front

Pro-Palestine, antigovernment, anti-colonial group accused of targeting immigration agents and companies in ‘massive and horrific terror plot’.

Federal authorities in the United States have arrested four members of an antigoverment left-wing group over an alleged bomb plot targeting immigration agents and companies, among others, in California, officials have said.

Announcing the arrests on Monday, US Attorney General Pam Bondi said the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation had disrupted “a massive and horrific terror plot” being prepared by the Turtle Island Liberation Front.

“The Turtle Island Liberation Front – a far-left, pro-Palestine, anti-government, and anti-capitalist group – was preparing to conduct a series of bombings against multiple targets in California beginning on New Year’s Eve,” Bondi said in a statement.

She was careful to note that among the group’s planned targets were Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and their vehicles.

Audrey Illeene Carroll, 30; Zachary Aaron Page, 32; Dante Gaffield, 24; and Tina Lai, 41, have been charged with conspiracy and possession of an unregistered destructive device. Officials said additional charges are expected.

Desert meeting

The suspects, who are all from the Los Angeles area, were arrested on Friday in the Mojave Desert as they were working on the plot, First Assistant US Attorney Bill Essayli told a news conference.

Officials showed reporters’ surveillance footage of the suspects in the desert moving a large black object to a table. The group was arrested before they had the opportunity to build a functional bomb, the officials said.

Essayli said Carroll had created a detailed plan to bomb at least five locations. The plot included the targeting of two “Amazon-type” logistics centres operated by US companies in the Los Angeles area on New Year’s Eve.

Backpacks filled with IEDs that were to be detonated simultaneously at midnight were to be left at the locations. The group believed the explosions would be less likely to be noticed due to fireworks detonated during the celebrations.

Two of the suspects had discussed plans for attacks targeting ICE agents and vehicles with pipe bombs early next year, according to the complaint.

Officials said the suspects were an offshoot of a group dubbed the Turtle Island Liberation Front, which says it is for the “liberation of all colonised peoples”.

The group, which has a small social media following, describes itself on Facebook as a political organisation advocating for the “Liberation of occupied Turtle Island and liberation of all colonized peoples across the world”.

The term “Turtle Island” is used by some Indigenous peoples to describe North America in a way that reflects its existence outside the colonial boundaries put in place by the US and Canada. It comes from Indigenous creation stories where the continent was formed on the back of a giant turtle.

Activists affiliated with the group have previously organised campaigns against detentions and deportations by ICE, as well as anti-colonial issues.

Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell said while federal and local officials disagree on the Trump administration’s immigration raids, they still come together to protect residents.

The Eurovision likes to sell itself as a glittering exercise in European unity, colorful, loud, proudly diverse, and (officially) above politics. Yet anyone who has watched the contest with both eyes open knows that “apolitical” has always been more of a brand promise than a lived reality. In late 2025, that gap widened into a full-blown crisis, as a number of broadcasters reported across outlets that Spain, Ireland, Slovenia, the Netherlands, and Iceland signaled they would not take part in Eurovision 2026 after the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) decided not to exclude Israel amid the ongoing war in Gaza, Palestine.

This episode is not simply “politics invading culture.” It reflects a shift in how legitimacy is demanded and contested in Europe’s cultural diplomacy, particularly when public broadcasters operate under constant online scrutiny. A constructivist lens helps explain why withdrawal can become socially “appropriate” not only because of interests, but because identities, norms, and public expectations set the boundaries of acceptable action.

Eurovision’s political DNA

Eurovision was launched in 1956 as a post-war cultural bridge. Its origin story is important: a shared stage was meant to build familiarity, and familiarity was meant to soften rivalry. That heritage still shapes the contest’s self-image. But Eurovision has long functioned as a stage where politics appears in coded ways through voting patterns, representation debates, and symbolic messaging.

In 2026, the argument is no longer coded. The EBU’s insistence that Eurovision must remain apolitical is being tested by publics who increasingly expect cultural institutions to reflect basic humanitarian values. This tension has been building for years, but the Palestine crisis and the EBU’s decisions have turned it into a legitimacy problem, not merely a public relations headache.

Why withdrawal became “appropriate”

Constructivism in international relations focuses on how identities and norms shape behavior. States and national institutions do not act only from material interests; they also act from what is socially acceptable, what fits their self-image, and the expectations of their audiences.

Three dynamics stand out.

