TODAY

Ukraine continues to struggle with throttling of the speeds at which weapons using the vital satellite communications services provided by the SpaceX Starlink system can operate, one weapons manufacturer tells us it is rethinking whether to rely on it in the future. As we have previously reported, heavy use of Starlink on both sides of the conflict in Ukraine, including as a means of guiding one-way attackers in the air and at sea, has underscored potential risks of exclusive reliance on Elon Musk’s orbital communications networks in critical tactical tasks.

At issue are complaints by Ukrainian officials that “in various sectors of the front, the equipment ceases to function at speeds of 130–161 kilometers per hour.”

A limit on how fast Starlink terminals on vehicles can travel before the feed is cut off in certain areas impacts a slew of weapons and campaigns, especially strikes on Russian logistics behind enemy lines and in the sea of Asov, as well as the control of defensive interceptor drones critical for taking down Russian long-range one-way attack drones, like the notorious Shahed-136.

The following video shows one such Shahed interception.

The limiting of Starlink/Starshield occurred amid deteriorating relations between the Trump administration and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The latest chill between Washington and Kyiv was sparked by the American leader’s claims that Ukraine’s attacks on Russia’s energy infrastructure have reduced the supply of diesel fuel to the U.S. and other nations more than the conflict in the Middle East. Trump was upset Ukraine kept hitting these targets despite his demanding they stop.

Exacerbating this issue, Trump on Oct. 9 announced via his Truth Social platform that he had made a deal to purchase diesel from Russia, pivoting away from a years-old Western policy that placed massive economic pressure on Moscow.

Who gave the order to limit the speeds at which Ukrainian weapons using the Starlink/Starshield system operate is unclear.

“The order to limit a satellite system used by Ukraine ​for battlefield communications and drone operations came from inside the White House,” Reuters reported last week, citing two U.S. officials and a Western official briefed on the matter. “The officials said ‌leaders at the Defense Department received a message that the SpaceX Starshield service for the Ukrainian military needed to be slowed.”

“No such request was ever made by the president,” a U.S. official told us on Monday.

“There has been no change to Department of War policy regarding intelligence sharing or any capabilities we are enabling Europeans to provide to Ukraine,” a senior Pentagon official responded to our questions about whether the Pentagon imposed the limits and, if so, why.

When we pushed for a more specific response to the Starlink/Starshield concerns, the Pentagon declined comment. However, Tuesday afternoon, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the Pentagon did not order any changes and that Ukraine violated Starlink’s terms of services.

We reached out to SpaceX as well, but the company did not immediately respond. Last week, SpaceX’s founder and CEO, Elon Musk, said that “any limits on speed or usage are decided by the US military and ultimately” Trump. Musk had previously refused Ukrainian requests to use Starlink against targets inside Russia.

The prohibition against using Starlink inside Russia has drastically limited Ukraine’s ability to strike dynamic targets like mobile ballistic missile launchers and hunt for drone launch sites. However, Ukraine has not had to rely on Starlink in its campaign against oil infrastructure or other fixed targets deep inside Russia which upset Trump in the first place.

Tuesday morning, Zelensky spoke with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and again brought up Starlink/Starshield in addition to other major concerns.

“…the situation with Starlink/Starshield… needs to be restored,” Zelensky urged.

I spoke with Marco Rubio @SecRubio, and it was a substantive conversation – focused on the issues that matter. I am grateful for his readiness to help and his clear position. First, ballistic missile interceptors, which are needed to protect lives. Second, early warning of…

— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) October 20, 2026

Rubio denied that any assistance was being withheld from Ukraine. Noting that Starlink “is a private company,” the secretary told reporters that Trump is “frustrated…because he doesn’t like to be blamed for things that aren’t true, including accusations that somehow he had ordered intelligence sharing to be cut off. And that’s not true; he’s said that repeatedly.”

SECRETARY RUBIO: There’s nothing being deliberately denied to Ukraine. It’s simply a balance between our obligations to other partners, and frankly, our own standards and requirements for our own facilities as well. pic.twitter.com/x9NWbIufBa

— Department of State (@StateDept) October 20, 2026

This most recent flap isn’t the first time SpaceX and Musk have faced particularly significant criticism over limiting some Ukrainian use of the network. Actions SpaceX took earlier this year to block unregistered Starlink terminals also had major consequences for Russian forces, which were sent scrambling to find alternatives to fill the massive resulting communications gap.

Given the tenuous nature of Ukraine’s ability to use Starlink/Starshield, the Wild Hornets company is reevaluating whether to use the SpaceX system in future endeavors even though, so far, it has experienced few problems with it. Wild Hornets is a major Ukrainian combat drone maker. Among other weapons, it makes the Sting interceptors, designed to defend against Russian Shahed kamikaze drones.

The Starlink/Starshield issue isn’t affecting current operations, Wild Hornets spokesman Mike Orliuk told us Tuesday morning. “Our own communications system provides the basic connection to our interceptors,” he said. “Plus, our technology for remote control of the interceptors can use various sources of internet connectivity. True, the military often uses Starlink for this, but in our case, the terminal doesn’t need to be moved at high speeds (it simply provides a connection between the command center and the ground station to which the interceptor is connected—it’s somewhat similar to cell towers).”

Відео 100 збиттів шахедів перехоплювачем #STING #wildhornets #дикішершні #fpv

Concerns about the reduction in speeds at which Starlink terminals can operate has Wild Hornets thinking about ditching a future project, Orliuk told us.

“But we understand that there are other types of interceptors,” added Orliuk. “For example, some drones carry a terminal on board and need to fly at high speed with it. In such cases, Starlink’s limitations make their operation impossible. From this point of view, it also makes us rethink some of the projects we’re currently working on. For example, launching interceptors from aerial platforms.”

“We’re keeping an eye on the situation,” Orliuk continued. “For our current operations (connections with ground stations), we can use any source of stable internet connectivity. Therefore, various solutions are possible in different locations. However, for these needs, everything is operating normally with Starlink at the moment. As for our plans with new projects, we don’t have a clear decision yet, but we will be testing alternatives.”

Orliuk declined to provide further details about what “alternatives” could look like.

There are a number of ways the lack of Starlink for extended-range drone operations could be mitigated to a degree, but the persistent, reliable, high-bandwidth and compact capability SpaceX provides has no direct alternative at this time. The use of drones that work as line-of-sight relays, which can be daisy chained together electronically with other airborne relays, with a connection spanning dozens or even hundreds of miles to a ground entry point is possible. You can read about this concept here. The use of swarms of balloons to create an active network over a battlespace and using starlink on those slower moving platforms to relay line-of-sight connections to multiple drones below is another possibility. You can read more about this concept here. But we must stress again, nothing can fully replace Starlink/Starshield and its seamless beyond line-of-sight communications architecture at this time.

“I believe, in any case, depending on a single solution is very risky,” Orliuk proffered. “Especially if you don’t have full control over it. Especially when it comes to something as critical on the battlefield as communications. That’s exactly why our ecosystem is built around our own communications technology and basically is open to various solutions when it comes to internet connectivity.”

The No. 1 interceptor: STING by Wild Hornets has destroyed over 15,000 Shaheds and Gerberas in one year 🔥

Confirmed data shows that STING has topped the interceptor rankings for 12 consecutive months. In September this year, Ukraine’s Defense Forces downed around 1,600 Shaheds,… pic.twitter.com/4v1aeOxPiy

— Wild Hornets (@wilendhornets) October 13, 2026

As far as military units are concerned, the commander of the Georgian Legion told us that his forces have been affected by issues with Starlink/Starshield even though the main concerns have been about the speeds at which weapons can travel and still have connectivity. The Georgian Legion is fighting in the heavily contested Kramatorsk region of eastern Ukraine.

“We use Starlink a lot because, in this war, reliable communication is essential,” Mamuka Mamulashvili told us. “It helps us stay connected when everything around us is changing. Of course, we’ve learned not to rely on just one system. There are alternatives, like mobile internet, fiber-optic connections, radio and other satellite systems such as OneWeb. But honestly, none of them can fully replace Starlink in Ukraine right now.”

“The problems were not limited to the speed restriction of approximately 160 km/h,” the Georgian Legion commander pointed out. “Starlink connectivity itself was also intermittent, repeatedly switching on and off. This caused communication disruptions across various drone systems, not just those operating at speeds exceeding 160 km/h. As a result, the impact was broader than the restriction on high-speed interceptor drones. Intermittent connectivity created problems for drone control and communications across multiple systems, affecting their reliability and the ability to carry out missions as intended.”

“We had serious communication problems,” Mamulashvili explained. “At one point, our drone operators were struggling to maintain a reliable connection with the drone systems, which disrupted coordination and made it difficult to carry out missions as planned. When you lose the connection between the operator and the drone, you can lose control of the situation in seconds. We managed to adapt, but it definitely affected our work.”

“We have to adapt and find solutions, as we always do,” the commander said. “This war teaches you one thing every day. You can’t depend on a single technology or expect someone else to solve all your problems. You have to be ready for anything and keep moving forward.”

Russian sources, meanwhile, are gloating over the speed limits placed on weapons using Starlink/Starshield, particularly how it is affecting Ukraine’s mid-range drone attacks that have crippled Russian logistics. As we explained in a previous report, Ukrainian units have relied on the SpaceX system to help extend the range of their drones to reach as far as 150 miles into Russian-occupied territory. The SpaceX system is not used to hit targets inside Russia proper.

The following video shows some of these mid-range attacks.

Russian rail logistics are now also the target of Midstrike drones, with lines to Crimea being particularly affected. pic.twitter.com/K1BFd0QVov

— Sergio 🇺🇦 🇪🇺 (@SergioCentaurus) June 5, 2026

“Disabling or slowing down Starlink has significantly reduced the enemy’s ability to launch medium-range drone strikes along the ‘Novorossiya’ highway,” influential Russian milblogger Vladimir Romanov reported. The highway, also known as the R-280, is a key link between cities in occupied southern Ukraine and the occupied Crimean peninsula. The road has been a frequent target of Ukraine’s mid-range strike campaign.

