who visited Brazil in July this year.

The agenda marks a new chapter in bilateral relations, with an emphasis on economic, agricultural, energy and sustainable development cooperation.

“Indonesia has been a strategic partner of Brazil since 2008 and is the third largest democracy in the world, the fourth most populous nation and the main economy of Asean (Association of Southeast Asian Nations)”, says Everton Lucero, director of the Department of India, South and Southeast Asia at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

read more: On a visit to Japan and Vietnam, Lula seeks to advance trade relations

Lula and Subianto should deepen understandings in areas foreseen in the joint statement adopted during the Indonesian president’s visit to Brasília: trade and agriculture, food security, bioenergy, sustainable development and defense.

“Trade has grown a lot, which ends up being something common in the countries of the region. We maintain a very significant surplus with Indonesia and other countries in Southeast Asia”, highlights the ambassador.

In Malaysia, Lula holds an official agenda in Kuala Lumpur, at the invitation of Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, and participates in the 47th Asean Summit. The visit aims to intensify and diversify bilateral trade and investments, focusing on strategic sectors such as energy, science, technology and innovation.

“We have been long-time trading partners with Malaysia, but we had never reached the point of elevating this partnership to a more political, more visible level. The trip to Malaysia is an affirmation that Brazil is expanding its presence, with an active voice and concrete interests in a country that is central to the region’s growth dynamics”, explains Lucero.

“It will be the first time that a Brazilian head of state will participate in an Asean Summit, scheduled for the 26th and 27th. On the 28th, Lula will also participate in the 30th East Asia Summit, where he will present the Brazilian government’s vision on economic resilience and cooperation between Asean and Brics”, says the ambassador.

Commercial flow

In September 2025, bilateral trade between Brazil and Indonesia reached US$567.8 million. Brazilian exports totaled US$373.3 million, and imports US$194.5 million. Indonesia ranks 19th among Brazilian export destinations. Brazil mainly exports soybean meal, crude petroleum oils, sugars and molasses, while it imports vegetable fats and oils, footwear and automotive parts. There are also reciprocal investments in sectors such as mining, sugar and alcohol industry, cellulose and paper, tobacco and textiles.

In Malaysia, bilateral trade reached US$487.2 million in the same period, with US$346.4 million in Brazilian exports and US$140.9 million in imports. The country ranks 23rd among Brazil’s main export destinations.

With information from Ascom/Planalto

The result of this potato and sausage snack is fascinating!

Former French president Nicolas Sarkozy, 70, began serving a five-year prison sentence this Tuesday (21) at La Santé penitentiary in Paris, after being convicted of criminal association in the case of illegal financing of his 2007 presidential campaign with resources from the Libyan regime of Muammar Gaddafi.

The decision, considered historic, makes Sarkozy the first former French head of state since the Second World War to be imprisoned, and the first in the European Union to serve a sentence for corruption linked to the presidency.

The former president arrived at the prison at around 9:30 am, accompanied by his wife, Carla Bruni, to the applause of supporters who sang the French national anthem.

Before entering the penitentiary, he published a message on network

Convicted at the end of September, Sarkozy was considered responsible for allowing his closest collaborators to seek financial support from the Gaddafi regime.

The court highlighted the “exceptional seriousness of the facts”, committed by a politician who “aspired to the highest function of the Republic”. The sentence also imposed a fine of €100,000 and a temporary ban on holding public office.

The former president denies the accusations, alleges political persecution and has already submitted a request for provisional release, which should be judged in the coming weeks.

Sarkozy will occupy a 9 square meter cell in the isolation wing, where he has no contact with other inmates. According to the Ministry of Justice, the cell does not represent a privilege, but a security measure.

The former president has a bed, table, shower, towels, dishes and toilet paper, with the right to three visits per week, use of a landline telephone and one hour of sunbathing per day.

He carries three books with him, including The Count of Monte Cristoby Alexandre Dumas — a novel about a man unjustly imprisoned — and revealed that he intends to write about his experience in prison.

Political repercussion and debate on judicial independence

The arrest divided French politics and reached the Élysée Palace itself. The newspaper Libération revealed that President Emmanuel Macron received Sarkozy on Friday (17) in an audience outside the official agenda, an event that caused a strong repercussion.

On a visit to Slovenia, Macron confirmed the meeting. “It is normal, from a human perspective, that I receive one of my predecessors. But I reaffirm my respect for the independence of the Judiciary,” he said.

The speech attempted to contain criticism from the opposition and the legal community, who saw the visit as an inopportune political gesture.

Justice Minister Gérald Darmanin, a former pupil of Sarkozy, also announced his intention to visit him in prison. “I have the right to visit any detainee,” he said.

The French left reacted to the government’s gesture of solidarity with Sarkozy, pointing out a contradiction between the speech of equality before the law and Macron’s proximity to a convicted politician.

Crisis of confidence and historical significance

Sarkozy’s arrest deepens the crisis of trust between French institutions and society. The former president remains influential among sectors of the right and tries to present himself as a victim of “politicized justice”, a speech that resonates with part of the conservative electorate.

For progressive sectors, the episode is a belated demonstration that French justice is beginning to reach the highest levels of power.

French analysts interviewed by the country’s press see the conviction as a watershed in the fight against political corruption in France and a test for the credibility of the republican state.

It is also a warning about the spread of political resentment: figures such as Marine Le Pen, who is also appealing a conviction for embezzling funds from the European Parliament, use the case to attack the judicial system and reinforce their rhetoric of persecution.

At the same time, the Sarkozy case reflects a shift in the European paradigm: the notion that former heads of state can face criminal charges in consolidated democratic regimes.

The image of a former president entering a prison in central Paris, amidst cameras and applause, summarizes a scene of rupture — the fall of a man who symbolized French neoliberal power and now becomes a mirror of the contradictions of the Fifth Republic.

Former drummer and hard-liner of the Liberal Democratic Party (PLD) Sanae Takaichi was elected this Tuesday (21) the first woman to govern Japan. The new prime minister openly declares herself inspired by former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, the “Iron Lady”, who plunged the United Kingdom into neoliberalism.

At 64 years old, Takaichi, former Minister of Economic Security, took office after forging a last-minute alliance with the Japan Innovation Party (Nippon Ishin), which returned to the right a parliamentary majority lost in recent weeks.

The agreement ends a period of instability that began with the resignation of former prime minister Shigeru Ishiba and confirms the PLD’s almost uninterrupted stay in power since 1945.

Takaichi’s historic feat — the first woman in charge of the country — does not represent a feminist advance, but the consolidation of a new conservative cycle, anchored in nationalist rhetoric and a militarist agenda.

The alliance that brought her to power was born from a precise political calculation. After the defeat of the PLD in the upper and lower houses, Tokyo plunged into an impasse that threatened to bring forward the elections.

Nippon Ishin, a liberal-nationalist party based in Osaka, offered support in exchange for concessions: pension reform, suspension of excise tax on food, ban on corporate donations and the recognition of Osaka as an administrative capital in emergency situations.

The pact, signed this Monday (20), isolated the progressive camp and paved the way for this Tuesday’s parliamentary vote, which formalized Takaichi’s choice.

The maneuver, however, caused a split in Komeito — a historical ally for 26 years and supported by the Buddhist organization Soka Gakkai —, which classified the new prime minister’s positions as “aggressive” and denounced the PLD’s involvement in financing scandals and the cost of living crisis that is wearing down the party.

Takaichi cultivates the image of a “strong woman” inspired by Thatcher, a symbol of British neoliberalism and trade union repression in the 1980s.

He says he admires in the “Iron Lady” the combination of “firm character and feminine warmth”, a speech he has repeated since he met her in person in 2013. The new prime minister is part of the most rigid wing of the PLD, heir to former prime minister Shinzo Abe, assassinated in 2022, and defends the same ideological tripod: nationalism, state stimulus and social control.

Drummer in a university heavy metal band, he built a reputation for discipline and an explosive temper.

In programmatic terms, it opposes same-sex marriage, rejects the revision of the 19th century law that forces couples to share the same surname and proposes rewriting the pacifist Constitution of 1947 to officially recognize the Self-Defense Forces.

Foreign policy is central to his platform. A sharp critic of China, Takaichi announced that he will seek to “make Japan’s economy stronger” and “reshape the country for future generations”, with an emphasis on military strengthening and alignment with Washington.

In April, he visited Taiwan and stated that it was “crucial to reinforce joint security” with Taipei, a statement that raised tension with Beijing.

She also frequents the Yasukuni Shrine, which honors 2.5 million dead and 14 war criminals, considered by Asian neighbors a symbol of Japanese militarism.

His first international mission will be the Apec Summit in South Korea, alongside North American President Donald Trump, with whom he is expected to discuss new trade and defense guidelines.

Takaichi’s rise is also supported by a discourse of internal security that echoes the identitarian populism of the new right.

The prime minister promised “zero tolerance” towards foreigners who “violate Japanese laws”, justifying the tightening of migration rules with anecdotal examples, such as tourists who “kicked deer” in her hometown, Nara.

The rhetoric, which links immigration to moral disorder, mobilizes nationalist voters and competes for space with the Sanseito party, an expanding far-right party.

Human rights organizations warn that this agenda threatens to set back policies for the integration and residence of foreign workers — a contradiction in a country with an aging population and a growing shortage of labor.

In the economic field, Takaichi defends the resumption of “Abenomics”, a stimulus policy launched by Shinzo Abe — with increased public spending, tax cuts and direct state interference in the Bank of Japan.

Unlike Thatcher, a symbol of fiscal austerity, the Japanese woman proposes an expansionist shift in spending.

Its program combines productive nationalism, protection of industrial conglomerates and centralization of financial decisions, a model that brings it closer to the experiences of economic populism observed in other conservative governments in Asia.

Although he promises “Nordic levels of gender balance” in his cabinet, Takaichi comes to power in a country that ranks 118th out of 148 in the World Economic Forum’s gender inequality ranking.

Experts point out that its presence at the top of the political hierarchy serves more as a symbolic showcase than as a real commitment to the emancipation of women.

“She showed little willingness to challenge patriarchal norms,” said professor emeritus at the University of Tokyo Sadafumi Kawato to AFP.

Sanae Takaichi’s inauguration represents a historic milestone for Japan, but also a sign of social and political regression.

Under the discourse of strength and order, the new prime minister projects a government aligned with the North American strategy in Asia and hostile to minorities and immigrants.

Inspired by Thatcher, Takaichi brings to the 21st century the ideal of moral discipline and national rearmament as a response to the economic crisis and the loss of global influence — a path that deepens inequalities and places the country facing a dilemma between modernization and authoritarianism.

The Communist Party of China (CCP) began this Monday (20), in Beijing, the Fourth Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee, one of the most decisive meetings of its political cycle. The event focuses on the elaboration of the proposals for the 15th Five-Year Plan (2026–2030), a document that will guide the economic and social development of the second largest economy in the world over the next five years.

Unlike tradition — in which the debate on the plan takes place in the fifth plenary session —, the anticipation reflects the delay of the Third Session, held only in August 2024, and the need to adjust planning to the new global economic situation.

The General Secretary of the CPC and President of China, Xi Jinping, presented the report of the Political Bureau and the basic document of the plan to around 200 members of the Central Committee. The deliberations will continue until Thursday (23), and the final text must be submitted for approval to the National People’s Congress in March 2026.

The goal: socialist modernization by 2035

The session takes place in a strategic period: the five-year period from 2026 to 2030 precedes the goal of achieving “basic socialist modernization” by 2035, a central milestone in Xi Jinping’s long-term strategy. The plan should reinforce technological innovation, industrial modernization and strengthening the real economy, with an emphasis on sectors such as artificial intelligence, new energies, biotechnology and quantum computing.

Furthermore, the document must propose mechanisms to sustain high-quality growth, combat regional inequalities and consolidate a broader social welfare structure, focusing on education, health and security.

Continuity of structural reforms until 2029

The new planning stage is directly linked to the goals approved at the Third Plenary Session in 2024, which defined more than 300 measures to deepen reforms until 2029, when the People’s Republic of China will turn 80 years old.

These measures include the creation of “new quality productive forces”, stimulating industries of the future and reforms in the financial system to expand financing for innovation.
There is also a clear paradigm shift: investing in people — human capital — becomes a priority alongside physical investment, reinforcing the focus on education and social inclusion as drivers of productivity.

Innovation and national security at the center of the strategy

In an editorial, the official Xinhua agency highlighted that the new five-year plan must integrate development and security, seeking a balance between economic growth and political stability. The focus, according to the text, will be to place technological innovation at the center of the national strategy, strengthen domestic consumption and ensure self-sufficiency in critical sectors, such as semiconductors and clean energy.

Xi Jinping reaffirmed that “China’s modernization requires high-quality development with the people at the center of policies”. This emphasis on social well-being and technological sovereignty consolidates Xi’s vision of a China that is self-reliant, secure and less dependent on the West.

A planning model with global impact

Since 1953, five-year plans have been the backbone of Chinese governance. Originally inspired by the Soviet model, they evolved from the 1980s to integrate economic growth and social progress, reflecting the adaptation of Chinese socialism to the market economy.

The practice, maintained to this day, contrasts with short-term Western models and reinforces the role of the State as strategic coordinator. As analyst Neil Thomas, from the Asian Society Policy Institute, points out to CNN, “the five-year plans define what China wants to achieve and mobilize all the state’s resources to achieve this”.

With the new plan, Beijing signals that it intends to respond to global challenges with more centralization, innovation and planning, reaffirming Xi Jinping’s leading role and the long-term character of the Chinese socialist project.

Perspective: between prudence and control

The 15th Five-Year Plan will mark the beginning of a new phase of the Xi era, in which the country seeks to reconcile political stability, technological self-sufficiency and social cohesion in the face of a more hostile international environment. While the West faces political impasses and industrial slowdown, China relies on the discipline of centralized planning as an instrument of strength.

In an interview with Red Portal, during the 16th National Congress of the PCdoB, Cuban leader Rolando Yero Travieso analyzes the effects of the US blockade policy, the new government program and Fidel Castro’s legacy. Travieso is Head of the Department of Attention to the Social Sector of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba. In the face of external aggression and economic challenges, he states that “unity, truth and popular participation continue to be the fundamental weapons of the Revolution.”

Red – The United States prevented Cuba from participating in the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), in Washington. Cuba was also excluded – alongside Venezuela and Nicaragua – from the Summit of the Americas, scheduled for December, in the Dominican Republic. At the same time, the United States’ military buildup in the Caribbean is growing, while Cuba remains unfairly included on the list of countries sponsoring terrorism. Why have these attacks intensified?

Rolando Yero Naughty – There is a clear precedent: Donald Trump’s government, during his first term, imposed 243 coercive measures against Cuba, with a devastating impact on the economy, social development and the well-being of the population. These measures were particularly cruel because they were adopted during the Covid-19 pandemic, making it difficult for the island to access basic supplies for human survival.

This is the old North American policy of stifling the Cuban Revolution to try to restore capitalism and eliminate the example that Cuba represents for the continent. The Trump government, with its ultra-conservative characteristics and fascist traits, also articulated internally with figures in North American politics associated with sectors hostile to Cuba. Therefore, it should not be surprising that one of the objectives of this administration was to encourage and intensify all efforts to mutilate the Cuban Revolution.

Red – Recently, the Cuban government presented a new program to face economic challenges. The Minister of Economy, Joaquín Alonso Vázquez, stated that, in addition to resisting the crisis, “it is necessary to innovate – with creativity, fiscal discipline and social justice”. What are the main goals of the Government Program?

Mischievous – The main goals of the Cuban government program are to confront the current economic crisis with broad popular participation, incorporating new elements and drawing on the historical experience of the Revolution — especially the Special Period, when the country lost almost all of its international commercial and financial relations.

Today, Cuba is experiencing a similar situation, and that is why the program seeks to increase internal revenues, expanding access to freely convertible currency through services provided inside and outside the country, even in the face of external actions that attempt to limit Cuban operations abroad, such as in the area of ​​services and the production of medicines.

Another central axis is the increase in national production, with a special focus on food. The goal is to produce as much as possible with internal resources, ensuring food security for the population. Cuba has a Food Sovereignty Law and is in dialogue with the productive bases to meet needs with available means. It also seeks to manufacture domestic items locally, even if simple, to meet the population’s needs.

The program also includes the reorganization of the socialist state company, which continues to be the fundamental element of the Cuban economy. This reorganization aims to strengthen the relationship between the state and non-state sectors, as provided for in the Constitution and the Party’s guiding documents, with the aim of gradually recovering companies’ productivity and consolidating them as the basis of the economy and employment.

Furthermore, there is a strong emphasis on the strategic management of territorial development. Each municipality and popular council must have its own development strategy, respecting local conditions — cultural, human, natural and financial. The program supports the strengthening of local production, the generation of jobs and the supply of consumer goods and services, in parallel with the maintenance of national programs, such as health, which continue to operate despite the challenges.

Social policy is also a fundamental part, with actions aimed at protecting people, families and communities in vulnerable situations. In a context of economic difficulties, it is essential to protect the most fragile and recover previous achievements that were lost.

The program also recognizes the existence of internal distortions and errors, proposing their continuous correction with popular participation. The people must contribute their vision of what needs to be transformed, and the program will be evaluated in bodies such as the Party Congress and the National Assembly.

Finally, the Cuban socialist experience showed that resistance depends on three fundamental pillars: unity — driven by the Party and democratic participation in decisions —, truth — as a weapon of struggle and popular conscience —, and political and ideological clarity — especially in the face of the imperialist offensive of the United States. These elements keep the spirit of the Revolution alive and the people’s willingness to face the necessary sacrifices.

Red – The socialist experience in Cuba can be divided into two major periods: the first, from the 1959 Revolution until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, and the second, beginning with the Special Period, which continues to this day. Over these 34 years, Cuba not only survived the crisis of socialism but also renewed its socialist character and preserved its social pact. What were the main instruments of resistance used to face this second phase, marked by much more adverse conditions?

Mischievous – Fidel Castro’s legacy teaches us that unity is the main weapon of the Cuban Revolution. Maintaining national cohesion in the face of adversity is essential to resist any attempt at fragmentation.

Another fundamental element is truth — explaining to the people the causes of each problem, ensuring transparent communication and strengthening collective awareness of the national and international context.

And, finally, identify the common enemy — political, economic and ideological — that manifests itself through the imperialist policy of the United States. Keeping critical consciousness and the revolutionary spirit alive is essential for the people to continue defending socialism with conviction.

Red – The economic blockade imposed by the United States causes serious material shortages. How does the government deal with popular dissatisfaction in the face of this reality?

Mischievous – Firstly, with real democratic participation. The Cuban political system is based on the election of representatives from neighborhoods and communities, without party intermediation. About half of the deputies of the National Assembly are local delegates who live in the same conditions as the people and know their problems firsthand.

Government laws and decisions undergo broad consultations, which guarantees a direct link between the State and the population. Even in the face of the enormous difficulties created by the blockade, we keep hospitals open, doctors attending, schools functioning and social protection guaranteed to the most vulnerable. Resisting without renouncing the principles of the Revolution is our greatest daily challenge — and also our greatest victory.

Red – Cuba began celebrating Fidel Castro’s centenary in August. What is the commander’s most important legacy?

Mischievous – Fidel’s fundamental legacy is summarized in the concept of Revolution that he formulated: “Revolution is changing everything that must be changed.” This expresses the essence of our process — a living work, in permanent transformation, that adapts to historical circumstances without losing its ethical and popular principles.

Fidel taught us that the Revolution is not a finished event, but a continuous process that must respond to the needs and context of each historical moment, always based on popular support, ethics and permanent concern for the people.

His legacy is also manifested in the monumental work built in the areas of education, health, sport, culture and universal access to basic services — such as water, food, culture and leisure — with special attention to those most in need.

Furthermore, solidarity internationalism is one of the pillars that shape the identity of the Cuban Revolution and the Cuban people. Humanism and social justice remain the moral foundations that guide our society.

Celebrating its centenary means renewing our commitment to socialism, to the defense of revolutionary values ​​and to the future of the nation — towards its second centenary.

Check the list of ingredients to make your pastry dough. Use desired filling ingredients. Follow the step by step.

Senator Rodrigo Paz Pereira, from the Christian Democratic Party (PDC), was elected president of Bolivia this Sunday (19) with 54.5% of the votes, in an election that ends two decades of progressive governments of the Movement to Socialism (MAS) and marks the return of the right to power.

The victory of the liberal candidate occurs amidst a context of economic instability and political fragmentation, in a country that, under the cycle started by Evo Morales, experienced its longest period of growth, social inclusion and sovereign affirmation.

With participation between 85% and 89% of the 7.9 million eligible voters, the second round was the first in Bolivian democratic history and passed without incident, according to the Supreme Electoral Court.

Former president Jorge “Tuto” Quiroga, from the conservative Libre alliance, obtained 44.5% of the votes and conceded defeat. Paz’s inauguration is scheduled for November 8, in La Paz.

Son of former president Jaime Paz Zamora (1989–1993), the new president, aged 58, was born in exile during the military dictatorships and was raised between Europe and South America.

Graduated in Economics and International Relations, with a master’s degree in the United States, he had a political career as mayor of Tarija, deputy and senator.

During the campaign, he tried to sell an image of a modern and conciliatory manager, but his political base is anchored in the business elites of Santa Cruz de la Sierra, the main economic center and bastion of the Bolivian right.

In his victory speech, Paz stated that the country is entering a new stage and promised to “govern with everyone”, in reference to the fragmentation that marked the last years of dispute between the MAS and the conservative opposition.

He said that he intends to prioritize “work, legal security and strong institutions” and declared that “ideology is not enough to eat”.

The words summarize the economic orientation that guides his proposal: a program of “capitalism for all”, aimed at liberalizing the market, formalizing small businesses and reducing the role of the State as an inducer of development.

The new government promises public spending cuts of around US$1.5 billion, the elimination of fuel subsidies and tax reform to relieve business sectors.

The austerity discourse is presented as a path to stability, but it tends to directly affect policies that guaranteed, during the previous cycle, income growth and an increase in domestic consumption.

With accumulated annual inflation of around 25% and a drop in investments in natural gas, Bolivia is facing a recession, dollar shortages and fuel shortages, a situation that is already causing price increases and weakening the purchasing power of working families.

Peace also takes place in the midst of a profound disarticulation in the popular field. Legally prevented from running, Evo Morales launched a campaign for invalid votes that reached 19% of voters and denounced political persecution after having his candidacy vetoed.

The current president, Luis Arce, gave up seeking re-election, weakened by the fiscal crisis and the break with Morales. The result exposed the fragmentation of the MAS and the erosion of the redistributive model in the face of inflationary pressure and the legislative siege imposed by conservative sectors.

Paz’s victory consolidates a reconfiguration of Bolivian political power and could inaugurate a period of liberal predominance in the discourse and conduct of the State.