“The success of these strikes depends on the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ access to American satellite communication,” Romanov noted. “For the past six months, the Ukrainian Armed Forces have been attacking civilian transport – trucks, cars, and buses – exclusively through the use of ‘Starshield.’ This means that, for the past six months, American military satellite infrastructure has been used to carry out terrorist acts against Russian civilians, and so on. In other words, the United States is still directly involved in the war with Russia!”

America’s gifts to Russia never end, with Russian military bloggers now confirming that Washington’s operation to cut Ukraine’s Starlink has halted Ukraine’s ability to strike Russian logistics routes in Ukraine.

An operation likely written in the Kremlin, executed by… pic.twitter.com/iXcIAu5Rr3

— SPRAVDI — Stratcom Centre (@StratcomCentre) October 20, 2026

As for how widespread worries among Ukrainian weapons manufacturers are, Orliuk suggested that Wild Hornets is not alone. He said he has spoken with other companies relying much more heavily on Starlink/Starshield who have expressed concerns. He pointed to growing interest in the European Eutelsat satellite constellation as an example of companies seeking options, but noted that “of course, creating something like Starlink won’t be easy.”

We’ve reached out to the Ukrainian Brave1 defense technology incubator and the National Association of Ukrainian Defense Industries (NAUDI) for additional insights into how this issue is affecting Ukraine’s defense manufacturing base.

It will be interesting to see if other Ukrainian weapons companies also consider scrapping plans to rely on Starlink in the future and what architectures will emerge at least as a backstop to it.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

NATO member Finland is preparing to reintroduce anti-personnel landmines into its military arsenal, with a contract for around one million examples due to be signed soon, following the country’s withdrawal from the Ottawa Convention that aims to eliminate these weapons. The move comes as Helsinki looks to strengthen its territorial defenses against a longstanding Russian threat and the prospect of a larger Russian military presence along its eastern border in the years ahead.

Finland’s withdrawal from the treaty, which prohibits the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of anti-personnel mines, took effect on January 10 of this year. Reflecting growing concern among NATO’s eastern-flank members about Russia’s military posture and the lessons of the war in Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia have also moved to leave the convention.

Mines have, for many centuries, been used to complicate an attacker’s movement, slow operations, and force troops to devote time and resources to clearing obstacles. Anti-personnel mines, in particular, have long been employed in defensive campaigns, but they come with significant humanitarian risks. They can kill or maim civilians long after hostilities end, which has seen them fall foul of international humanitarian law in many countries — at least when those nations don’t see a realistic risk of invasion.

It is a measure of how badly the European security environment has deteriorated that anti-personnel mines are back on the agenda.

The Finnish Defense Forces previously said that discussions with the domestic defense industry and preparations to train military personnel would begin early this year. It has now announced that the project seeks two different types of anti-personnel mines, of Finnish manufacture.

The two weapons will comprise a modern tube mine activated by a tripwire trigger, and a pressure-activated step mine. In the future, more technically advanced mines may also be procured, including cluster-type mines of the kind deployed by Russia in Ukraine. In general, anti-personnel mines have been very widely used by both sides in that conflict, with Kyiv notably receiving them as part of U.S. air packages, as you can read about here. Neither the United States nor Russia are signatories of the Ottawa Convention.

“The aim is for production of the new anti-personnel mines to begin in Finland in 2028,” said Col. Riku Mikkonen, inspector of engineers for the Finnish Army Command.

“We have a materials procurement project underway, which is currently in the preparatory and market review phase. At the same time, we are drawing up the technical specifications for the mines,” Mikkonen added. “We will soon move on to the stage where we issue requests for tenders, so that we can eventually proceed to a competitive tendering process and conclude contracts.”

At this point, no contracts have been signed. However, once the procurement effort is underway, the Finnish Defense Forces are set to return their anti-personnel mine stockpile to what it was before acceding to the Ottawa Convention in 2012.

The first new mines and associated training equipment are expected to become available during 2027. Ultimately, all conscripts will be trained to employ anti-personnel mines. The total cost of the project is around $110 million, with the last of the mines scheduled to be delivered in the 2030s.

Helsinki has stressed that it does not intend to lay anti-personnel mines during peacetime. Mikkonen said the weapons would be used only under emergency conditions.

Finland’s decision reflects a national defense philosophy that has long been shaped by direct experience with Soviet aggression. The Soviet Union invaded Finland in 1939, beginning the Winter War, and fought another conflict with the country from 1941 to 1944. Finland lost territory but preserved its independence, subsequently maintaining conscription, a large trained reserve, and a defense strategy built around making any invasion costly.

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 reinforced Finnish concerns that major conventional warfare in Europe remained a realistic possibility. Finland joined NATO in April 2023, and the country shares a little over 800 miles of border with Russia.

Finland’s defensive approach traditionally emphasizes rapid mobilization to defend national territory and delay a much larger attacking force until reinforcements can arrive. The role of anti-personnel mines in that scenario is clear, being sown to slow down infantry movements and hamper advances through vulnerable areas. Their disproportionate effect, at least in theory, is especially relevant for a country with a relatively tiny population compared to the length of its border.

At the same time, anti-personnel mines would form only one part of a much broader defensive system incorporating artillery, airstrikes, engineering obstacles, fortifications, and reserve forces. It should be noted that Finland also has a considerable armory of anti-tank and anti-vehicle mines, most of which are of local manufacture.

In general, Moscow has been restructuring its military command arrangements and starting to establish the foundations for a larger conventional presence across northern Europe.

In 2024, Russia reestablished the Leningrad Military District, an apparent response to Finland’s and Sweden’s subsequent entry into NATO.

The Leningrad Military District is responsible for a strategically important region that covers the approaches to St. Petersburg, areas bordering Finland, and territory extending toward the Arctic. Its reestablishment gives Russia a dedicated command structure for managing forces facing NATO across this northern sector.

While significant, the creation of a military district does not necessarily generate additional combat power.

Russia’s war in Ukraine continues to drain resources in terms of personnel, equipment, logistics, and more.

Nevertheless, Moscow’s longer-term plans point toward a substantial expansion of its ground forces and military infrastructure in areas facing Finland and the wider NATO alliance.

A central element of Russia’s reorganization is the formation of the 44th Army Corps in the Republic of Karelia, near Finland’s eastern border. The corps was established in 2024 as part of the wider effort to strengthen Russia’s military presence in the northwest.

Russia’s wider military development also encompasses the Kola Peninsula and approaches to the Arctic, where facilities support the Northern Fleet and its strategic nuclear submarine force.

Satellite imagery last year showed construction at the Lupche-Savino garrison near Kandalaksha, including facilities intended to accommodate an artillery brigade and at least part of an engineering brigade. The location is approximately 70 miles east of Finland’s border.

Earlier this year, a separate report by the Finnish Yle media outlet found that the Russian military was expanding a base in the town of Novaya Vilga to hold as many as 6,000 Russian troops. It is located about 100 miles from the Finnish border.

For Finland, the situation could change dramatically if the war in Ukraine winds down, and the Russian military assembles in greater strength closer to its borders.

Finland’s Military Intelligence Review 2026 assesses that Russia’s military reforms have not yet significantly increased its capabilities in its immediate vicinity. But it still anticipates a substantial increase in Russian military capabilities as circumstances permit and identifies Finland as a major direction for future force development after the war.

A ceasefire or settlement in Ukraine would not automatically enable Russia to launch a major offensive against Finland. A ceasefire could ease the immediate military pressure on Russia while still creating a serious economic and political challenge for the Kremlin. Russia’s wartime spending has sustained defense-sector production and employment, but winding that spending down risks exposing structural weaknesses.

With a ceasefire or settlement, Moscow would still need to rebuild units, replace equipment, replenish personnel, and establish the logistical capacity to sustain large-scale operations. However, there are indications that this is already happening, at least to a degree.

Recent imagery analysis indicates, for example, a significant buildup of newly delivered Russian armor, including new T-90M tanks, at the 22nd Central Tank Reserve Base, located around 450 miles from the Finnish border.

Finland’s planned acquisition of anti-personnel mines fits into a broader effort to prepare for a potential future conflict. Prominent in the minds of Finnish — and other Nordic — defense planners is the fact that Russia is rebuilding the command structures and infrastructure needed to support a larger military presence near NATO’s northern frontier, even as the war in Ukraine limits its immediate ability to do so.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The new strategy shifts the bloc’s focus from long-term climate concerns to urgent security measures.

The European Commission has unveiled a new Arctic strategy for the European Union that lists security and resilience first among four priorities, alongside climate change, economic prosperity and opportunities for Arctic communities.

The strategy calls for a new maritime security hub to help member states and partners share information and monitor maritime activity in the Arctic, the Commission said on Tuesday.

The hub would later expand to track shadow fleet vessels, detect illegal fishing and pollution, and improve search and rescue coordination.

The Commission also said the EU will work to expand European icebreaker capacity. Icebreakers are specialised vessels designed to navigate ice-covered waters by breaking up sea ice and maintaining safe shipping routes.

“The Arctic is one place where the tectonic plates of geopolitics are colliding,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said, adding that sovereignty and territorial integrity can no longer be taken for granted.

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said Russia is expanding its military footprint in the high north, citing drone incursions, GPS jamming and cable sabotage, the AFP news agency reported.

Cutting reliance on Washington

Several measures appear aimed at reducing dependence on the United States. The Commission said the EU will back a strategic pan-Arctic fibre-optic telecommunications cable project linking Greenland directly to Europe. It is part of a wider plan that would also connect Canada, Japan and South Korea.

The EU will also provide secure satellite connectivity for government communications through the IRIS² constellation, a constellation AFP said is meant to rival US tech mogul Elon Musk’s Starlink.

The shift follows US President Donald Trump’s repeated demands to take control of Greenland, a Danish autonomous territory. Although his tone has softened this year, with a security deal signed with Greenland and Denmark, many in Europe remain wary, AFP said.

Member states press for action

The strategy follows last month’s meeting of leaders from 12 countries, including Germany, France, Finland and Denmark. Member states urged the EU to take a more strategic and proactive role, according to a joint statement.

Participants identified Russia as the largest threat while noting the ambitions of China and the US.