The new president promises to decentralize the budget and grant greater administrative autonomy to departments, but the lack of a parliamentary majority should force him to negotiate with the forces that until recently formed the opposition.

The challenge for Paz will be to stabilize public accounts without increasing impoverishment, as the cut in subsidies and investments tends to affect the popular classes that have supported the internal market over recent years.

In the external scenario, the change of government also redesigns Bolivia’s international positioning.

While Argentine Javier Milei hailed Paz’s victory as the “end of 21st century socialism”, Chilean Gabriel Boric spoke of “cooperation between brotherly countries”. Itamaraty had not yet commented as of this Monday morning (20).

The new government signals a rapprochement with Washington and a review of the foreign policies inherited from the MAS, which prioritized the Brics, South American integration and the defense of national sovereignty over strategic resources.

Bolivia thus enters a phase of uncertainty. The discourse of conciliation and administrative efficiency may gain support among the urban middle sectors, but the fiscal content of the program — with cuts in subsidies and dependence on credit — threatens to accentuate social inequality and weaken the advances of the previous period.

Paz promises “capitalism for all”, but the challenge that awaits him is to prevent this formula from translating into adjustment for the many and prosperity for the few.

The President of the United States, Donald Trump, last Friday (17) pressured his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky, in a meeting at the White House, to accept Vladimir Putin’s conditions to end the war in Ukraine.

According to diplomatic sources Reutersthe Republican defended an immediate ceasefire on the current front lines and suggested that Kiev hand over the entire Donbas region to Russia, a day after having a long telephone conversation with the Kremlin leader.

The meeting was described by interlocutors as “tense” and “disappointing”. Trump reportedly tossed aside the frontline maps presented by Zelensky and insisted that “Putin will destroy you if you don’t agree now.”

The Ukrainian traveled to Washington to discuss sending Tomahawk missiles and new defense packages, but left empty-handed. The American president refused the request and declared that “both sides must stop at the battle line, go home, stop fighting and stop killing people”.

The meeting marked a turning point in the United States’ stance. In September, Trump said he believed Ukraine could “recover all lost territory and even advance further.”

The day before last Friday’s meeting, however, Trump held a call of around two and a half hours with Vladimir Putin, in which they discussed a possible territorial exchange and agreed on a new summit in Budapest.

According to European diplomats, the republican seemed “persuaded” that the Kremlin would be willing to negotiate peace in exchange for formal recognition of the occupations in Donetsk and Luhansk.

During the meeting, Trump was reportedly unreceptive to Zelensky’s explanations about the risks of handing over Donbas.

“There’s nothing we can do to save them. Try to give diplomacy one more chance,” the North American was quoted as saying, according to a European official interviewed by the Washington Post.

Another diplomat described the meeting as “a mess,” saying the US president “talked endlessly about not having received the Nobel Peace Prize.”

In response, Zelensky began a diplomatic offensive with European partners. Over the weekend, he stated that it is “very important that Europe maintains a unified position with Kiev” and called for a new meeting of the so-called “coalition of the willing” to coordinate the reaction to the American plan.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk declared that “none of us should pressure Zelensky regarding territorial concessions,” and that “Europe’s solidarity with Ukraine is more important today than ever.”

Behind the scenes, European Union leaders are preparing a summit to discuss financial and military alternatives, including the use of frozen Russian assets as a form of compensation to Ukraine.

The issue gained momentum after the failure of the Ukrainian mission in Washington, which ended without agreements on defense, energy or financing.

The change of course in Washington worries allies and favors Moscow. By proposing to freeze the conflict, Trump reinforces the Russian discourse that “the war can end quickly if Kiev accepts the new territorial reality”.

For the Kremlin, the American position amounts to tacit recognition of Russian military advances.

Spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated that “the idea of ​​stopping on current lines has been raised repeatedly” in talks with the US and that “Russia’s position remains unchanged”.

Analysts assess that Trump is trying to project himself as a “global peacemaker” after brokering the ceasefire in Gaza, but the initiative is seen in Kiev as capitulation.

The episode highlights Kiev’s diplomatic isolation and the weakening of Western cohesion in the face of war.

For Europe, the North American impasse reopens the debate on strategic autonomy and puts pressure on the bloc to maintain military and financial support for the Ukrainian resistance alone. The result, so far, is that Trump appears closer to Putin than to his NATO allies — and Zelensky, more isolated than at any other time since the start of the invasion.

Parfait pour un repas rapide ou une collation, ce plat peut être personnalisé avec diverses garnitures comme de la crème sure, de la salsa ou du guacamole.

Bolivians go to the polls this Sunday (19) for the second round of the presidential elections. The dispute is between two right-wing candidates, a severe blow to the left of the country, governed for almost 20 years by the MAS (Movement to Socialism) with the victories of Evo Morales (2005, 2009, 2014 and 2019) and Luis Arce (2020).

Left-wing hegemony was only interrupted between 2019 and 2020 by the coup d’état promoted by the then second vice-president of the Senate, Jeanine Áñez, currently in prison.

It was through left-wing governments that Bolivia achieved economic growth with income distribution. This allowed profound transformations in the social structure, benefiting the poorest.

However, the future of these achievements is now threatened by the current dispute between center-right senator Rodrigo Paz, of the Christian Democratic Party (PDC), and conservative former president Jorge “Tuto” Quiroga, of the Aliança Livre (ADN) coalition.

Paz was promoted to the second round after obtaining 32% of the votes in the August 17 contest. Tuto got 27% and once again dreamed of the presidency.

This scenario was created after President Arce decided not to run for reelection following the internal split in the MAS and the dispute over the legacy of the left, while Evo is prevented from running. Their absence intensified internal divisions and opened space for new leadership. Without the two historic leaders, who exchanged accusations during the electoral process, the left was left out of the dispute and far from the top positions.

So much so that third place went to another right-wing candidate, Samuel Doria Medina (Aliança Unity), with 19.8% of the votes, and only later, in fourth place, came a left-wing candidate, senator Andrónico Rodríguez, with 8.1% of the votes. The senator is a former protégé of Morales and was a supporter of MAS, however, he left the party due to the internal dispute and ran as an independent candidate.

read more: Split on the left paves the way for the return of the right in Bolivia

The Movement to Socialism candidate, Government Minister Eduardo del Castillo, supported by Arce, obtained just 3.15% of the preference. Former president Morales campaigned for a null vote.

Preliminary results could be out on Sunday night. The electoral court will photograph the tabulation sheets and transmit them to counting centers in order to allow greater accuracy in the counting. The measure was adopted after the 2019 election, which culminated in the coup against Morales and threw the election into discredit. Observers from the European Union and the Organization of American States (OAS) are following the election.

Dispute

The center of the electoral dispute is the country’s economy. Natural gas exports, which previously guaranteed much of economic success, have fallen and inflation is now reaching 25% per year.

The renowned model adopted by Morales that allowed GDP growth above 5% per year at the beginning of the last decade must be dismantled, with a loss of state strength and a greater approximation to a neoliberal agenda, aligned with Donald Trump’s United States. The North American welcomes this change in the direction of the South American country, as it contains the largest lithium reserves in the world — essential for the production of batteries for hybrid and electric cars.

The question that remains is the intensity of this pro-market agenda to the detriment of workers. “Tuto” Quiroga, 65 years old, presided over the country between 2001 and 2002 and has Juan Pablo Velasco, a technology businessman, as his deputy. The duo has focused on a campaign that highlights fiscal adjustment, free trade and other recurring issues on the right-wing agenda.

Rodrigo Paz, 58 years old, is a senator and son of former president Jaime Paz Zamora (1989–1993). His running mate is Edman Lara, a former police captain. Their campaign also promotes advances in the private sector, but without discarding social programs achieved over the decades.

By following the preparation instructions, your homemade sausage will be great!

Colombian President Gustavo Petro reacted to the insults and lies made by Donald Trump. The North American has had the South American leader in his sights for some time, but has started to raise his tone in recent months, since Petro challenged him at the UN General Assembly and called for investigations into US attacks in the Caribbean.

In a publication on the X network, Petro called Trump “rude” and “ignorant” about Colombia. In his speech, which ranged from suggesting reading the classic “One Hundred Years of Solitude” to reaffirming his socialist principles, the Colombian said that the US government threatens humanity through its greed for oil.

When directly rebutting the accusation of involvement in drug trafficking, he pointed out: “If I am not a businessman, much less a drug trafficker, there is no greed in my heart. I have never been able to identify with greed. A mafioso is a human being who personifies the best of capitalism: greed. And I am the opposite, a lover of life and, therefore, an ancient warrior of life. Greed makes us escapes, because life is more powerful.”

The position comes in retaliation against Trump, who, without presenting any evidence, made a serious statement on the Truth Social network, this Sunday (19): “Petro, from Colombia, is an illegal drug leader strongly encouraging the massive production of drugs throughout Colombia. It has become the biggest business in Colombia, by far, and Petro does nothing to stop it, despite large-scale payments and subsidies from the US that are nothing in addition to a long-term theft against America,” said Trump, who indicated that he will permanently cut off any financial transfers to combat trafficking and humanitarian programs.

Following threats, Trump also said that if Petro does not close the drug production fields, he will close them by force and “it will not be legal”.

read more: Petro defies Trump and demands investigation into attacks in the Caribbean

The false allegation permeated with threats made by the US president came after Petro accused him, on Saturday (18), of violating Colombian sovereignty by attacking vessels in the Caribbean Sea under the pretext of the war on drugs. In the words of the President of Colombia, the US Army killed fisherman Alejandro Carranza, denying the military’s claim that the boat that was hit was from the ELN (National Liberation Army) guerrillas.

“The Santa Marta fisherman’s boat did not belong to the ELN; it belonged to a humble family who loved the sea and got their food from there. What do you say to that family? Explain to me why you helped murder a humble fisherman from Santa Marta, the land where Bolívar died, and which they say is the heart of the world. What do you say to the fisherman Alejandro Carranza’s family? He was a humble human being”, he published Petro no X.

The lie about the vessel was conveyed by the US Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, with generic images of an air attack without proof or evidence of a link with such a guerrilla or that it was a vessel transporting narcotics. A similar video was published on the 14th, with an attack on another boat.

The new episode of tension takes place amid the US military occupation of the Caribbean, which aims to destabilize the Venezuelan government. With bombings in the open sea against boats off the coast of neighboring countries and threats of air attacks on dry land, Brazil is closely monitoring the situation and must act to cool the US momentum. With the recent rapprochement with Lula, the Brazilian government must tell Trump that he has nothing to gain from a conflict on the continent, in the same way that it makes no sense to maintain trade sanctions against a trading partner like Brazil.

Gaza was bombarded again by Israel this Sunday (19), in flagrant disregard of the ceasefire. It is not the first time that Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has violated the stages of the agreement that aims to end the conflict. Throughout the week, other attacks with the approval of the Israeli prime minister were carried out and killed at least 11 Palestinians.

According to the Palestine Arab Federation (Fepal) Brazil, this new aerial bombardment in Rafah claimed the lives of at least 5 people.

The Israeli Army’s fragile justification for interrupting the truce tries to implicate Hamas militants, saying that it was the Palestinians who broke the rules by attacking soldiers.

Netanyahu, in turn, declared that firm action would be taken against targets in Gaza. In a statement, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) indicated that its troops were targeted by an anti-tank missile operating in Rafah to dismantle Hamas infrastructure: “In response, the IDF began attacking the area to eliminate the threat and dismantle tunnels and military structures.”