At the meeting, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said the era of “high north, low attention” was over. Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo called Russia the most significant long-term threat and said the EU must treat the Arctic as a strategic frontier.

The Commission reiterated the EU’s position remains that oil, coal and gas should stay in the ground, including in the Arctic.

To combat increasing climate concerns, the Commission pledged to “strengthen climate research, observation and monitoring to better understand these changes and support effective responses”, while working in tandem with the people who live and work in the Arctic.

Between smiles and a handshake, Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez thanked US President Donald Trump for “supporting the country’s return to multilateral forums,” following a face-to-face meeting on September 22 that she called “historic.”

In her address before the UN General Assembly one day later, Rodríguez reiterated her gratitude to Trump while promising a “democratic transformation” of her country. The acting leader’s trip to New York, a mere nine months after the January 3 US bombings and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores, perfectly encapsulated the Venezuelan government’s international and domestic realignment with US imperialism in general and its MAGA faction in particular.

In her speech, she euphemistically called the January 3 military strikes “the outcome of the exhaustion of domestic politics and heightened confrontation with the US,” basically holding Venezuela partially responsible for the imperialist attack it suffered.

The abandonment of Maduro

Rodríguez’s trip was as symbolic for what was said as for what was left unsaid. The acting leader and her entourage heaped praise on Trump and took turns posing for pictures. Rodríguez also maintained an undignified silence when Trump, addressing the UN, gloated about the January 3 military operation and abduction of Maduro, whom he called an “outlaw dictator,” while shamelessly boasting that “to the victor belong the spoils.”

Maduro and Flores – currently detained in Brooklyn just 10 miles from UN headquarters and facing a show trial on ludicrous “narcoterrorism” charges – were not worth a single mention by Rodríguez. This stance has been backed by pro-government pundits who are increasingly dropping the “acting” label when referring to Rodríguez.

Her government has effectively undermined Maduro and Flores’ sovereign immunity argument to get their charges dismissed. US Justice Department prosecutors told the court that Caracas, via its embassy in the US, had advocated to the State Department for Rodríguez to receive head-of-state immunity in an unrelated civil lawsuit in Florida. But, Venezuelan authorities have declined to do the same vis-à-vis Maduro and Flores in what the US Justice Department called “devastating silence.”

The official indifference is even more remarkable given Flores’ documented health issues, heavily aggravated by the brutal kidnapping, which led defense attorneys to request that she be moved to house arrest during the trial. This silence contrasts with the Maduro government’s loud defense of Alex Saab, which repeatedly brought up his health issues under incarceration during the international campaign for his release.

Saab is another prime example of the Rodríguez administration’s pragmatic rapprochement with Washington. He was irregularly handed over to US agencies in May and recently pleaded guilty in a US federal court in Miami, promising to cooperate against unnamed Venezuelan officials.

An imperial satellite

The Venezuelan leadership’s diplomatic activity in New York more broadly showcased a new foreign policy direction that is now unmistakably marching to Washington’s drum.

Rodríguez held talks with International Monetary Fund and World Bank representatives, deepening reengagement with the Washington-based financial institutions that former President Hugo Chávez denounced as instruments of US imperialism and booted them out of the country. The specter of another IMF loan-and-adjustment package returns as the Rodríguez administration begins negotiations to restructure the country’s enormous and illegitimate debt.

In addition, Rodríguez held sideline meetings with US allies only, such as Netherlands PM Rob Jetten, Trinidad and Tobago PM Kamla Persad-Bissessar and Chilean President José Antonio Kast. Rodríguez also hosted Paraguayan President Santiago Peña in Caracas before flying to the US. 

The right-wing Chilean and Paraguayan administrations had firmly backed US regime change efforts in Venezuela, leading the Maduro government to sever ties. Trinidad and Tobago’s case was even more egregious, with Caracas suspending all cooperation, including in key cross-border natural gas projects, after Port of Spain endorsed Washington’s military buildup and extrajudicial boat bombings on Venezuela’s doorstep in late 2025.

Rodríguez and her team also broke with the Chavista tradition of holding meetings with global majority countries similarly under Washington’s gun, especially allies and strategic partners like Cuba, Iran, China and Russia. A customary event in Harlem, alongside Cuban officials and international solidarity movements, was scrapped as well.

The acting president’s UN address exposed how anti-imperialism and the defense of multipolarity have vanished from the official discourse. Absent was the hitherto denunciation of Washington’s criminal wars across the globe, replaced by a vague expression of solidarity with “peoples who suffer war.” Nor was there any condemnation of US economic sanctions, which remain in place against Venezuela and its former allies.

Rodríguez offered no words of support for Cuba as it faces a US blockade that gets more murderous by the day. There was no mention of Palestine either. Before January 3, Venezuelan representatives had never wasted an opportunity to reiterate support for the Palestinian cause and to expose the international community’s failure to rein in the genocidal, Western-sponsored settler colony.

In contrast, Venezuela joined the US, Israel, Ukraine, Western European countries and Latin American right-wing governments in boycotting the UN’s commemoration of the 25th anniversary of the Durban Declaration. The 2001 World Conference Against Racism marked a milestone in the ongoing struggle to end racism and colonialism, provoking the ire of the US and Israel, which have led boycotts of every one of its commemorations.

Fuel for a sputtering empire

Along with the 180-degree foreign policy shift, the Rodríguez administration has moved to restructure the economy to the benefit of a declining US hegemon reeling from its strategic defeat in the war against Iran.

With US officials’ input and supervision, Venezuelan authorities have overhauled energy and mining laws in the interest of multinational corporations, slashing taxes and royalties as well as ceding operational and commercial control. Corporate executives, often shepherded by Trump aides, have paraded through the presidential palace to sign agreements carving up Venezuela’s immense subsoil resources.

A recent oil deal with the Trump administration, which Rodríguez also hailed as “historic,” will turn over 17 prime oilfields holding more than a fifth of Venezuela’s crude reserves to a private petroleum company, NABEP, controlled by the Pentagon. Furthermore, the US State Department will be able to buy 20 percent of NABEP’s output at cost, while having a right of first refusal for the remaining 80 percent, for which a Venezuelan oil official promised a major “sales discount.” In other words, Venezuela is going to supply energy below market price to the imperial war machine.

Whatever revenue is ultimately left for Caracas is still going to be controlled by the US Treasury Department, under what Venezuelan state oil company (PDVSA) chief defended as a “state-to-state agreement.” A recent Financial Times report revealed that the White House is presently barring Venezuela from paying dividends to Russian and Chinese joint venture partners in a flagrant attempt to drive them out.

Washington’s semi-colonial control extends beyond privileged access to natural resources, including strategic minerals. A looming privatization drive and debt restructuring process are likely to further entrench Venezuelan dependence on Western monopoly capital. At the same time, the US is also looking to turn the South American country into a captive market for its heavily subsidized agricultural output. Venezuela’s imports of staples such as rice and corn have skyrocketed this year, seriously threatening national production, especially small and mid-size campesino farms supplying much of the country’s food.

(Ab)uses of history

The speed and scope of Caracas’ realignment with Washington has made it an uphill battle for those still insisting that the acting Rodríguez government is merely conducting a “tactical retreat” without straying from the Bolivarian Revolution’s strategic horizon.

One early line of argument was to invoke historical examples, such as the Brest-Litovsk treaty, to rationalize difficult concessions at gunpoint. However, the analogy grew ever more dubious with the passing months, as the Bolsheviks never renounced their anti-imperialist internationalism nor the nascent socialist state’s sovereignty over the commanding heights of the economy.

The argument that subordinating the economy to US-led capital was akin to China’s post-1978 opening up belies the reality that Venezuela does not even manage its own export revenues and must have its expenses approved by the US State Department, subject to auditing by CIA-linked firms like Deloitte.

Venezuelan government officials and unofficial spokespeople have also abused examples related to Chávez, namely his call for troops to stand down in the failed 1992 insurrection and the fact that he did not martyr himself in the 2002 coup that briefly overthrew his democratically-elected government. However, in both cases, Chávez never surrendered his core principles concerning independence and sovereignty. In 2002, he allowed himself to be taken prisoner by the putschists to avoid a bloodbath, but he did not resign and would not have sat quietly if Venezuela were turned into a US semi-colony overnight. On multiple occasions, Chávez underscored he was prepared to fight and die on the frontlines should Venezuela face an Iraq-style US invasion.

There are other historical analogies that are, unfortunately, more appropriate. Iraq after the US invasion, like Venezuela, to this day does not control its oil revenues, which are deposited in a New York Federal Reserve account. Iraq was until recently under US military occupation, hosting some two dozen bases – a possibility that Trump has recently left open for Venezuela. In past months, the US has carried out extrajudicial executions on Venezuelan soil and deployed military assets in the wake of July’s double earthquake, including temporarily taking over operations at the Simón Bolívar International Airport and La Guaira port.

Egypt under President Anwar Sadat is likewise a very instructive precedent. Sadat never renounced his predecessor Gamal Abdel Nasser, simply presenting his program as a “correction” of past mistakes. Yet he progressively dismantled the achievements of Nasserism, rolling back land reform and industrialization policies in favor of imperialist capital. Sadat also realigned Egypt from the Soviet Union to the US camp, going on to reestablish ties with Israel and abandon the Palestinian cause.

Vietnam: The forgotten analogy

Lacking justifications for the new alliance with the Trump administration, Venezuelan government officials and influencers have resorted to straw man arguments, claiming that the “international left” wanted the Venezuelan people to immolate themselves by confronting a vastly superior military foe.

The official rhetoric eclipses what was until recently Caracas’ preferred historical analogy: Vietnam. In late 2025, as the US ramped up its military buildup, Venezuelan leaders warned that Trump would face a “second Vietnam” if he dared to attack. There were months of military drills and detailed preparations across the country, consistent with Venezuela’s asymmetric doctrine of “prolonged people’s war”. 