Without presenting evidence, Israel used the common far-right tactic of accusing their opponent of doing what they themselves do, as a way of justifying their actions.

The situation demonstrates the fragile agreement made by United States President Donald Trump. According to the agreement, it seems that only the Palestinians must fulfill their part, as the Israelis maintain their genocidal actions.

Hamas denied any attack. On the contrary, the group accuses Israeli troops of violating the ceasefire agreement, since its implementation on October 10, in 47 situations, causing 38 deaths and 143 injuries.

read more: Ceasefire in Gaza faces deadlocks and Israel keeps border closed

According to senior Hamas official Izzat Al Risheq, the “Israeli occupation continues to violate the agreement and manufacture flimsy pretexts to justify its crimes.”

Al Risheq highlights that the Palestinians have fulfilled their part by freeing hostages and handing over the bodies of war victims. There is difficulty in locating hostages who lost their lives due to the Tel Aviv attacks, as, by indiscriminately bombing the enclave, they contributed to the deaths and burial of the bodies of Israeli citizens.

The remains of Palestinians handed over by Israel showed signs of torture and execution. Coroners at the Nasser hospital in Khan Younis pointed out that most of the 120 bodies returned so far had bandages, bandages and gunshot wounds to the head.

At the moment, the concern is that Israel has manipulated the circumstances by accepting a truce that was treated internally as temporary, and then creating reasons to attack Gaza with even more force.

Israel’s Minister of National Security, Itamar Ben Gvir, published a message on X demonstrating the savagery of the Tel Aviv government. Faced with the return of attacks this Sunday, he calls Hamas “Nazi terrorists” and calls for a full resumption of attacks on Gaza: “I ask the Prime Minister [Netanyahu] to order the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to resume fighting in the Gaza Strip with full force. The false idea that Hamas will turn its back, or even comply with the signed agreement, is proving dangerous to our security, as expected. The Nazi terrorist organization must be completely destroyed – preferably an hour beforehand,” he said cynically.

The situation shows that Israel’s far-right government does not intend to follow the steps set out in the agreement to end the war. The Rafah crossing, on the border with Egypt, remains closed by order of Netanyahu, which prevents the entry of humanitarian aid. All of this leads us to believe that the Zionists are not doing their part, but are demanding that the Palestinians do theirs, and then return with their planning to occupy Gaza and hinder any measure towards peace and coexistence with the two-state solution. It remains to be seen how Trump and the other countries involved in the agreement will behave in the face of Israel’s evident disrespect.

These ingredients below make 2 delicious sirloin snacks. Check out the step-by-step instructions.

It is not news that the United States has acted several times to overthrow governments in Latin America, as well as in other parts of the world. It was like this in Salvador Allende’s Chile, with the successive attempts to remove Fidel Castro from command of Cuba, in support of the coup that overthrew João Goulart and established the military dictatorship in Brazil, in the destabilization of the reformist government of Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán in Guatemala, among many other situations.

The new episode, authorized by Donald Trump’s government, now targets Venezuela, under the false justification of interrupting drug trafficking. The action led by the CIA (in Portuguese Central Intelligence Agency) and the Department of Defense, based in the Pentagon, has already killed 27 people (with no evidence of involvement with cartels) when bombing vessels in the Caribbean Sea. A true international crime, as the Armed Forces could only attack in self-defense.

The controversial action precipitated the resignation of Admiral Alvin Holsey, from Southern Command, who leaves his position at the end of the year after disagreements over the attacks and centralization of decisions by Trump. But the dissatisfaction didn’t just come from Holsey. Other American military and diplomatic leaders disagree with the conduct adopted by the president of their country.

The situation in the Caribbean is worsened by the presence of US ships and warplanes in the region since mid-August. Around 10,000 US soldiers are positioned on vessels and bases in Trinidad and Tobago and Puerto Rico (territory under US control).

Read more: Trump authorizes CIA to act in Venezuela and reignites fears of war in the Caribbean

The construction of this war on drugs narrative, however, hides other reasons, reveals journalist Jamil Chade. In your column Uolhe points out that the Trump administration’s arguments are not sustainable, since reports from the CIA itself and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) do not mention Venezuela as a point of attention. The main indication made is that the cocaine that arrives in the USA comes from Colombia.

To top it off, the central trafficking route from South America to the United States is not through the Caribbean Sea, but through the Pacific Ocean. The data is endorsed by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (Unodc), based in Vienna (Austria).

In other words, the actions aim to destabilize the government of President Nicolás Maduro and replace it, by putting pressure on the Venezuelan military leadership.

As the journalist points out, the US government is aware of all this information and works based on it, so much so that it concentrates its operations to combat maritime trafficking on the Pacific Ocean coast of Latin America.

Thus, the justification created to attack Venezuela is not sustainable, but it is what will be used to eventually carry out air attacks in the country.

One of the indications is that high-ranking Bolivarian military personnel could be linked to trafficking and, by having their source of illegal resources blocked by the USA, could break with the Maduro government. That is, Trump seeks the support of certain military groups to achieve his interests — a situation raised by the journalist based on diplomatic conversations.

Read more: US sends F-35 fighter jets to the Caribbean and increases the risk of confrontation

The question that remains is: if these generals really exist, in a possible coup, would Trump assume their guardianship, deepening the farce of his invasion?

The North American president’s interest in Venezuela is not new. Since his first term, between 2017 and 2021, he has tried to stage a coup in the country. On that occasion, the puppet used was Juan Guaidó, self-proclaimed president, with support from the USA.

Border with Brazil

Brazil and Venezuela share a 2,199 km long border. Therefore, the US advance in the neighboring country is worrying. President Lula’s special advisor for International Affairs, Celso Amorim, classified as “inconceivable” any military attack or secret espionage operation aimed at overthrowing a government.

It is expected that, in a meeting between Lula and Trump, the Brazilian will raise concerns about an attack on the continent. During a political act at the opening of the 16th National Congress of the PCdoB, the president defended the sovereignty of the Venezuelan people: “no president of another country has to make a decision”.

True interest

The decades pass, but the true North American interest remains the same: oil.

In response to the US government, which stated that the Caribbean country would be willing to reach a diplomatic agreement involving participation in its oil industry, the Chancellery of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela reported that Trump’s statements “seek to legitimize a regime change operation with the ultimate objective of appropriating Venezuelan oil resources”.

The population of the United States took to the streets this Saturday (18) to protest in objection to President Donald Trump’s authoritarianism. Called “No Kings”, the demonstrations took place in the 50 states of the country, with more than 2,500 events expected.

The accusations against the president include cuts in several areas of social policies, health, education and the persecution of immigrants, who in many cities represent the large mass of workers.

All of this happens amid the budget paralysis due to the impasse in the Chamber. During this period, non-essential public services are suspended and employees are left without pay until funds are restored.

In April, marches with the motto “Hands Off!” (in free translation “Hands off”) began a series of mobilizations that were repeated in June, under the slogan “No Kings”, after the intensification of raids by ICE (Immigration and Customs Service) and the consequent sending of 2,000 National Guard soldiers to California by Trump to contain the acts.

Dissatisfaction against the erosion of democracy caused by Trump caused more than 200,000 people to gather on the National Mall, a park in the capital Washington, close to the Capitol (the US National Congress) and the White House.

Senator Bernie Sanders, symbol of the country’s left, listed the president’s crimes to the crowd, such as illegal ICE operations with masked agents, arrests of opponents and censorship of the media.

In his speech in Washington, he also highlighted that the Trump administration is accompanied by the greed of the richest people on the planet against working families, including, in his criticism, billionaires and owners of large technology companies such as Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg.

read more: US reaffirms tradition of coups with contradictory narrative about Venezuela

The signs held by protesters contained messages criticizing Trump, ICE and neo-fascism. Others warned of the dangers to democracy and denounced the president’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, as well as the crimes recently committed against Venezuelans in the Caribbean Sea.

In addition to the marches, large and small, which together brought millions of people to the streets, demonstrations took place in other countries, in cities such as London, Madrid and Barcelona, ​​in front of the US embassies.

Rempli d’œufs moelleux, de fromage et de votre choix de légumes ou de viandes, il est parfait pour le petit-déjeuner, le brunch ou un dîner rapide.

Two days after the announcement of an agreement between the government of Ecuador and indigenous leaders in the province of Imbabura, roads in the region remain blocked with mounds of dirt and groups of protesters. According to the Integrated Security System (ECU 911), 12 roads remain closed — especially on the Pan-American highway E-35, the main connection axis for the north of the country — after 27 days of national shutdown.

The demonstrations, called by the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (Conaie), began as a protest against the end of the diesel subsidy, decreed by President Daniel Noboa, but soon expanded. The new agendas include the reduction of VAT from 15% to 12%, the rejection of the referendum and popular consultation scheduled for November 16th and the release of protesters arrested in the first days of the strike.

Noboa’s government seeks a popular consultation to convene a Constituent Assembly and draft a new Constitution suited to the needs of its neoliberal government.

Indigenous assembly maintains mobilization in Imbabura

In Otavalo, the epicenter of the protests, local leaders held a large community assembly this Friday (17) to discuss the movement’s next steps. The participants decided not to accept the partial truce signed between some representatives and the government, maintaining the blockades as a form of pressure.

“Let the strike continue. It is a call for dialogue and the unity of the people”, declared Santiago Castro, indigenous leader of Otavalo, during the meeting, which was attended by Mayor Anabel Hermosa, mediator between the communities and the Executive.

Mobilizations spread across several provinces

The demonstrations spread to other regions. In Sucumbíos, indigenous communities marched through the streets of Lago Agrio demanding the release of Gregorio, a member of the Kichwa ethnic group arrested during the protests. Before the march, participants performed an ancestral ceremony, symbolizing the defense of “life and territory”.

In Cuenca, University students blocked Avenida Loja, and in the province of Loja, the Kichwa Saraguro People maintained blockades on the road that connects the city to Cuenca. Governor Alexandra Jara arrived at the scene, but the protesters demanded the presence of President Noboa himself.

“We are here for the needs of our people,” said a representative of the Interprovincial Federation of Saraguros Indigenous People.

Noboa reaffirms “tough measures” and says the government is “strong”

As tensions persisted, President Daniel Noboa attended an event in Los Ríos, where he handed over property titles and agricultural credits. In his speech, Noboa defended the economic measures, stating that cutting subsidies is “necessary” to stabilize public accounts.

“We had to do what five previous governments were unable to do,” he stated, referring to the end of the diesel subsidy. According to him, the country resisted “attacks by organized crime and the opposition”, but the Executive “remains firm”. Indigenous leaders also criticize the government’s criminalization of the movement.

Since January 2024, with the so-called “internal armed conflict” that Daniel Noboa’s government declared through decree 111, the country has embarked on a tortuous path. The direction adopted combines a policy of militarization of security with growing authoritarianism that has resulted in serious violations of human rights and increased inequality.

In 2019, Lenin Moreno’s government and, in 2022, Guillermo Lasso’s government have already tried to eliminate the diesel subsidy; however, on both occasions, strong protests forced both governments to back down on the measure.

Noboa implemented a policy of controlling the protest with state of emergency decrees in seven provinces, the militarization of the streets, the blocking of bank accounts of organizations and social, indigenous, environmental and human rights leaders, and the judicialization of the protest with the use of crimes such as “terrorism”.

Terrorism arrests and charges

The government also faces criticism for its police response. Twelve protesters arrested in Otavalo — accused of setting fire to a police headquarters — remain detained on terrorism charges. Conaie denounces judicial abuse and claims that infiltrators were responsible for the attacks.