Ultimately it is impossible to know how much resistance Venezuela could have mounted against the US onslaught because the leadership opted not to fight. US air superiority and electronic warfare notwithstanding, Venezuelan defense officials have neglected to explain why only one of Venezuela’s 5,000 Russian-made Igla-S manpads – ideal for taking down low-flying helicopters and combat aircraft – was used. Venezuela’s armed forces offered no organized resistance on that fateful morning, leaving Maduro’s Cuban security detail virtually alone to confront the invader in what reportedly still proved a fiercely heroic firefight that left 32 Cubans dead.

Though Venezuela might have been unable to avoid decapitation of its top leadership – either via capture or assassination – it could have raised the costs for the US empire to a politically unacceptable degree, potentially miring it in the sort of Iraq-style quagmire that the Trump administration most feared. 

Instead, almost overnight, the acting government seamlessly pivoted from vowing to combat imperialism by all means necessary to fawning over Trump and his underlings. Promises that not a “single drop” of Venezuelan oil would be shipped to the US in case of an attack were replaced by risible claims that supplying crude at cost to the Pentagon was Chávez’s plan all along.

Unable to present a convincing case for the domestic and foreign policy U-turns, official and unofficial government spokespeople have also lashed out at criticism from the Latin American left. Most recently, former Colombian President Gustavo Petro slammed the Rodríguez administration for giving away the nation’s oil to Trump. Caracas responded with ad hominem invectives.

At Washington’s behest, Venezuela has also halted all subsidized oil shipments to Cuba, which has added to the island’s gravest energy crisis in its history. Cuba’s Deputy Foreign Minister Carlos Fernández de Cossío recently said that Venezuela remained a “friendly” country, but added that “ally is too strong a word.”

The cost of capitulation 

The human toll of resistance, whether in sanctions-besieged Venezuela or on the battlefields of West Asia, is always immense. However, as national liberation movements have long understood, the price of capitulation is inevitably higher, especially in the medium and long term. Chávez and Maduro clearly grasped this reality, rallying the masses to withstand decades of US hybrid warfare and forging close alliances with anti-imperialist states from Cuba to Iran. 

The cost of submission, meanwhile, is being borne by the Venezuelan laboring classes, from small farmers hard hit by US agricultural dumping to the urban semi-proletariat devastated by spiraling inflation resulting from Washington’s pilfering of the nation’s export earnings. 

For its part, Venezuela’s comprador bourgeoisie, in both its traditional and emergent fractions, stands to reap fabulous rewards from the demolition of the legislative pillars of the Bolivarian Revolution – viz., hydrocarbons, mining, housing and real estate, or forthcoming axing of labor and land laws – reasserting itself as a servile intermediary for US imperialism. 

There is no better example than NABEP owner Alejandro Betancourt, an oil mogul who amassed a fortune from often-unfulfilled state contracts dating back to 2009 and was hand-picked by the Trump administration as a middleman in the 25-year agreement backstopped by the Pentagon. The White House went as far as pressuring domestic and foreign courts to drop money laundering accusations against Betancourt.

Rodríguez and her leadership faction likewise benefit from what analyst William Serafino has called the new regime of “co-government” with the Trump White House, tying their fortunes to the latter to outflank rivals and solidify the strategic alliance with local and imperialist capital. 

The current acting president is one of the architects of the post-2018 neoliberal economic package that was the fulcrum of a new governability pact with the local bourgeoisie, freezing wages and social spending in exchange for social “peace”. Indeed, as then vice president, Rodríguez reportedly brought Betancourt back to Venezuela in 2023, shuttering an investigation into his alleged corruption and key role in financing the self-proclaimed Juan Guaidó “interim presidency” during the first Trump administration. The episode is symptomatic of the Venezuelan government’s Faustian gambit to appease business sectors and maintain a modest economic recovery under crushing sanctions, but at the cost of slowly eroding its popular support base.

The Maduro administration’s concessions hollowed out the Bolivarian Revolution’s sovereign edifice but its institutional foundations remained formally intact alongside the internationalist geopolitical scaffolding binding Venezuela to the broader Axis of Resistance. The post-January 3 semi-colonial offensive has set about demolishing this structure of political-military and economic independence. While the destruction can be repaired through sustained bottom-up mobilization advancing a national popular alternative to capitulation, it will likely be the outcome of a medium- and long-term process. Nevertheless, there are growing signs of revolutionary movements and intellectuals organizing to confront the US empire and its local agents and reconquer sovereignty as the cornerstone of any future socialist construction.

What should be clear without a sliver of a doubt is that the “Rodrigato” – and the lumpen bourgeoisie it represents – has opted to pact with the Trump administration. Any revolutionary strategy to resist re-colonization must begin from concrete analysis of concrete conditions. Ignoring the acting Venezuelan leadership’s discourse and policies, pretending that there is a cunning secret plan being devised or trying to frame everything as a masterful 3D chess move, will ultimately hamper the most important task: fighting US imperialism.

Source: Sovereign Media

Two men have been re-arrested after an incident near RAF Fairford last month, counter-terrorism police have said.

A 24-year-old UK national, and a 25-year-old dual UK-Iranian national, are being held on suspicion of assisting a foreign intelligence service under Section 3 of the National Security Act 2023, with police saying the investigation relates to Iran.

Police had been alerted to three suspicious vehicles near the US airbase in Gloucestershire in the early hours of 27 September – a major incident was subsequently declared and dozens of homes evacuated.

Seven men had initially been arrested as part of the counter-terror police investigation and were later released on bail.

Five men were found with petrol in three vans near the airbase – they were initially arrested on suspicion of committing offences under the Explosives Act and then further arrested on suspicion of preparation of a terrorist act.

The re-arrests announced on Tuesday relate to a 24-year-old man who was initially held on the 27 September near the base and a 25-year-old who was arrested on suspicion of preparation of terrorist acts days later on 1 October in Westminster.

The other five men remain on police bail.

The head of National Counter Terrorism Policing, Assistant Commissioner Laurence Taylor said: “This is very much a live investigation, and our evidence gathering continues, but at this time our position remains the same; we consider it highly likely that there is Iranian state involvement.

“Our investigators are continuing to examine what that level of involvement was and the ambition behind it.”

The officer added that national security investigations can take time to progress due to their sensitive nature.

“Our specialist teams have been working tirelessly to interrogate the many lines of enquiry involved in this hugely complex investigation,” he said.

Following the incident, Gloucestershire Police said it had received a call about “three suspicious vehicles” travelling towards RAF Fairford at 00:45 BST.

A bomb disposal team was deployed to the village to examine a number of vehicles, police said at the time.

The revocations targeted visa holders who had allegedly broken the law, or pose threats to national security.

The Trump administration has said it has revoked more than 300,000 visas issued to foreign nationals, claiming it has done so at a faster pace than any previous administration.

A spokesman for the US Department of State said on social media on Tuesday that the revocations targeted foreign nationals in the United States on visas who had broken the law, committed fraud or posed threats to national security.

“We have zero tolerance for foreigners here on visas who break the law, commit fraud, or undermine our national security,” Tommy Pigott, State Department spokesman, said in a post on the social media platform X.

The administration would continue taking action to secure US borders and protect national security, he added.

Al Jazeera has reached out to the State Department for comment.

The number of visa revocations exceeded 175,000 in August.

In January, the department said it had revoked more than 100,000 visas, a record at the time.

The administration has also adopted a stricter policy on granting visas, with tightened social media vetting and expanded screening.

Rights advocates and human rights experts have condemned the Trump administration’s social media screening efforts, which they say threaten free speech and are akin to surveillance and the singling out of immigrants.

Paddy Power-owner Flutter has announced plans to cut up to 1,400 jobs as its boss claimed the company “cannot fully absorb” tax rises imposed on the gambling industry.

Staff based in Leeds and Dublin, as well as workers for its UK and Ireland business at Flutter’s Portugal and Romania sites, will be most affected, but what roles are at risk has not been disclosed.

The government announced taxes rises on online casino and sports betting, with an exemption for horse racing, in the Budget last year.

Flutter boss Kevin Harrington said the tax hikes had “fundamentally changed” the economic model of the UK betting and gaming industry, arguing it had helped “fuel the unlicensed, unregulated market”.

“We continue to expect these tax increases to have a very significant impact on the overall market,” Flutter Entertainment said on Tuesday.

Flutter, which also owns Sky Bet and Betfair, employs 28,500 people across the world, including 9,000 in the UK and Ireland.

As well as its Leeds and Dublin offices, the BBC understands the cuts could also affect staff based in London and Sunderland, as well as Malta and Gibraltar.

Harrington, who is chief executive of the betting giant’s UK and Ireland business, said: “As we warned a year ago, we cannot fully absorb a rise of this magnitude without reducing our fixed cost base and therefore must restructure our business so that we can best position ourselves for the future.”

The BBC has contacted the Treasury for comment.

Flutter delisted from the London Stock Exchange in August in a blow to the UK, with its shares now solely traded in New York.

In its most recent results, the company reported a $299m (£224m) pre-tax loss for the three months to June for its entire business worldwide, compared to a $205m profit in the same period last year. Sales rose 3% to $4.3bn.

However, revenues in the UK and Ireland rose by 4% over the period, due to strong growth in online gambling games.

Some online gambling tax rises announced in last year’s Budget took effect in April. This included remote gaming duty, which is paid on online casino betting, rising from 21% to 40%.

General betting duty, paid on the profits made from various forms of sports betting, was kept at 15% in betting shops, but is set to rise from 15% to 25% online in April next year.

Betting firms had warned that cost increases would lead to job losses and betting shop closures, but MPs dismissed the warnings as “scaremongering”.

During the summer, Ladbrokes owner Entain announced job cuts, with news agency Reuters reporting 500 roles were being removed.

Punters’ winnings from gambling are not taxed in the UK, nor is VAT charged on bets.

Flutter said its restructuring plan would cost between $80m and $90m.

The company has claimed in previous financial results that the impact of UK tax rises would hit its underlying profit by $320m this year and $540m in 2027, before any savings or restructure to mitigate the impact.

London, United Kingdom – There was a moment towards the end of Andy Burnham’s conference speech in Liverpool that, through silence, spoke volumes.

The new prime minister and Labour leader fell quiet.