On Friday (17), an appeal hearing was held in Quito, but there was no immediate decision.

Noboa’s political and economic dilemma

The new mobilizations place President Daniel Noboa facing one of the biggest tests of his government. Since announcing the end of diesel subsidies, a measure that makes transport more expensive and directly affects food prices, Noboa has faced simultaneous pressure: on the one hand, the IMF and the business community, who defend fiscal adjustment; on the other, the indigenous movement and popular sectors, which denounce the social impact of economic policy.

The return of indigenous strikes, two years after the truce that ended the 2022 protests, reopens a historic wound in Ecuadorian politics. Since the 1990s, indigenous communities have been the main street counterweight to neoliberal governments, being decisive in the fall of presidents such as Jamil Mahuad (2000) and Lucio Gutiérrez (2005).

“The government underestimated Conaie’s mobilization capacity and believed that the agreement would be enough to contain dissatisfaction”, assesses Ecuadorian sociologist Fernando Guerrero, heard by the Primicias.ec.

In addition to political tensions, the impasse threatens to paralyze the economy of key provinces and erode the international image of Noboa, who had been trying to project himself as a reformist and pro-market leader.

An impasse that exposes the country’s social abyss

The extension of the blockades shows that, despite dialogue efforts, Ecuador remains divided between the discourse of economic modernization and the reality of rural poverty.

While Noboa seeks credibility with investors and international organizations, a large part of the population — especially indigenous and peasant farmers — remains excluded from the promises of growth.

The persistence of mobilizations in Imbabura and other provinces indicates that the crisis goes beyond the diesel issue: it is a dispute over the State model, who it serves and who pays the price of the adjustments.

Pork roast beef is delicious to accompany several meals or fill sandwiches!

The partial shutdown of the United States government reached its 16th day this Thursday (16), without any sign of a solution. The impasse between Democrats and Republicans over health financing keeps thousands of federal employees on leave and public services paralyzed.

The Senate rejected, for the eighth time, a bill introduced by Republicans to reopen the government. The proposal needed 60 votes to advance, but only obtained 49. The country is thus approaching one of the longest strikes in history, surpassed only by the 35-day strike during Donald Trump’s government, in 2018-2019.

House Speaker Mike Johnson accused Democrats of prolonging the lockdown. “We are headed for one of the longest shutdowns in American history unless Democrats abandon their partisan demands and pass a clean budget,” he said. Democrats accuse Republicans of trying to reduce public health funding, directly affecting millions of Americans covered by Obamacare.

Trump’s unilateral cuts worsen the impasse

At the center of the dispute is President Donald Trump himself, who has ignored congressional budget decisions and promoted unilateral cuts in previously approved funds. His government has already canceled around US$28 billion in resources destined for cities and states led by Democrats, while maintaining transfers to areas and agencies aligned with his policies.

The strategy, known as “rescission”, reignited constitutional tensions between the Executive and Legislative branches. “If the president can alone undo what Congress approves, what is the point of an agreement?” asked Chuck Schumer, Democratic leader in the Senate.

For Republicans, Trump is just “restoring fiscal responsibility.” But for Democrats, this is a usurpation of Congress’s power. Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, acknowledged that the cuts make any consensus difficult: “It certainly makes it more difficult to reach an agreement.”

Economic impacts and global attrition

Experts warn that the shutdown is already starting to affect the US economy. Brookings Institution researcher Darrell West said the blockade “slows growth and weakens the country’s global image.”

More than 4,000 employees have received dismissal notices, while national parks, museums and federal offices remain closed. Air traffic is one of the most affected sectors: flight controllers work without pay, causing delays and cancellations.

“The impact is still limited, but it is about to increase,” said Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. “Overloaded controllers can literally feel like they can’t handle the load.”

Researcher Clay Ramsay, from the University of Maryland, highlighted that the crisis also affects the science and technology sector. “NASA is practically at a standstill. This deteriorates the US’s place in international science and makes it seem like the country is no longer the best place to pursue a scientific career.”

A political impasse that redefines 2026

The crisis also has immediate political effects. Senator Jon Ossoff, Democrat of Georgia, faces electoral pressure by sticking to the party’s strategy of not giving in until Republicans and Trump guarantee the extension of Obamacare subsidies, which expire at the end of the year.

Ossoff is considered the most vulnerable Democrat in the Senate, as he is running for reelection in a state that Trump won in 2024. “My voters want the government to reopen, but they also want their health plans not to double in price,” said the senator.

Ossoff’s firm position makes him a symbol of Democratic resistance, but also attracts attacks from opponents.

Analysts point out that the impasse over the budget is just a symptom of a deeper crisis of governability. As political scientist Charles Bullock of the University of Georgia summarizes:

“It’s a calculated risk, but it reflects a larger problem: The United States is caught between the politics of confrontation and the inability to govern.”

A government hostage to its own division

While Democrats and Republicans accuse each other, the strike enters its third week with no end in sight. The budget impasse, fueled by Donald Trump’s unilateral strategy, exposes institutional erosion at the heart of the world’s largest economy.

The result is a government that is paralyzed — not just in its departments, but also in its ability to make stable, democratic decisions.

With information from Xinhua and New York Times

Even under protests from workers who were on general strike, the Greek parliament approved, this Thursday (16), a reform that allows working hours of up to 13 hours a day. The proposal was made by the conservative government of Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis.

The opposition, led by the left-wing Syriza party, classified the project as a “monstrosity” and refused to vote on it. The unions Adedy (in Portuguese, Confederation of Public Employees’ Unions) and GSEE (General Confederation of Greek Workers) promoted several strikes against the project. Before the vote, from Monday (13) to Wednesday (15), workers were on general strike in public services and transport.

The new law, called a “return to the Middle Ages”, in addition to bringing harm to the lives of workers, puts them at risk of dismissal if they do not accept the new conditions, unionists point out.

Proponents of increasing working hours claim that 13 hours of work can only be applied on 37 days of the year and in the private sector, on an optional basis.

For the AFP agency, Adedy representatives indicated that, in practice, the measure means the abolition of the eight-hour day, the destruction of family and social life and the legalization of super-exploitation. Unionists and the opposition are now seeking to reorganize themselves to try to overturn the measure and avoid other setbacks imposed by the right.

According to the agency Eurostatthe Greeks already have one of the longest working hours in Europe, with an average workload of 39.8 hours per week, which represents 4 hours more than the average of other countries on the continent, of 35.8 hours.

Admiral Alvin Holsey, commander of the Southern Command of the United States Armed Forces, announced this Thursday (16) that he will leave his position at the end of the year, two years ahead of schedule.

The decision, considered unexpected, comes amid escalating tensions between the Donald Trump government and Venezuela, and reignites the debate about the growing politicization of US military forces.

According to sources cited by the New York Times, Holsey expressed concern about operations in the Caribbean Sea, especially attacks against vessels allegedly involved in drug trafficking.

Since September, at least five boats have been hit by US special forces, leaving 27 people dead.

Other sources reported that laudatory statements from Holsey and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth masked strong political tensions over the US role in the region and the degree of direct involvement in the actions.

The resignation came less than a week after the Pentagon announced that anti-drug operations in Latin America would no longer be coordinated by the Southern Command — based in Miami and traditionally responsible for diplomatic dialogue with countries in the region — and would be controlled by the II Marine Expeditionary Force, based in North Carolina and specialized in rapid attacks abroad.

The change was interpreted by analysts as an institutional emptying of the Southern Command and an attempt to centralize military decisions in the White House.

Democratic lawmakers reacted with concern. Representative Adam Smith, member of the House Armed Services Committee, recalled that “before Trump, I don’t remember any combat commander who left his post before the end of his term”.

Senator Jack Reed, top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that “at a time when U.S. forces are concentrated in the Caribbean and tensions with Venezuela reach a boiling point, the departure of our top commander in the region sends an alarming signal of instability in the chain of command.”

Holsey’s early resignation adds to a series of forced departures and retirements promoted by Hegseth since he took over the Pentagon, imposing an ideological and disciplinary turn in the Armed Forces.

Among the most notorious cases are that of General Charles Q. Brown Jr., the first black person to head the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and that of Admiral Lisa Franchetti, the first woman to command the Navy — both removed without detailed explanations.

Hegseth, a former Fox News host and close Trump ally, renamed the Defense Department the “War Department” and began advocating a “cultural purification” at the top.

The differences between the admiral and the government occur in the context of an unprecedented military mobilization in the Caribbean since 1994, when the US intervened in Haiti.

Today, around 10,000 soldiers, including 2,200 marines, as well as eight warships, a nuclear submarine and F-35 fighter jets, are deployed in the region. The White House claims that the objective is to combat drug trafficking and prevent the advance of what it calls “Venezuelan narco-terrorist groups”, but critics claim that it is a political destabilization operation against the government of Nicolás Maduro.

On Wednesday (15), Trump himself confirmed that he had authorized the CIA to conduct secret operations inside Venezuela, reinforcing the perception that Washington has returned to employing typical Cold War methods to intervene in internal Latin American affairs.

The initiative provoked an immediate reaction from the Brazilian government, which questioned the legality of the measure and the violation of Venezuelan sovereignty.

Holsey’s departure also highlights the clash between the so-called professional tradition of the Armed Forces — shaped by codes of institutional command and balance — and the personalist political logic of the current administration.

The New York Times described the episode as the clearest sign of an internal dispute between Trump’s political core and the top military leadership, at a time when the Pentagon seeks to redefine its doctrine of international engagement.

Throughout his 37-year career, Admiral Holsey was considered a discreet officer, with a technical profile, and one of the few four-star black officers on active duty.

He assumed Southern Command in November 2024, after having headed aircraft carrier strike groups and naval air units.

In a message published on social media, he simply stated that “it was an honor to serve the nation, the American people and defend the Constitution for more than 37 years”.

For observers in South America, the change in US military command should be read as a symptom of instability at the center of Washington’s power and a warning for the resumption of interventionist practices in the region.

The use of the war on drugs as a justification for unilateral military actions and the replacement of Southern Command with expeditionary forces signal a dangerous shift in North American foreign policy towards the logic of permanent war.

The President of the United States, Donald Trump, confirmed that he authorized the CIA to carry out secret and lethal operations inside Venezuela, with the declared objective of overthrowing the government of Nicolás Maduro.

The information, revealed by The New York Times, was confirmed by the Republican in an interview at the White House on Wednesday night (15). The measure represents the most aggressive step in Washington’s policy in Latin America in decades, returning to the interventionist logic that marked CIA operations during the Cold War.

Trump stated that Venezuela “is feeling the pressure” and did not rule out attacks on Venezuelan territory.

“We are certainly looking at land territory now, because we have the sea very well controlled,” declared the president, suggesting that the US military command is already considering land operations.

The North American newspaper detailed that formal authorization grants the CIA autonomy to carry out lethal actions and coordinate with the armed forces. According to sources cited in the report, the plan includes options for bombing and capturing Maduro, inspired by operations such as the one that resulted in the death of Iranian general Qassim Soleimani in 2020.

The strategy was outlined by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, of Cuban origin, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe, both hard-line allies of Trump.

The plan, according to Folha de S.Paulo, is coordinated with General Dan Caine, head of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, and seeks to “asphyxiate the regime” with a combination of military and intelligence actions.

Washington even rejected a diplomatic agreement that would have given the US a dominant share in the Venezuelan oil industry, opting for a policy of force and military intimidation, according to the newspaper.

In response, the Venezuelan government classified the measure as a “serious violation of International Law and the Charter of the United Nations”.