For 20 seconds he stood, saying nothing. He hadn’t forgotten his words. He was gathering his emotions for a passage of the speech he hadn’t been able to make it through in rehearsals without crying.

Burnham’s father had died just a couple of weeks before, and this was the section where he’d talk about it.

As the audience realised what was coming they stood, applauding, and urging him on with shouts of “Come on, lad!’ and “Come on, Andy!”

Thanking them, he composed himself and continued.

Conference speeches are theatre, and contemporary British political standards require that a leader be relatable. But there’s little doubt that Andy Burnham handled this moment with an emotional register that struck many as genuine.

His predecessor Keir Starmer sometimes came across as wooden, almost robotic and uncomfortable in front of cameras. Burnham, the seventh prime minister in 10 years, is more emotional.

He talks big ideas and grand solutions and relishes the opportunity to communicate.

In the vibes-denominated currency of modern political discourse, this matters.

The polls speak for themselves. Politico’s Poll of Polls had the Labour Party retake top spot shortly after Burnham became PM – a position it has not relinquished since. At the end of September, Ipsos found Andy Burnham to be the only politician with a positive net favourability rating.

YouGov’s polling also judges him the most popular politician in the UK at the moment.

But to keep up, Burnham must deliver tangible change before the next general election. Unless he calls one early, that will be 2029.

According to political analyst Sam Freedman, “So many in Westminster keep coming back to an early election, despite Burnham ruling it out … No one can quite figure out how Burnham keeps the hope vibe going for three more years with relatively little visible progress.”

‘Going back to what Labour was in the 50s’

In the Welsh town of Port Talbot, terraces of workers’ cottages cluster beside the UK’s largest steelworks.

Like much of Wales, Port Talbot did vote Labour for a century – until elections for the Senedd Cymru or Welsh Parliament in May.

Labour was beaten to an unprecedented third place behind Plaid Cymru’s nationalists, and the anti-immigration Reform UK.

But that was before Burnham took over.

Myles Lewis, who organises social walks for the town’s elderly, told Al Jazeera that Labour had not convinced people on immigration, and Starmer’s communication wasn’t good enough.

“[But now], it’s kind of going back to what Labour was in the 50s and 60s, where they actually looked after the working-class people. I do believe Andy Burnham can get there because I think he has the interests of the working-class people.”

In his first weeks in power, Burnham delivered a quick flurry of eye-catching, domestic, cost-of-living-focused policies.

He capped bus fares, cut the value-added tax (VAT) on electricity bills, and cut business rates for pubs.

He said that he would end street homelessness, reindustrialise the country, take services back into public control, and start the biggest build-out of social housing since World War II.

The mayor of Greater Manchester for nine years, Burnham supports the devolution of powers from Westminster to the UK’s nations and regions.

In July, he announced mayors could keep a share of business rates from April 2027 and of income tax from 2028.

And his conference speech in September set out the contours of some big political battles to come, including a national social care service, free at the point of use, paid for by changing the UK pensions’ triple lock from 2030. It would arrive next parliament. Burnham also pitched a national commission on electoral reform, with a manifesto commitment to overhaul the voting system. And he delivered a blunt verdict on Brexit: that it “has done more harm than good”. He wouldn’t rule out an in-out referendum, or a pledge for the UK to rejoin the European Union, in Labour’s next manifesto, he said.

On foreign affairs, there is less blue water between Burnham and his predecessors.

When he travelled to Ukraine in August, the UK’s new prime minister came with a headline-grabbing gift – British know-how to build the long-range SCALP missile. He was the fourth British prime minister to visit Kyiv since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and pledge steadfast support.

On Gaza, he has said the Labour government “didn’t get it right” and should have called for a ceasefire earlier. And in September, the Burnham government announced a sanctions package against illegal West Bank settlements.

But there has been no genocide declaration, and no full arms embargo against Israel. And Burnham hasn’t overturned the Starmer government’s proscription of the Palestine Action protest group as a “terrorist” organisation.

Defence spending is also a looming problem.

The government’s formal defence pledge is 3.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2035, and Burnham has declined to say whether he’d pay for it with tax rises or welfare cuts.

John Healey, who resigned as the UK’s defence secretary in June over underfunding, is now chancellor of the exchequer, and will not commit to the 3-percent-by-2030 target he set himself.

Burnham’s first budget comes at the end of this month. A full spending review follows next year. Much will be clearer after these.

His biggest pledges – reindustrialisation, control of public services, a new social care system – are expensive.

Burnham certainly has the vibes. The public likes them, for now. The budget will show whether he can afford them.

For several days, the streets of Tirana have witnessed a wave of antigovernment demonstrations, with demonstrators engaged in fierce clashes with security forces, while police have fired tear gas on thousands of young protesters to prevent them from scaling barricades.

Protests escalated last week after school and university students joined them, citing rising tuition fees and crumbling infrastructure.

What initially began as a targeted environmental protest in May has rapidly escalated into one of the most serious political challenges facing Prime Minister Edi Rama in his more than a decade in power.

Yet, as the unrest reaches a boiling point, a fundamental question remains: Who is behind this movement, and can it force systemic political change?

Contrary to claims by government officials that the unrest is being orchestrated by political opponents or external actors, analysts and journalists on the ground emphasise that the movement is largely decentralised and youth-driven.

Fatos Hakorja, editor-in-chief of TV Klan and Klan News, told Al Jazeera that the demonstrations have evolved organically into a broad coalition of high school students, university students, environmentalists, and aggrieved citizens.

“So far, what can be said with certainty is that the protests have been organised mainly by young people themselves,” Hakorja told Al Jazeera. “What began as the ‘Flamingo Revolution’ gradually developed into a broader student and youth protest… There is no clear evidence that a single consolidated structure stands behind the protests,” he said, referring to the May protest against a luxury resort that threatens the protected coastline.

Hakorja noted that coordination takes place dynamically across digital platforms such as WhatsApp, Telegram, and Snapchat, rather than through formal organisational hierarchies.

Albanian political analyst and publicist Ben Andoni echoed this view, describing the situation not merely as a standard protest, but as “a genuine, horizontal revolt”.

“The protest has turned into a rebellion for the past seven days. It was a protest before, but it has never taken on the character of a movement. If it were so, there would be a leadership group and some short-, medium-, and long-term goals,” Andoni told Al Jazeera.

“It is a horizontal movement, where people are mobilised by TikTok groups and social networks, but not by true cultural and political organisations. That is also a handicap or a source of pressure for Rama’s government, which seeks to negotiate, but finds no single counterpart standing in its way.”

From the ‘Flamingo Revolution’ to broad structural discontent

The roots of the current unrest are multifaceted, blending localised grievances with deep-seated frustration over governance, economic stagnation, and corruption.

The initial spark – dubbed the “Flamingo Revolution” – was ignited by environmental opposition to controversial luxury development projects, notably in the protected area of Zvernec and the planned resort investment on Sazan Island by the firm of Jared Kushner, United States President Donald Trump’s son-in-law.

The flamingo, native to these coastal lagoons, quickly became a symbol of resistance against the perceived commodification of public lands.

However, environmental concerns swiftly converged with student anger over high tuition fees, inadequate dormitory conditions, and low educational competitiveness. Beneath these immediate triggers lies a much deeper structural crisis.

“Problems of corruption, nepotism, and a lack of perspective are the main reasons that drove people to protest,” Andoni explained.

“The protest summarised the entire range of problems that Albania has, and brought them to the doorstep of a government that has crossed lines regarding corruption, inequality, and particularly a lack of empathy for the people.

“Among some protesters, especially on social media, there is also a narrative that Rama is placing the country’s interests at the service of private interests, his personal hold on power, or foreign interests, including Israeli interests. These claims have not been proven, but they seem to have increased the anger of some young people and part of the wider population,” Hakorja added.

Rama has strongly rejected the allegations, calling them conspiracy theories and dismissing them as manipulated disinformation spread through social media by “foreign hands”, aimed at destabilising the government and undermining the country’s public institutions.

Rejection of the entire political class

A defining feature of the uprising is the protesters’ explicit rejection of the ruling Socialist Party (SP) and the traditional opposition, including the Democratic Party (PD) led by Sali Berisha.

While Prime Minister Rama has accused the opposition of taking over the movement, and opposition supporters have joined the crowds on the ground, experts stress that opposition leaders exercise no direct control over the demonstrators. In fact, several opposition MPs who attempted to address the crowds faced open hostility and rejection.

“A large number of these young people seem to feel unrepresented by the whole political class,” Hakorja told Al Jazeera.

“They see the political system as disconnected from their reality and as a system that protects the interests of a minority more than it addresses the problems of the majority of citizens.”

This widespread cynicism has resulted in an uncompromising stance. Demonstrators have demanded the immediate resignation of Prime Minister Rama and the formation of a technical government, refusing official offers of dialogue due to a total breakdown of trust in state institutions.

The deep cynicism towards Albania’s political class stems from a widespread feeling that leaders are entirely indifferent to citizens’ daily struggles. Young people face rampant corruption, high unemployment, and an economy that drives huge brain drain.

This disconnect is further spurred by years of government apathy towards crumbling public education, high tuition fees, and poor dormitory conditions.

Furthermore, controversial state-backed developments – such as the planned luxury resort by Kushner’s firm – serve as prime examples for citizens who believe the political establishment consistently trades national resources and public goods for private and foreign interests.

Heavy-handed security and growing fatigue

Faced with a leaderless movement that refuses to negotiate, the Albanian government has increasingly relied on security forces to maintain control.

Police have been accused of brutality as they have used tear gas, water cannons, and rubber bullets to quell the protesters. At least 167 people have been arrested, including minors.

In a move that highlights the administration’s reliance on law enforcement, Prime Minister Rama announced a 2,500-euro ($2,800) bonus for police officers on the front lines, alongside substantial salary increases set for 2027.

Hakorja pointed out that the government is treating the crisis predominantly as a matter of public order and security.

He also highlighted troubling incidents, such as the appearance of unidentified civilians armed with wooden sticks inside the Socialist Party headquarters. While these individuals remained inside to protect the building as protesters hurled stones and attacked the entrance, their presence – including individuals holding public positions – led to fears of informal, non-state security responses operating alongside or outside official police forces.