In an official statement, the Chancellery of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela stated that Trump’s statements “seek to legitimize a regime change operation with the ultimate objective of appropriating Venezuelan oil resources.”

The text denounces the action as “warmongering and extravagant” and asks the international community to react to the military escalation of the United States in the Caribbean, a region declared a “zone of peace” by CELAC in 2014.

During a meeting of the National Sovereignty and Peace Council, broadcast on teleSur, President Nicolás Maduro made a direct appeal to the North American people.

“I say to the people of the United States: no to war. We don’t want a war in the Caribbean and South America,” he said in English — “Not war, please, listen to me.”

The Venezuelan leader also called Trump’s initiative a “coup d’état sponsored by the CIA” and compared the offensive to the policy of destruction carried out in the Middle East.

“No more CIA coups. No more regime change, which reminds us so much of the failed wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya,” he said.

Maduro also ordered military exercises across the country, claiming that mobilization is necessary to “defend mountains, coasts, schools, hospitals and factories” and guarantee peace in the face of the threat of external aggression.

In parallel, Venezuela presented a formal complaint to the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) and announced that it will take the case to the UN Security Council, requesting “urgent measures to prevent a military escalation in the Caribbean”.

Maduro also criticized exiled opponents who call for military attacks on Venezuela. “It is cowardly not to show your face, hide in Miami and ask to bomb a homeland of noble people, who only work and live in peace.”

At the end of his speech, he reinforced: “Let us defend peace, win peace, preserve peace.”

Military escalation in the Caribbean and justification of “war on drugs”

Since September, the US has been expanding its military presence in the region. There are 10,000 soldiers, eight warships and a nuclear submarine positioned in the Caribbean, in an area close to the Venezuelan coast.

The Pentagon claims that the operation aims to combat international drug trafficking, but did not present evidence that the destroyed vessels — with 27 dead — were transporting narcotics.

The White House informed Congress that the United States is “in a situation of armed conflict with Latin American drug traffickers”, trying to legally justify unilateral attacks on foreign territory.

The US Constitution, however, reserves the power to declare war to Congress, which would require support from the Democratic Party.

The Trump administration, in turn, insists on associating Maduro with the Cartel de los Soles and the Tren de Aragua faction, accusations refuted by US intelligence reports.

The offensive was interpreted by Caracas as preparation for open war. The US Department of Justice had already offered US$50 million for Maduro’s capture, classifying him as “one of the biggest drug traffickers in the world”.

Report to CELAC and alert to the UN

At the extraordinary meeting of CELAC foreign ministers, called by the Presidency Pro Tempore of Colombia, Venezuela formalized a complaint against the United States and demanded an immediate regional response.

The official statement informs that the Venezuelan Permanent Mission to the UN will take the case to the Security Council and the Secretary General, asking for “accountability” from the North American government and “urgent measures to prevent a military escalation in the Caribbean”.

The text recalls that the Caribbean was declared a zone of peace by CELAC in 2014 and warns: “The international community must understand that impunity for these acts will have dangerous political consequences that need to be stopped immediately.”

Historical interference and legacy of the CIA in Latin America

The new authorization reignites the debate about the CIA’s historical role in coups and interventions in the region. Since the 20th century, the agency has participated in the overthrow of Jacobo Árbenz in Guatemala (1954), the Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba (1961), the military coup in Brazil (1964), and the coup against Salvador Allende in Chile (1973).

Venezuelan analysts claim that the current speech from the White House repeats the interventionist rhetoric of the Cold War period, now disguised as combating drug trafficking and communism.

According to political scientist Éder Peña, from the Venezuelan Institute for Scientific Research (IVIC), the rhetorical escalation “keeps the issue at the top of the public agenda, spreading false information about alleged cartels in Venezuela”.

Analyst Ricardo Vaz, from the Venezuela Analysis portal, highlights that “the CIA has never stopped organizing subversive actions against countries considered enemies of the USA”.

These banana chips are made with just 3 ingredients and surprise with their simple and quick preparation!

Israel murdered at least three Palestinians in Gaza this Thursday (16), in yet another violation of the ceasefire signed less than a week ago.

The deaths were confirmed by medical sources and humanitarian agencies, who warned of the risk of the truce collapsing. The actions, added to attacks and executions recorded in previous days, directly challenge the agreement brokered by Washington and make the prospect of peace even more fragile.

The victims were hit by shelling in Gaza City and Khan Yunis, according to the Gaza Human Rights Center.

Since the beginning of the ceasefire, the organization has recorded 36 Israeli violations, including airstrikes, shootings and arbitrary arrests. The total number of deaths since the start of the war, in October 2023, already exceeds 67,900 Palestinians.

This Thursday’s allegations add to episodes recorded this Tuesday (14) and Wednesday (15), when at least 11 Palestinians were killed during the truce.

In Shejaiya, a neighborhood of Gaza City, three civilians were hit by an Israeli airstrike after approaching military troops.

The Army claimed that the soldiers “opened fire to eliminate the threat” and that the actions “respect the terms of the ceasefire”. In northern Gaza, two other Palestinians were shot for allegedly crossing the “Yellow Line”, created by Israel to delimit areas under its military control.

Read more: UN: 80% of Gaza’s buildings were destroyed by war

The attacks occurred while the Israeli government blocked the Rafah crossing, the main entry point for humanitarian aid. Israel accused Hamas of breaching the agreement by delaying the delivery of hostage bodies and announced the temporary suspension of food and medicine convoys.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir defended the total blockade of aid, saying that Hamas “lies, deceives and abuses families and bodies” and that “this Nazi terror understands only force”.

In Jerusalem, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that “the fighting is not over” and that Israel is “determined to guarantee the return of all hostages”.

The speech was interpreted as a sign of hardening, at a time when even Western allies are putting pressure on Tel Aviv to maintain the ceasefire. “Whoever touches us will know that they will pay a very high price,” Netanyahu said during a military ceremony on Mount Herzl.

Meanwhile, aid convoys remain stranded on the Egyptian side of the border, awaiting authorization to enter Gaza.

The UN’s top humanitarian official, Tom Fletcher, described the territory as a “devastated desert” and called for “true generosity and access” from the international community to prevent the collapse of the truce.

“We need financing, we need access and we need this peace agreement to be sustained,” he said.

The new deaths recorded, added to those from previous days, reinforce the perception that Israel continues to operate under the logic of occupation with maximum violence, even in times of ceasefire.

For humanitarian organizations, Israeli military behavior deepens the civil crisis and undermines attempts at reconstruction and dialogue. The UN has warned that if violations persist, the agreement could collapse at any moment, reigniting a war that has already completely devastated Gaza.

President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s special advisor for International Affairs, Celso Amorim, classified as “inconceivable” any military attack or secret espionage operation aimed at overthrowing a government.

The statement was given to the UOL and made after the President of the United States, Donald Trump, confirmed that he authorized the CIA to carry out lethal actions in Venezuela, a measure that increased political and military tension in the Caribbean.

“Brazil is against the use of force and secret operations. We faithfully follow the policy of non-intervention”, he stated. “It is a basic principle of international law.”

Amorim highlighted that the country is following the escalation of tensions between the United States and Venezuela with concern, remembering that both share a border with Brazil and that an armed conflict in the Caribbean would directly affect the Amazon region.

The declaration comes at the same time that Chancellor Mauro Vieira is in Washington to negotiate with Secretary of State Marco Rubio the 50% tariff imposed by Trump on Brazilian products.

According to Amorim, Brazil “maintains its historical position of defending peace and diplomatic resolution of conflicts”, in coherence with the tradition of independent foreign policy adopted since the Lula government.

Ces scones sont faciles à préparer et peuvent être dégustés chauds avec une noisette de beurre ou accompagnés d’un bol de soupe.

The ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, in force since last Friday (10), began to show signs of exhaustion before even completing a week.

Under a climate of mutual distrust, Israel decided to keep the Rafah crossing on the border with Egypt closed and reduce the flow of humanitarian aid by half, alleging that Hamas failed to comply with the agreement by not returning all the bodies of the dead hostages.

The Islamic movement, in turn, accuses the Israeli government of using the humanitarian crisis as an instrument of political pressure and says it is facing difficulties in locating the bodies under the rubble caused by two years of bombings.

The Israeli measures add to a growing situation of insecurity in the cities of the southern Gaza Strip, where thousands of displaced people are trying to return to the ruins of their homes.

The UN and the World Food Program warned that the reduction in aid — from 600 to 300 trucks per day — already compromises the distribution of food, water and medicine.

The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reported that 15,600 people needed urgent medical evacuation, while the Red Cross recorded episodes of turmoil and hunger around the convoys that still managed to enter the enclave.

Amid the impasse, Benjamin Netanyahu’s government announced that it will not allow fuel and gas to enter Gaza, except for essential humanitarian infrastructure, until Hamas hands over all the bodies.

The decision was formalized in a note from COGAT, the military body that oversees the flow of aid to the Palestinian territory.

“Hamas violated the agreement on the handover of the bodies of the hostages. As a result, the political leadership decided to impose sanctions related to the humanitarian pact,” the statement said.

The hardening of the Israeli stance has reignited criticism from humanitarian agencies and hostage families.

The Forum for the Families of Hostages and Missing Persons classified the decision as “immoral and counterproductive” and called for the implementation of the agreement to be suspended “until all the bodies are brought back”.

The UN warned that the closure of Rafah and the withholding of aid “increases the suffering of a population that has already experienced months of hunger and collapse”.

Aid cuts and tensions on the ground

The reduction in the number of trucks and the closure of crossings worsened a situation that the UN itself describes as “almost unsustainable”. According to spokeswoman Olga Cherevko, “the crossings are closed on the Israeli side, but we are collecting supplies inside Gaza in an attempt to guarantee the minimum necessary for survival.”

The World Food Program confirmed the entry of just 137 trucks since the weekend, while UNICEF reported sending just a few dozen with tents, blankets and hygiene kits.

Organizations such as Oxfam, CARE and the Norwegian Refugee Council continue to be unable to fully operate, facing administrative barriers imposed by Israel.

“We are in limbo. The needs of a population that has lived through months of hunger will not be met with a few trucks,” said Bushra Khalidi, policy advisor at Oxfam.

The blockade also affects the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, created with support from the United States, which temporarily suspended its activities after criticism from the UN about the lack of neutrality and militarization of distribution.

On the Palestinian side, Hamas tries to defend itself from the accusations by saying that “locating the bodies is difficult” and that part of them are under tons of rubble left by Israeli bombings.

The group promised to deliver four more bodies “in the coming days”, but the slowness of the process fuels Netanyahu’s speech, which accuses the movement of “acting in bad faith”.

So far, eight bodies have been returned — seven of Israelis and one of an unidentified Palestinian.

Meanwhile, the Red Cross warns that the recovery of the dead could take “days or weeks”, and there is a risk that “some will never be found”.

“Bringing back the dead is an even greater challenge than releasing the living. This must be a top priority,” said Christian Cardon, spokesman for the International Committee of the Red Cross.

The delay fuels new internal tensions in Israel, where family members of the hostages accuse the government of failing to protect and negotiate.

Families charge the government and denounce negligence

The harshest reactions to the impasse came from the families of the dead and missing hostages. In Tel Aviv, the Hostage Families Forum organized a new vigil in Hostage Square, accusing the government of “trying to erase its immediate duty” to recover the bodies.

“Whoever takes the flags and pins from the hostages is betraying Jewish morals and degrading the agreement,” the statement said. The reference was to criticism of the president of the Knesset, Amir Ohana, who removed the symbol of captives from his lapel during a session in parliament.