What lies ahead?

As both sides brace for further escalation, the immediate outlook remains uncertain. Without clear leadership to negotiate terms, or intervention from international partners such as the European Union and the US, the deadlock threatens to prolong political instability.

According to Andoni, the Rama administration has used force as its main instrument, as it has suffered a severe loss of moral authority and legitimacy.

“Demonstrators remain persistent and aggressive, while Rama plays the card of force through the police,” Andoni told Al Jazeera, adding that “fatigue” is impacting the young protesters.

“It seems that young people may execute a tactical withdrawal first by temporarily stepping back from the streets due to exhaustion, leaving the weight and burden of proof on Mr Rama” – placing the ultimate responsibility on the prime minister to prove that his government has the legitimacy, capability, and sincere intent to carry out deep reforms and resolve a crisis that police force has only further escalated.

Whether this youth-led rebellion marks the beginning of a new political era in Albania or subsides under policing and exhaustion, it has irrevocably exposed the deep rift between Albania’s youth and its governing political establishment.

Ronaldo was 36 when he returned to Manchester United from Juventus in 2021, when Ole Gunnar Solskjaer was manager.

Under Ten Hag, he scored just three goals in 16 outings before his exit during the 2022-23 campaign.

“It’s the wrong idea to put this to me that I expected him to do the pressing, that he’s exhausted,” added Ten Hag. “But he couldn’t. He ran neither in possession nor out of possession. The reason was because he didn’t prepare himself.

“Every top team has to embrace the top player, but the top player has to work for the team.

“He was telling the players, ‘save your legs at the training’. I understand it when you are top fit – you have sessions you can save the legs. But first you have to train yourself to get into the right fitness levels.”

The publication of Ten Hag’s interview comes as Ronaldo has been given a 30-day suspension and fined 255 euros (£215) by the Portuguese Football Federation for leaving his country’s international camp last month.

Ten Hag was sacked by Manchester United in October 2024, having won the Carabao Cup in 2023 and FA Cup in 2024.

On his time at Old Trafford, Ten Hag added he wanted to sign Frenkie de Jong, Harry Kane and Declan Rice, and was against the sale of Scott McTominay to Napoli in August 2024.

“I said for the first season, ‘centre-half, there’s a problem, centre-midfield, there is a problem, and especially I need a strategist, then we need goals’. And that was the biggest issue in all my three years: goals,” said Ten Hag.

Thanks to Google Earth, we can finally put this one to bed. Since the B-21’s unveiling, people have made wild claims about its wingspan, specifically how tiny it is. This was never the case, as we have reported continuously since we first set eyes on it. Many AI-generated and enthusiast-made B-21 fact sheets have gone viral on social media showing wingspans under 130 feet, which only helped propel the nonsense. Now we can definitively say, give or take a few feet, the B-21 spans 152 feet and is 61 feet long. This puts it at about 12% smaller in terms of wingspan than the B-2, and about the same — 12% smaller — when it comes to length.

The image in question, taken of Edwards AFB and dated June 20, 2026, was recently uploaded to Google Earth. While we have seen satellite images of the B-21 going about its business before, this one was published in the public domain and had enough resolution, when paired with Google Earth’s excellent measurement tools, to get conclusive measurements.

Since we first saw the B-21 at Plant 42 in Palmdale, California, during its unveiling, which TWZ attended, we put the top-end size at 155 feet wingspan-wise. That analysis has only narrowed over the years. I have had many emails, social media threads, and other engagements with folks claiming the aircraft was in the sub-130-foot wingspan range. Now we can finally put those battles behind us.

So what does the size tell us? Nothing we don’t already know. The B-21 was always going to be smaller than the B-2. Our analysis from many years ago has stayed the same — the aircraft would be designed with a premium on range and affordability, as well as very low observability, over massive payload. This resulted in the aircraft you see today. It is smaller, but with design priorities that have shifted from its predecessor’s, and 12% smaller in pure dimensions makes total sense considering what Northrop Grumman was trying to achieve. Above all else, it points to the B-21 having an extreme unrefueled range, with improved aerodynamics for high-altitude cruise, more gas for its size, and two efficient engines instead of four.

As for its length, the B-21 is nearly the same length as an F-15 fighter, which sounds bizarre for a large bomber. However, flying wings are visual transformers, looking like compact UFOs side-on and massive head-on or from the planform view.

As far as what else we can discern from the Google Earth image? Not much. We get a bit of a better view of the B-21’s exhaust configuration, but nothing is really revelatory there. The exhausts are deeply buried with large planar exhaust exit ‘ramps’ and have a large chevron trailing edge over the exhaust aperture itself. We have seen some pretty detailed images of this general arrangement from the rear that have been posted on social media. We do see the exhaust pathway as black in color, a feature that was edited out in the official top-down photo of the B-21 seen above, which was released in April, and this is something we mentioned at the time.

In a letter outlining 42 questions, UEFA gives FIFA until November 2 to release documents on Infantino’s aborted plans.

UEFA has given FIFA a deadline of November 2 to release documents relating to its president Gianni Infantino’s aborted attempts at a secretive investment plan for the World Cup and other governance issues.

The latest move in a power struggle between the global and continental governing bodies was revealed on Monday, days after European football’s top officials were disappointed by what they perceived as a lack of clarity from Infantino over the issues at a FIFA Council meeting last week.

Infantino provided no documents about the $4.2bn World Cup sell-off plan he launched and quickly dropped in July amid a fierce backlash led by Europe.

Among the 42 questions to which UEFA is demanding answers are: Infantino’s personal remuneration package, financial payments made to singer Marc Anthony, the handling of USA striker Folarin Balogun’s disciplinary case, business and political relationships involving US President Donald Trump and his family, and the operational independence of FIFA’s judicial, electoral and ethics committees.

UEFA asked US federal courts to authorise subpoenas compelling the production of documents and sworn testimony about the abandoned investment plan called FIFA Forward Enterprise.

FIFA lawyers have claimed UEFA is harassing Infantino.

Al Jazeera reached out to FIFA for a comment but did not receive a response.

Deep dissatisfaction

The formal letter, signed by UEFA general secretary Theodore Theodoridis on behalf of European FIFA Council members, stated Infantino’s apology for his actions and subsequent explanation failed to address their core concerns.

“These explanations have not begun satisfactorily to address a number of fundamental questions raised by Council members. Others remain unanswered, and the information and documentation requested have not been [provided],” the letter said.

“The withdrawal of FFE, the recognition of mistakes, and the announcement of ‘potential governance reforms’ do not answer how the relevant decisions were taken or why the FIFA Council was not involved at the appropriate stage.”

According to media reports, the letter further said: “Any refusal to disclose information or documents should be justified individually, with a clear explanation of the specific grounds relied upon.”

Tight timeline

UEFA submitted 42 detailed questions to FIFA, demanding responses by November 2 — 16 days before the nomination deadline for the presidential election on March 18, 2027.

With the next FIFA Council meeting scheduled for December 16 in Doha, Qatar — after nominations close — UEFA insisted that answers cannot wait.

“These questions require answers now. They cannot be deferred until the next meeting of the FIFA Council — nor can future governance reforms substitute for scrutiny of decisions already taken and accountability for them,” the letter emphasised.

The earlier deadline would give federations time to assess FIFA’s answers — or its failure to answer — while they can still nominate or endorse a challenger.

With more than one million votes counted, about 76 percent supported remaining in Canada.

Alberta residents have voted to remain ⁠part of Canada in the province’s first-ever referendum on separation, in a much-needed win for Prime Minister Mark Carney as he ‌attempts to unify the country amid an ongoing trade war with the United States.

With more than one million votes counted, about 77 percent supported remaining in Canada, compared with 23 percent who backed beginning a process that could lead to separation, early results showed on Tuesday.

The vote was not a direct referendum on independence but would have set oil-rich Alberta on a path towards a future vote on separation from Canada.

Carney welcomed the result and said Albertans had made a “clear choice” in favour of unity.

“They chose unity, to build together, and to take care of each other,” he said in a statement on X.

Jeffrey Rath, a top leader of the secessionist Alberta Prosperity Project, told reporters his push for an independent Alberta will “absolutely” continue, despite the result from Monday’s vote.

“We’ve learned a lot of lessons from this fight,” he said.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, a conservative, said she voted against independence but called the referendum to settle an issue that has divided the province.

She has said a win for the federalists would close the secession question.

Alberta has the world’s fourth-largest proven oil reserves, and much of the secessionist momentum has been driven by anger over oil industry management.

Smith has blamed Carney’s predecessor Justin Trudeau for igniting the secessionist fire, accusing him of trying to crush oil production to advance his pro-climate agenda.

Alberta’s independence push has also drawn sustained interest from the allies of US President Donald Trump, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who called Alberta Washington’s “natural partner”. Elon Musk, the world’s richest person and eminent Trump supporter, also posted on X that Alberta “should separate”.

Carney, who grew up in Alberta, has worked to improve relations between the province and Ottawa since taking office last year. He has partnered with Smith on advancing a new pipeline to export more Alberta bitumen overseas, a project considered a nonstarter during Trudeau’s tenure.

As he prepares for a potential future conflict on the continent, the commanding general of Multi-Domain Command Europe told TWZ that he envisions dispersing hundreds of high-altitude balloons at a time. The balloons, Brig. Gen. Steven Carpenter explained, would be used for a wide range of purposes, from serving as communications platforms to launching weapons. For years now, TWZ has been closely tracking the expanding use of high-altitude balloons and other lighter-than-air systems globally for intelligence gathering, networking, as platforms for launching drones, and in support of other missions.

Basically, in the European scenario, hundreds or possibly thousands of balloons would be sent east. They would provide attritable real-time reconnaissance, strike, and decoy capabilities, while also acting as a force multiplier for other assets by providing a resilient active network over the battlefield — one that could help fill in the gaps if the space-based layer gets degraded.

“We would like to proliferate the stratosphere with high-altitude balloons, but I mean 200, 300 at a time,” Carpenter told us during last week’s Association of the U.S. Army (AUSA) conference in Washington, D.C., which TWZ attended. The Army would utilize high-altitude balloons “not only as decoys, a lot of decoys, but also communications retrans[mission platforms], electronic sensing, as well as electronic attack, and then obviously air-launched effects to be able to drop them down and use kinetic means as well.”

Air-launched effects (ALEs) is a collective term the U.S. military now commonly uses to discuss air-launched drones configured for a wide array of missions. The ALE umbrella encompasses designs that can be used for surveillance and reconnaissance, electronic warfare tasks, or signal relay, and can act as decoys. It also includes loitering munitions often referred to as kamikaze drones, capable of carrying kinetic attacks.

In general, modern high-altitude balloons offer persistent deployment that can last for days, weeks or even months at a time. After navigating to an assigned operating area, some modern balloon systems can hold their position, in spite of prevailing winds, by modulating their altitudes to keep on station.

In addition, high-altitude balloons operate at heights providing excellent fields of view for radars, cameras, and other sensors in all directions and across very broad areas. From a perch of 60,000 feet or more, they also offer a way to peer into certain denied areas while still soaring in international airspace and keeping farther away from potential threats. During a conflict, the balloons could be deployed deep into enemy airspace as they are attritable.

Though some balloon systems can hold their general positions in many circumstances, Carpenter told us that seasonal weather changes will still play a role in deployment.

“The flight paths are different. We study that,” he noted. “We understand during what seasons where the best places are to launch those high-altitude systems, and then again to hold enemy cities and capabilities at risk at any time, so that we can defeat them at the time and place of our choosing.”

We asked Carpenter for more details about how he sees balloons being used by troops in Europe.

“I think everybody knows there’ll be a point where satellite communications are going to be degraded, if not eliminated,” he stated. “One of the things that we’re focusing on is in the stratosphere, so above 60,000 feet up to 80,000 feet, which is next to impossible to target unless you’re using one of your exquisite systems, fifth-gen fighters, SA-21 Bravo [S-400 Triumf surface-to-air missile system], etc. to shoot that stuff down.”

Many of the balloons would be equipped with Link 16, a NATO-standard tactical datalink communication system central to U.S. and allied military operations, the general said. Link 16 allows coalition forces to seamlessly transmit and exchange real-time situational awareness data. You can read more about how Link 16 works, and its increasing dependence of space, in our story here.

As for using balloons as ALE delivery platforms, Carpenter told us there are “different technologies, different altitudes that we’d have to deliver those from” at “different ranges, different levels of yield or lethality. But for us, it’s really just a single arrow in a quiver full of arrows, utilizing space capabilities, cyber capabilities, or surface-to-surface capabilities. In this case, you’re talking just another air-to-surface capability with your air-launched effects off balloons.”

Carpenter said that when it comes to balloon-launched ALEs, he is looking at “everything from shorter range, lower yield, maybe targeting an adversary ballistic missile radar, to longer range, higher yield capabilities that you might use to maybe take out a ballistic missile system.”

In such cases, the balloons would carry drones deep into enemy territory, where they would be launched opportunistically to strike the targets Carpenter suggested. The size of the target, and how well it is protected, would determine what kinds of drones the balloons would launch, as well as their proximity to the target.

Should a fight break out in Europe tonight, Carpenter said he is confident he can rely on the technology.

“Our operating concept is proven,” he stated, noting that “we’ve already tested those capabilities against most modern adversary systems that exist. We’ve already validated our operating concept in terms of getting to mass and scale that we would need in large-scale conflict.”

As we have previously reported, while high-altitude balloons have been used for decades, the modern concept of these systems was recently employed operationally by the U.S. in a combat theater.

The Army had planned to demonstrate the ability of balloons to operate in swarms with a high degree of autonomy in the Pacific region last year before those assets were redirected to the Middle East. When exactly that deployment occurred and how long it lasted are unclear.

“We were asked to pivot and do some experimentation in combination with operations, and we pivoted and supported operations in CENTCOM [U.S. Central Command],” Andrew Evans, Director of Strategy and Transformation with the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Army, or G-2, told Breaking Defense, according to a story the outlet published last week. “They were effective for the mission that they were assigned,” he added. However, Evans was not able to disclose the exact location and operational scenarios in which they were used.

Other countries, including U.S. allies and partners, are increasingly fielding balloon-based and other lighter-than-air systems, too. Ukrainian forces notably have been using balloons to conduct kinetic attacks and launch drones against Russian assets. On the other side of that conflict, the Russians have used balloons as decoys to confuse and misdirect air defenses.

The following video shows Ukrainian forces using balloons to launch kamikaze drones.

To achieve the effects he laid out, Carpenter told us that he will still need to surge capacity to Europe.

“The Army will make decisions on which vendors they’re going to go with,” he pointed out. “But the ability to field that at scale is just simply based on the resources provided. I’m talking about money to go ahead and bring them into theater.”

Pushed to provide details of how quickly he could have the desired number of balloons, Carpenter told us that “if the United States or NATO and its allies were on a wartime footing, it would be extremely rapid, but we would need to get them into theater before crisis turned to conflict. So we’d have to keep a close eye from an IC [intelligence community] perspective on indicators and warnings to make sure we have the right systems on the ground at point of need.”

The Army’s overall vision for balloons is not new; the service has been openly discussing it for at least six years now. However, the use of high-altitude balloons in this context is now being operationalized. Meanwhile, China has very actively shown off its ability to gather intelligence and conduct other missions using balloons and other lighter-than-air craft on a broad operational level across the Pacific. TWZ had been reporting on this reality for years before it was thrust fully into the public consciousness after a Chinese spy balloon passed over parts of the United States and Canada back in 2023.

The concept Carpenter laid out for how balloons will be used in a future European conflict is another example of the renaissance in lighter-than-air military technology and how the Pentagon is increasingly seeking to weaponize it on a grand scale.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

Israelis go to the polls on October 27 to elect the 26th Knesset, in the first general vote since the genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the wars on Lebanon and Iran.

Benjamin Netanyahu, the longest-serving prime minister in Israel’s history, with 19 years in office, is seeking another term while standing trial on corruption charges. His Likud party and the far-right coalition it leads are locked in a close race with a Jewish-led opposition bloc, with neither side appearing on track to win an outright majority in the 120-seat Knesset, Israel’s parliament.

About 7.3 million people aged 18 and above are eligible to vote, according to Israel’s Central Elections Committee. Most polling stations open from 7am to 10pm, and anyone still queuing when they close is entitled to vote. Election day is a national holiday.

Any party clearing an electoral threshold of 3.25 percent enters parliament, which sits for a four-year term. There are no term limits for a prime minister.

How voting works

Israelis vote for a party, not a candidate.

A majority requires 61 of the 120 seats and no party has ever won that outright. Finishing first does not guarantee power. Parties then have 28 days, with a possible extension of up to 14 days, to assemble a coalition reaching 61. If nobody manages it, the country votes again.

Seats are shared out in proportion to each party’s share of the national vote, so a party winning 30 percent of votes takes roughly 30 percent of seats. The votes for parties failing to secure 3.25 percent are discarded, which explains why small parties routinely merge before every election.

Who can and cannot vote?

About 7.3 million Israeli citizens are eligible to vote in this election, but they are not the only adults living under the government they choose.

Roughly three million adult Palestinians in Gaza, the occupied West Bank and occupied East Jerusalem have no vote in the government that controls their borders, movement and legal status.

Jewish Israelis and Palestinian citizens of Israel, who number about 1.2 million, can vote. So can adult settlers among the more than 750,000 Israelis living in the occupied West Bank and occupied East Jerusalem, who help elect the parliament that legislates over the land they live on.

Most Palestinians in occupied East Jerusalem hold Israeli residency, not citizenship. They can vote for Jerusalem’s city council but not for the Knesset.

The result is a sharp anomaly in the occupied West Bank, where a settler votes and a Palestinian family living nearby, under the same military authority, does not.

Most Israeli citizens living abroad also cannot vote, because Israel has no general absentee ballot and requires voters to be physically in the country on election day. Diplomats and state emissaries are the exception, casting their ballots at Israeli missions on October 20.

What are the main issues?

Israelis are dealing with a series of domestic and international issues this election cycle, including:

• October 7 security failures – Three years on, the government is yet to form a state commission of inquiry into the events of October 7, 2023, when a Hamas-headed attack led to the killing of some 1,200 people, with about 250 taken captive. Israel launched the genocidal war against Palestinians in the wake of the attack, killing at least 74,000 people and leaving most of the besieged territory in ruins.
• Ultra-Orthodox draft exemptions – Supporters of the exemptions say they protect full-time Torah study, but critics argue they place an unfair military burden on everyone else.
• Judicial reform – Netanyahu’s push to curb the Supreme Court’s powers, which sparked mass protests before the war on Gaza, remains a deep fault line. Critics see it as a threat to democracy, while supporters argue that the court has overstepped its authority.
• War and security – The public wants stability but remains wary of concessions in Gaza, the occupied West Bank and Lebanon. Netanyahu promised “total victory”, but Hamas and Hezbollah remain operational.
• Cost of living – High prices and modest wages are being further squeezed by soaring defence spending. Since 2023, Israel’s defence budget has doubled, increasing pressure on public finances.

Israel’s outgoing government

Netanyahu’s coalition held 60 of the Knesset’s 120 seats when parliament dissolved in July. It comprised Likud with 32 seats, Shas with 11, Religious Zionism with seven, Itamar Ben-Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit with six, and New Hope with four. Shas left the government in July 2025 but remained in the coalition and New Hope will merge into Likud for this election.

The opposition held 59 seats: Yesh Atid with 24, Blue and White with eight, United Torah Judaism with seven, Yisrael Beiteinu with six, Hadash-Taal and Raam with five each and Labor with four. Noam’s single seat was unaffiliated.

Who are the main contenders?

Netanyahu is seeking re-election while facing a trial on corruption charges, which he denies.

His far-right coalition is up against a bloc comprising of four major Jewish-led opposition parties, whose leaders have signed a declaration promising not to attack each other ahead of the vote and to join forces in forming a government after the polls.