The revolt grew after the release of an official letter from the Office of Hostages and Missing Persons, which expressed “sadness at the high price paid” by the families and stated that “thanks to this price, we have reached the end of the war and the return of all hostages”.

The lack of an apology was interpreted as indifference. “Sometimes one word is preferable: sorry,” wrote Merav Svirsky, sister of one of the dead hostages. Other mothers and fathers called the letter “insulting.”

The government reacted by trying to contain wear and tear. Coordinator Gal Hirsch declared that “pressure on Hamas will persist and increase until the complete return of the fallen hostages” and said that the topic was taken up by Netanyahu in conversations with US President Donald Trump and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi at the Sharm el-Sheikh summit.

The intention was to reinforce the international demand for Hamas to hand over the remaining bodies and maintain the ceasefire.

Despite strong rhetoric, the case exposed divisions within Israel. Local analysts point out that the prime minister is trying to balance his domestic populist appeal with the need to preserve the agreement brokered by the United States and Egypt.

The outcome of negotiations with Hamas could define Netanyahu’s political future, already under intense pressure from allies and victims’ families.

Trump’s role and the risk of the agreement’s collapse

As tensions grow, former President Donald Trump, who brokered the ceasefire, tries to maintain his image as a peace organizer. After speaking at the Knesset last Monday (13), Trump stated that Hamas “needs to lay down its arms” and warned: “If you don’t, we will disarm you. This will happen quickly and perhaps violently.”

The declaration, interpreted as a thinly veiled threat, reinforced the climate of uncertainty about the future of the truce.

Trump defends a “transitional phase” in Gaza under international administration and a possible Arab peacekeeping force.

The plan, however, faces resistance from both Hamas and sectors of the Israeli government, which reject any mention of the creation of a Palestinian state. The UN and Arab countries warn that without a political solution, the ceasefire “could collapse in a matter of days”.

On the ground, the Israeli army keeps more than half of Gaza under control — including the devastated north, the city of Rafah and the entire border with Israel. The logistical blockade and the aid impasse prevent any concrete sign of reconstruction. World Bank estimates indicate that more than US$50 billion will be needed to rebuild the enclave, where 67,000 Palestinians have been killed since 2023.

The first days after the agreement confirm that the truce announced as “a historic dawn” by Trump could turn into a new cycle of accusations and retaliations. Without trust between the parties, the promise of peace seems increasingly dependent on gestures that, so far, no one is willing to give.

Donald Trump’s reindustrialization policy has entered into crisis. Data released by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) shows that the country lost 78,000 manufacturing jobs in the year-to-date period ending in August, the sector’s worst performance since the 2020 pandemic.

The number contrasts with the official speech from the White House, which points to protectionism and tariffs as pillars of productive recovery.

Since January, American industry has accumulated a net drop of 38 thousand jobs. Industrial production fell 0.4% in August, and investment in new factories fell 6% in the year to July, according to the BLS.

The industrial recession comes amid an explosion in technology investment and reverses the initial momentum of the Chips and Science Act of 2022, which had doubled investment in semiconductor facilities by 2024.

Spending on artificial intelligence, data centers and processing hardware grew 37% in the first half of the year, and imports of next-generation chips increased 64% year-to-date. The government tries to associate these numbers with a “new productive era”, but the contrast between sectors reveals a structural change: the United States produces more and more data and fewer goods.

The effects of the tariffs adopted by Trump are visible. The increase in taxes on steel, aluminum and industrial inputs has increased production costs, eroded profit margins and reduced the competitiveness of companies that depend on foreign components. Automakers including General Motors, Caterpillar and John Deere reported billion-dollar tariff-related losses and lower margins than at any time since the pandemic.

Total industrial employment fell to 12.9 million workers, well below the peak of 19.5 million recorded in 1979. Despite tax incentives and the promise to repatriate production chains, the country continues to lose factories: the number of new plants opened in 2025 was the lowest in four years, according to the US Census.

Artificial intelligence, presented by Trump as the US’s new technological frontier, follows the opposite path. Investment in computer equipment rose 45% compared to 2024, raising the market value of companies like Nvidia and Microsoft to historic levels.

However, the growth of AI employs few workers. A data center, which requires more than a thousand workers during construction, houses just a few hundred once opened — far below a traditional automobile factory.

For analysts, the country is facing a new form of deindustrialization: productive capital migrates to sectors that concentrate wealth and generate little employment, while the real economy shrinks. Jobs created by protection policies are outweighed by losses resulting from increased costs and reduced demand.

Even with the slowdown, the government insists that the results are temporary. In a statement, the White House stated that “rebuilding American industrial dominance will take years” and that “tariffs and tax incentives are creating the foundations for a new cycle of prosperity”. In practice, the indicators show the opposite: less investment, fewer factories and fewer workers.

The contrast between the boom in artificial intelligence and the stagnation of factories highlights the failure of one of the central flags of Trumpism. While the government celebrates digital advancement, the worker base that supported the promise of ‘making America great again’ is shrinking again.

Whether for breakfast or an afternoon snack, this pizza with sliced ​​bread is a delicious option!

The meeting held this Wednesday (15), in New Delhi, between the vice-president and minister of Development, Industry and Commerce, Geraldo Alckmin, the Minister of Defense, José Múcio Monteiro, and the Minister of Defense of India, Rajnath Singh, marked a new level in strategic cooperation between Brazil and India.

The meeting is part of the official Brazilian mission to India, which seeks to consolidate partnerships in trade, defense, energy, technology and investments, continuing the commitments signed between President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Prime Minister Narendra Modi in July.

“It is a great pleasure to reinforce the dialogue between Brazil and India in the area of ​​defense, a sector in which we share a vision of strategic autonomy, technological cooperation and global balance”, stated Alckmin.

In the context of geopolitical tensions and attacks on multilateralism, the advancement of the partnership between two members of the BRICS is interpreted as a sign of the reconfiguration of global alliances. The agenda reinforces the role of Brazil and India as voices from the Global South, which seek greater weight in international governance.

Defense: cooperation between navies, aircraft and military technology

Minister José Múcio highlighted that the defense area is one of the most promising in the bilateral relationship. According to him, the two countries already have dialogue between the commands of the Armed Forces and are studying joint operations and forms of technological cooperation.

One of the central themes is the maintenance of the Scorpène submarines, a French model used by both the Brazilian Navy and the Indian Navy.

“We are discussing joint operations. They are acquiring radar planes that we are bringing from Brazil for adaptation here. We are also studying cooperation in the maintenance of submarines, since our models are similar”, explained Múcio.

Another highlight is the advancement of negotiations on the sale of six Embraer E-145 aircraft, which would be converted into advanced warning and air control platforms for India. The Brazilian company is also negotiating the sale of the C-390 Millennium multi-mission military freighter, with the possibility of local co-production with Mahindra Systems.

During the mission, Embraer inaugurates its regional office in New Delhi, a milestone in the consolidation of its presence in the Indian market.

Strategic opportunity: Tejas Mk1A and FAB modernization

A sensitive technical point of the visit is the possible exchange of interests between Brazil and India: if India selects the KC-390 for its medium transport fleet, Brazil will be able to acquire the Indian HAL Tejas Mk1A light fighters, as replacements for the aging AMXs of the Brazilian Air Force (FAB).

The Tejas, with performance and combat radius similar to the AMX, offers superior speed and maneuverability and can fill the FAB’s urgent operational gaps.

Currently, Brazil has only 17 fully operational combat aircraft, a number considered critical for a country of continental dimensions. The recommended minimum would be around 100 aircraft for a defense appropriate to its geopolitical position.

The eventual partnership with India would diversify suppliers and reduce the risk of dependence on NATO countries, such as Sweden, manufacturer of the Gripen E, whose delivery is delayed.

Industrial cooperation and technology transfer

In addition to defense, the Brazilian mission focuses on co-production and technology transfer in strategic sectors such as armored vehicles, ammunition, radars and aerial systems.

“The time is ripe to deepen the relationship in light of the expansion of the Indian defense industry and its supplier diversification strategy. Brazil and India share the ambition of developing an autonomous defense capability, anchored in mutual trust and the search for their own technological solutions”, declared Alckmin.

Cooperation reflects a new model of South-South partnership, in which local production, innovation and industrial autonomy replace the old paradigm of technological dependence.

Expansion of trade and new integration fronts

Trade and investment are also at the heart of the mission. From January to May 2025, Brazilian exports to India grew 14.8%, reaching US$ 2.39 billion, while imports increased 31.8%, consolidating the Asian country as the 11th export destination and 6th largest supplier to Brazil.

The plan is to expand the Mercosur–India tariff preference agreement, currently restricted to 450 products, opening space for new diversification of the trade agenda.

“We will expand markets and reciprocal investments. Brazil and India have technology, scale and inclusion — we can grow together in a sustainable way”, declared Alckmin.

Biofuels, health and digital technology

The mission also includes five strategic axes of cooperation:

• Health industrial complex — expansion of cooperation in generics and pharmaceutical inputs, strengthening the SUS;
• Biofuels and energy transition — policy integration for ethanol and sustainable aviation fuel (SAF);
• Defense and aeronautical industry — opening of the Embraer office and partnerships in military co-production;
• Agroindustry and food security — increase in Brazilian exports of proteins and processed foods;
• Digital transformation — partnerships in digital public infrastructures and data centers, inspired by Indian solutions.

Alliance of the Global South: a counterpoint to unilateralism

The strengthening of the Brazil-India relationship occurs in a scenario of rearrangement of the international order. Both countries defend a balanced multipolarity, resisting pressure from great powers and reinforcing cooperation between nations in the Global South.

The mission led by Alckmin and Múcio symbolizes the resumption of Brazil’s international protagonism, no longer as a mere exporter of commodities, but as a strategic actor in defense, innovation and technological diplomacy.

“India is the fifth economy in the world, Brazil is the eighth. Our countries are regional leaders and share the same world vision: sovereign development with social inclusion”, summarized Alckmin.

With information from Sputnik News

If she were alive, Margaret Thatcher would turn 100 years old on October 13, 2025. The first woman to hold the position of Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (1979–1990), she redefined British politics and, in a way, contemporary capitalism itself.

But, far from official celebrations and conservative tributes, the centenary of the “Iron Lady” reignites the debate about the human and social cost of her legacy — a legacy of mass unemployment, the dismantling of the welfare state and the historical weakening of the trade union movement.

Thatcher was not just a political leader: she was the main architect of neoliberalism applied as a government doctrine. Under his command, the United Kingdom became the first major laboratory of an ideology that placed profit and the market above social protection and public intervention.

The war against unions and the working class

The most striking point of his government was the declared war against the unions, especially the miners’ union, the most powerful in the country until then. Between 1984 and 1985, the miners’ strike was repressed with police brutality, surveillance and legal persecution.

Thatcher’s victory — not only political, but also symbolic — broke the backbone of British trade unionism, which never recovered the mobilization power it had had since the post-war period.

By turning social conflict into a “law and order” issue, Thatcher rewrote the political narrative about the working class. Workers stopped being agents of change and became, in the dominant discourse, “obstacles to efficiency”. This logic paved the way for job insecurity, flexible contracts and the rise of the so-called gig economy, which today characterizes the British market.

Privatization and deindustrialization: the price of “modernization”

Thatcher justified her reforms under the slogan of “restoring competitiveness” and “freeing individual initiative”. In practice, this meant an unprecedented wave of privatizations, including strategic sectors such as energy, telecommunications, transport and public housing.