Former army chief Gadi Eisenkot is viewed as the opposition’s most likely candidate for prime minister, with his new Yashar party evenly matched with Likud in the opinion polls.

The opposition alliance includes the Together list, led by former Prime Ministers Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid; Avigdor Liberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu and Yair Golan’s Democrats.

Other key players include far-right ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, the ultra-Orthodox parties, and the Arab-majority lists Ra’am and the Joint List.

Last month, Israel’s Central Elections Committee voted to bar Ra’am and the Joint List from the election, but the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the bans on October 2, ruling that the evidence did not meet the legal threshold for exclusion.

Sami Abu Shehadeh, a Palestinian citizen of Israel who leads Balad, one of the parties in the Joint List, withdrew from the race after the court signalled that a majority of its judges would uphold his disqualification.

The Arab-led parties could hold the balance of power after the vote, but most leaders of the Jewish-led opposition bloc have ruled out joining forces with them.

Sixth election in seven years

October 27 will be Israel’s sixth national vote since 2019, but the first in 38 years to arrive at the natural end of a full Knesset term.

The instability began in April 2019, when Netanyahu’s Likud party and Benny Gantz’s Blue and White party tied on 35 seats each. A second vote that September produced another deadlock, with Blue and White on 33 and Likud on 32, and neither round yielded a coalition able to reach a majority.

A third election in March 2020 gave Likud 36 seats to Blue and White’s 33, and produced a Netanyahu-Gantz unity government that collapsed within a year. In March 2021, Likud won 30 seats to Yesh Atid’s 17, but an eight-party coalition led by Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid that also included Ra’am, an Arab party, ended Netanyahu’s 12-year run. It lasted a year.

Netanyahu returned in November 2022, with Likud on 32 and Yesh Atid on 24, at the head of what has been described as Israel’s most right-wing government. Polls now show neither bloc clearly reaching 61.

Israel’s prime ministers

The state of Israel has had 14 prime ministers since its foundation in 1948. Netanyahu is by far the longest-serving, with 19 years in three separate stints: 1996 to 1999, 2009 to 2021 and from 2022 to now

Only David Ben-Gurion, who led the country from 1948 to 1954 and again from 1955 to 1963, comes close.

Whatever happens on October 27, Netanyahu stays on as caretaker prime minister until a new government is sworn in.

A group of parents claims local admission policy boosts Black and Latino students while constraining Asian applicants.

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case about the role of race in admissions to selective Maryland middle schools after a group of parents claimed policies discriminated against Asian students in favour of Black and Latino students.

The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear the parents’ plea on four academically rigorous “magnet” schools in Montgomery County, a suburb on the outskirts of Washington, DC, in the neighbouring state of Maryland.

The high court said it would weigh whether the parent group has enough evidence of discrimination for the case to move forward.

Lower courts previously dismissed the case because Asian-American students were not underrepresented at the specialised-curriculum schools compared with the pool of students that applied.

If the Supreme Court rules for the parent group, the Association for Education Fairness, it could revive the lawsuit.

The court is expected to hear arguments in the coming months and rule by June.

‘The Pandemic Plan’

The Montgomery County school district’s selection process was introduced in the 2021-2022 school year during the COVID-19 pandemic.

It screens all students for academic potential, and then implements a lottery to randomly assign students from that pool to receive enriched instruction at either a magnet school or a local school.

The suit alleged that the screening process makes it harder for Asian-American students, who the challengers said are clustered in “high-performing, low-poverty elementary schools”, to enter the lottery pool.

Part of the process ranks a student’s performance by comparing the student’s test scores against those of other students whose family incomes are at a similar level.

“Under the applicant pool benchmark, the government can set specific racial targets, hit them, and avoid even an inquiry into discriminatory intent,” so long as it has not explicitly called out race in its process, they wrote in their appeal to the Supreme Court.

Previously thrown out

The case was thrown out in 2022 by US District Judge Paula Xinis. She noted that the percentage of admitted Asian-American students exceeded the percentage of Asian Americans among all applicants to the magnet schools.

Xinis also found no evidence that the lottery policy was implemented with discriminatory intent.

The school system has consistently argued the new admissions policy, called the “Pandemic Plan” due to the timing of its release, is race-neutral.

“The Pandemic Plan is a colorblind lottery,” lawyers wrote in a brief asking the Supreme Court not to take up the case. “Nothing about the Pandemic Plan, its history, or its purpose is offensive to the Constitution.”

Supreme Court justices will now consider whether a group claiming to be targeted by a race-neutral policy must show it was disproportionately harmed to prove intentional discrimination.

Caracas, October 19, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Switzerland’s Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA) has lifted “precautionary asset freezes” against Marleny Contreras, wife of Venezuelan Interior, Justice, and Peace Minister Diosdado Cabello, and United Socialist Party (PSUV) lawmaker Jorge Arreaza.

The country’s authorities stated that their inclusion on a list of sanctioned Venezuelan officials was “a mistake” after determining that neither holds assets in Swiss territory nor faces corruption accusations.

The asset freeze was imposed on January 5, two days after US forces bombed Caracas and kidnapped Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Bern claimed the measure was intended to prevent potentially illicit assets from leaving Switzerland amid eventual legal investigations.

The legal measure remains in force until 2030 and includes a formal commitment to return to the Venezuelan people any resources proven to have been illicitly acquired. Over 40 current and former Venezuelan officials, as well as direct relatives and alleged associates, remain on the list.

Alongside the removal of Contreras and Arreaza, the Swiss government added six individuals to the register. New additions include former Venezuelan government envoy and Industry Minister Álex Saab and his business associate Álvaro Pulido. 

Pulido appeared before a Miami court on October 13 after being handed over by Venezuelan authorities to face money laundering charges. Saab was likewise surrendered to US agencies and pleaded guilty to money laundering accusations, pledging to “cooperate” with other US legal investigations.

Saab and Pulido were joined in the Swiss blacklist by José Vicente Amparan Croquer, a lawyer whom US authorities have accused of laundering money from an alleged US $1.2 billion embezzlement scheme at Venezuelan state oil company Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), and Mario Enrique Bonilla Vallera, a businessman identified as an alleged front man for Nicolás Maduro’s stepsons.

The list also includes the wife and former wife of two former deputy electricity ministers who were already on the blacklisteed: Milagros Coromoto Torres Morán, wife and business partner of Nervis Villalobos, and María Consuelo Pardi Celis, former wife of Javier Alvarado Ochoa.

The Swiss decision came two days after the US Treasury Department removed Jorge Rodríguez, president of Venezuela’s National Assembly, chief negotiator in a US-backed dialogue process with an opposition faction, and brother of Acting President Delcy Rodríguez, from its own sanctions list. Delcy Rodríguez herself was removed from the Treasury’s Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN) list last April.

Jorge Rodríguez was first targeted on September 25, 2018, during Trump’s first term in office. Individual sanctions block any assets the person may have on US soil and bar US individuals and companies from engaging in any transactions. The measures lead to issues of overcompliance.

Spanish daily ABC’s White House correspondent David Alandete argued that the parliamentary leader’s removal from the SDN list was a reward for his “cooperation” in a “new phase of relations between Caracas and the White House.”

The move was announced on the same day that Delcy Rodríguez’s acting government and the opposition delegation led by former lawmaker Dinorah Figuera began a third round of US-endorsed talks in Caracas. The discussions are intended to address the continuation of the Supreme Court of Justice (TSJ) renewal process, as well as political rights and guarantees.

Nevertheless, 254 individuals and entities remain on the US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctions list. The Trump administration also maintains wide-reaching coercive measures against key Venezuelan economic sectors, including oil, mining, and banking.

Since January, Washington has issued sanctions waivers to allow select Western corporations to secure access to Venezuelan oil and mineral resources under favorable conditions. The White House has also greenlit select US companies to export and import products to and from the Caribbean nation. However, revenues from Venezuelan exports are deposited in a US Treasury account, with US officials deciding when and how much to disburse to Caracas.

Last week, the Trump administration issued General License 60A. The license authorizes humanitarian assistance transactions focused on addressing damage caused by Venezuela’s June 24 double earthquake until April 21, 2027.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

Riyadh postpones flagship investment conference until 2027, orders government staff to work from home.

Saudi Arabia’s Future Investment Initiative (FII) conference has been postponed until next year, according to a statement on the official website, as deadly strikes by the Iran-backed Houthis against the kingdom continue.

The annual event was due to start next week on October 26 and run through October 29, with a date next year to be announced “very soon”, the statement released on Tuesday said.

FII Institute chief executive officer Dr Maha Bint Mishari Al Saud said the decision “comes from a deep commitment to our partners, members, speakers and delegates”.

“Because this is our landmark tenth edition, we want to ensure it delivers the full scale, extraordinary quality, and unforgettable impact that our community has come to expect and truly deserves,” she said.

Informally dubbed “Davos in the Desert”, a nod to the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Switzerland, the state-backed conference showcases the kingdom’s ambitious investment plans in a bid to attract billions of dollars needed to fund its economic transformation away from hydrocarbons towards tourism, sport and technology.

Expected speakers included: Alphabet & Google’s president and chief information officer, Ruth Porat; Goldman Sachs Group chairman and CEO David Solomon; and BlackRock chairman and CEO Laurence Fink, according to the FII website.

Fighting between a Saudi-led coalition supporting Yemen’s internationally recognised government and the Iran-aligned Houthis has escalated in recent weeks.

The Houthis, also known as Ansar Allah, have hit military, energy and civilian infrastructure across Saudi Arabia, including Riyadh’s international airport, killing at least 18 people and injuring hundreds more.

Government staff to work from home

Government agencies in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, have told employees to work from home, one worker and two consultants told the AFP news agency, as the city comes under repeated attack from the Houthis.

The Kingdom Centre, a 99‑storey tower in downtown Riyadh that houses the International Monetary Fund’s regional office, also requested workers stay away until further notice.

On Sunday, an employee of a government agency in the capital received a message saying, “It has been decided to implement remote work from Monday to Thursday this week”. The message added: “We ask everyone to continue their activities as normal.”

Companies based in the King Abdullah Financial District, which hosts offices of major United States firms, have also asked employees to work from home, according to other sources.