More than 40 state-owned companies were sold and millions of workers were laid off. Entire regions, especially in the industrial north of England, collapsed economically and socially—a trauma that, decades later, still fuels resentment and far-right populism.

The immediate result was one of the biggest deindustrializations in Western Europe, with the country moving towards a services and finance economy. London flourished as a global financial center, but urban fringes and former mining areas were abandoned to structural poverty.

The neoliberal “revolution” and its global disciples

Thatcherism went beyond the borders of the United Kingdom and became a government model for neoliberal capitalism, inspiring leaders such as Ronald Reagan in the United States and, years later, Fernando Collor, Carlos Menem, Carlos Salinas de Gortari and Augusto Pinochet in Latin America.

The central axis of this doctrine was clear: less State, less rights, more market. Thatcher reduced taxes for the richest, cut subsidies, privatized public housing and transformed unemployment into an “incentive” for individual effort.

Inequality, which had decreased in previous decades, grew again at an explosive pace — and the model spread globally, consolidating the dominance of finance over politics and work.

The myth of “self-sufficiency” and the culture of individualism

Thatcher’s philosophy was based on a central principle: “Society does not exist. There are only individuals and families.”

With this phrase, pronounced in 1987, she synthesized the essence of neoliberalism: the denial of collectivity as the basis of public life. This vision naturalized inequality, blaming the poor for their own condition and delegitimizing the idea of ​​social solidarity.

“Thatcher culture” helped shape the mentality of consumption, competition and meritocracy that dominates liberal democracies today. In the name of efficiency, he instituted an ethic of indifference, where failure came to be seen as a lack of effort, not as a product of unfair structures.

A legacy still alive — and contested

Three decades after her departure from power, the United Kingdom remains trapped by the economic model she imposed. The fiscal austerity of recent Conservative governments, the housing crisis, the weakening of the National Health Service (NHS) and the growth of child poverty are, to a large extent, direct legacies of the Thatcher era.

Even politicians who opposed her, such as Tony Blair, adopted many of her policies under the banner of the “Third Way”. The result is a deeply unequal country, where the profits of corporations and banks contrast with the precarious living conditions of the working class.

Between iron and rust

As she turns one hundred years old, Margaret Thatcher remains a divisive figure: celebrated by the markets, cursed by workers. Her biography is praised by those who see in the “Iron Lady” a strong-willed leader who saved the United Kingdom from “decline”, but detested by those who lived through the effects of the social destruction she left behind.

More than a historical character, Thatcher is a persistent symptom — the face of an era in which financial capitalism defeated the post-war social pact.

One hundred years later, its shadow remains cast over the world: the iron age has turned into the rust age—a time when markets thrive, and workers still foot the bill.

Right-wing parties have acted to promote setbacks around the world, expanding the crisis caused by neoliberalism by employing even more neoliberalism. Two cases draw attention in Europe this week due to the resistance to this forced attempt to remove social rights while expanding labor exploitation.

In Belgium and Greece, workers, organized by unions, staged general strikes to denounce the measures. While Belgians deal with a series of measures that include pension reform and budget cuts, Greeks are fighting against a proposal for modern slavery that could increase working hours to 13 hours a day.

Belgium

Workers in Belgium staged a general strike in the country this Tuesday (14). With great popular support, the demonstrations denounce the cuts and dismantling of public services and social security promoted by the government of nationalist Prime Minister Bart De Wever.

Since taking office in February with the support of a right-wing coalition, Wever has aimed to reform pensions and the job market in the country. He wants to reform Social Security, restricting rules for categories, limiting unemployment insurance to two years and aligning public servants with those in the private sector.

To top it off, he is preparing cuts in the 2026 budget to adapt the country to the European Union’s fiscal adjustment standards, which establishes a budget deficit with a limit of 3% and public debt of up to 60% of GDP (Gross Domestic Product), while currently, the deficit is at 4.5% and the debt already represents more than 100% of GDP.

read more: The centenary of the “Iron Lady” and the dark legacy that shaped global neoliberalism

The strikes affected Charleroi and Zaventem airports, close to the capital Brussels. The subway lines were also paralyzed and roads were blocked by the protesters’ march, which also affected other public transport. Garbage collection and prison workers also crossed their arms.

The FGTB (General Federation of Belgian Workers), which brings together the country’s unions, estimates that the protest in Brussels brought together 140,000 people. THE AFPThierry Bodson, president of the entity, stated that “an entire generation refuses to allow in six months to destroy what our parents and grandparents took so long to build”.

Greece

Also this week, unions and the population of Greece took to the streets to confront the government of conservative Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis, who is trying to introduce a working day that can reach 13 hours a day.

On October 1st, the unions had already launched a general strike. Now this Monday (13) and Tuesday (14), again, public services and urban transport were paralyzed.

The Greek Parliament is preparing to vote on the law that is denounced as a “return to the Middle Ages” by workers. The Minister of Labor and Social Security, Niki Kerameus, defends the law by justifying that she would be employed for only 37 days a year and on a voluntary basis.

Leaders of Adedy (in Portuguese, Confederation of Public Employees’ Unions) and GSEE (General Confederation of Greek Workers) do not accept this argument and point out that workers who do not adhere to the new working hours will be at risk of dismissal.

United States Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent confirmed this Tuesday (14) that Donald Trump and Xi Jinping should meet at the end of October, in South Korea, during the APEC summit.

The information came after a week marked by strong instability between the world’s two largest economies, in which China expanded controls on rare earth exports and Trump reacted by threatening a 100% tariff on Chinese products.

According to Bessent, “the tariff does not need to happen”, and the “lines of communication have been reopened”, which signals an attempt to contain the Republican’s political weariness before the meeting with the Chinese leader.

Beijing’s decision, announced on October 9, surprised Washington.

By including five new strategic elements — holmium, erbium, thulium, europium and ytterbium — and imposing new demands on semiconductor and defense companies, China has shown that it will not give in to Trump’s protectionism.

Analysts see the move as a calculated move to expand Xi’s room for maneuver before the bilateral meeting.

“This increases Beijing’s bargaining power ahead of the expected Trump–Xi summit in South Korea,” he told Reuters consultant Tim Zhang, founder of Edge Research, based in Singapore.

The new rules reach the base of high-tech industrial chains. China controls more than 90% of the world’s refining of rare earths, used in defense equipment, electric motors, semiconductors and turbines.

From November onwards, foreign companies that use Chinese material or technology will need an export license, even if they do not involve companies from the country.

The Ministry of Commerce informed that the restrictions will begin on November 8th and will be expanded on December 1st, when they will also include refining and processing equipment.

In Washington, the White House classified the new rules as “announced without prior notice” and assessed that they seek to “exert control over global technology chains”.

Bessent, on the other hand, adopted a more cautious tone and acknowledged that “the relationship, despite last week’s announcement, is good”.

The secretary also confirmed that teams from both countries met over the weekend in Washington, on the sidelines of the IMF and World Bank meetings, and that there were “substantial communications” between the negotiators.

Xi Jinping’s firm stance on rare earths has exposed the limits of Trump’s trade blackmail strategy.

The US president had used the threat of triple-digit tariffs to pressure Beijing, but ended up faced with a response that widened the scope of the dispute.

By tightening its grip on an essential input to the digital economy and military industry, China has shifted the center of the trade war to the realm of technology and productive sovereignty.

For Neha Mukherjee, rare earths analyst at Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, in an interview with Reutersthe world is heading towards a “period of structural bifurcation”, in which China seeks to internalize its production chain — from refining to technological development — while the United States and its allies accelerate efforts to create parallel industrial systems.

The division could show the beginning of a transition from the tariff war to a war of production chains, with profound consequences for the global economy.

Amid the tensions, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce reiterated that “the United States cannot call for dialogue while threatening new restrictive measures”, and that the scope of the restrictions is “limited” and aimed at “the security and stability of global chains”.

The US Treasury spokesperson sought to reassure investors, stating that “talks are ongoing” and that “tensions have been substantially reduced”.

The meeting between Trump and Xi, scheduled for the end of the month, takes place in a context in which both are testing their ability to impose opposing agendas: North American economic nationalism and the Chinese project of technological sovereignty.

Xi’s firm reaction to tariff pressure shows that China does not intend to negotiate under threat — and that Washington’s diplomatic calculation, based on intimidation, has lost its effectiveness.

Easter Egg on the Platter

The war in Gaza left 80% of the territory’s buildings destroyed or seriously damaged, according to United Nations reports. Two years of Israeli offensives have turned entire cities into ruins, produced 55 million tons of rubble and left more than 68,000 Palestinians dead.

The dataset was classified by the UN as one of the largest urban and humanitarian crises in recent history, with effects that will last for generations. According to the United Nations Satellite Center (UNOSAT), 83% of all buildings in Gaza City — the largest urban center in the territory — were hit.

The calculation corresponds to around 81 thousand homes destroyed, in addition to hospitals, schools, energy networks and sanitation systems destroyed by successive Israeli bombings.

Satellite images released by the UN show the capital, Gaza City, reduced to a gray and silent landscape, covered in debris and dust, the result of the greatest urban destruction recorded in the Middle East since the Second World War.

“The conflict generated around 55 million tons of rubble, an amount equivalent to 13 times the volume of the Giza pyramids,” said Jaco Cilliers, representative of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). The UN says the devastation is so great that not all sites can be rebuilt.

Hospitals and schools are partially functioning, and hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinians live in makeshift tents, while the blockade imposed by Israel prevents the entry of basic reconstruction materials.

The UN special rapporteur on the right to housing, Balakrishnan Rajagopal, described the destruction as “domicide”, a term used to characterize the deliberate elimination of civilian homes. “The destruction of homes and the emptying of areas makes places uninhabitable — it is one of the main ways in which the act of genocide has been committed,” Rajagopal told Al Jazeera.

The expert compared the situation to the Nakba of 1948, when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were expelled from their lands during the creation of the State of Israel.

“It’s like another Nakba. What happened in the last two years will be similar,” he said.

With the ceasefire signed on October 10, 2025, thousands of Palestinians began to return to the north of the Gaza Strip, where only craters, rubble and collapsed buildings remain.

“The psychological impacts and trauma are profound, and that is what we are seeing now as people return to northern Gaza,” Rajagopal reported. The UNDP reported that it has already removed 81 thousand tons of rubble, but the work is slow.

Destroyed roads and Israeli control over entry points make it difficult for humanitarian aid to arrive, while entire families return to the ruins without access to water, electricity or shelter.

The UN estimates that the complete reconstruction of the Gaza Strip will cost at least US$70 billion (about R$382 billion) and could take decades.

The new estimate is 30% higher than that released in March this year, when the value was US$53 billion. Arab and European countries, as well as Canada and the United States, have signaled their willingness to contribute to financing, but so far there are no firm commitments.

“We have received very positive news from several of our partners, including Europeans, and from Canada,” said Jaco Cilliers, adding that discussions are ongoing with the United States.

Over the next three years, US$20 billion (R$115 billion) will be needed for sanitation, water supply and urban cleaning, according to the UNDP.

The ceasefire agreement, brokered by Egypt, Türkiye and Qatar, led to the release of the last 20 living Israeli hostages and the release of nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners.

United States President Donald Trump announced the end of the war, but uncertainties persist about the disarmament of Hamas and the composition of the technocratic government that should administer the Palestinian territory.

While negotiations drag on, the UN warns that, without an end to the blockade and without guarantees of sovereignty, reconstruction will be unfeasible. Gaza, reduced to ruins, is today a symbol of the tragedy caused by a war that destroyed cities, claimed lives and compromised the future of an entire people.