Identity signalling, domestically and externally

For several withdrawing countries, participation carried an identity cost. Public broadcasters—especially those that see themselves as guardians of civic values—operate within national narratives about solidarity, rights, and moral responsibility. Remaining in the contest while public debate framed Israel’s participation as incompatible with humanitarian concerns risked looking like complicity or indifference. Withdrawal, by contrast, functioned as a signal: this is who we are, and this is the line we will not cross.

Importantly, this signalling was not addressed only to external audiences. It was also addressed inward towards domestic publics, artists, and civil society networks. In many European societies, those constituencies are no longer passive consumers of cultural events; they are active participants in the reputational economy surrounding public institutions.

Norm cascades and moral momentum

Once a few broadcasters moved towards withdrawal, the decision quickly gained social momentum. This is what Finnemore and Sikkink described as a “norm cascade”: when a norm shifts from being optional to being expected, and the reputational cost of non-compliance rises. In practical terms, it can start to feel safer to leave than to stay—because staying invites condemnation, while leaving can be framed as moral coherence.

This is also why the dispute escalated so quickly. A single broadcaster withdrawing is a story. Multiple broadcasters withdrawing is a pattern, and patterns trigger moral comparisons. The question changes from “Why did they leave?” to “Why are you still staying?”

The ‘apolitical’ norm is under strain because it looks selective.

The apolitical claim does not collapse simply because people become more emotional. It collapses when it appears inconsistent. Critics repeatedly pointed to Russia’s exclusion in 2022 after the invasion of Ukraine and asked why a different standard was being applied now. The EBU, for its part, has emphasized the contest’s non-political ethos and introduced new rules aimed at insulating Eurovision from government influence.

But in the public sphere, the argument is not purely procedural. It is moral and comparative: if Eurovision can act decisively in one case, why not in another?

Constructivism predicts that institutions struggle when the norms they rely on no longer align with the moral intuitions of their audiences. That is exactly what this crisis reveals.

Digital activism as a legitimacy engine

If this controversy had happened twenty years ago, it would likely have moved more slowly, mediated by newspapers and official statements. Today it unfolds in a real-time digital public sphere where narratives travel quickly across borders and reputational costs escalate fast. Online mobilization—through petitions, artist statements, and hashtag campaigns—helped turn Eurovision into a symbolic battleground, pressuring broadcasters to respond to highly visible moral claims.

Two effects matter most. First, digital dynamics accelerate moral consolidation, which means once “selective neutrality” becomes a dominant frame, hesitation itself is read as a political stance. Second, institutions face continuous visibility. Decisions are no longer a single event but an ongoing justification process, renewed by viral moments and high-profile protest actions linked to Israel’s inclusion.

For cultural diplomacy, this shifts the logic of soft power from image-making towards moral credibility under public scrutiny.

Withdrawal as cultural diplomacy

Withdrawal from Eurovision is, in a strict sense, symbolic. But symbolism is precisely what cultural diplomacy trades in. The act of leaving, particularly when done by public broadcasters, served three strategic functions.

First, moral signalling, which meansbroadcasters and states communicated alignment with humanitarian values and a refusal to normalize perceived injustice.

The second one is reputation management.  In a digital environment, silence can be more costly than action. Withdrawal can reduce domestic backlash and preserve trust in public institutions.

Last, this is ethical positioning as soft power.  The logic of soft power is shifting from colorful branding to ethical coherence. A state may gain credibility not by appearing “fun,” but by appearing consistent with its professed values.

These functions help explain why the controversy is bigger than Eurovision. What is being tested is the idea that cultural platforms can remain insulated from global crises. Many audiences no longer accept that separation.

The EBU’s dilemma: rules, legitimacy, and consistency

The EBU now sits at the center of competing demands. On one side is the institutional need for predictability: rules that keep Eurovision from becoming an arena for state-to-state confrontation. On the other side is the public demand for moral consistency: rules that do not appear selective or politically convenient.

The EBU’s recent approach of avoiding an immediate exclusion decision while adjusting rules—may be defensible from a governance perspective.

Yet governance solutions do not automatically restore legitimacy, because legitimacy is also emotional and relational. It depends on whether audiences believe the institution is acting in good faith and applying standards fairly.

This is where cultural diplomacy meets a hard truth: neutrality is not simply declared; it is earned. And in the digital age, it is re-earned continuously.

What this means for Europe’s cultural diplomacy

Three implications stand out.

First, moral expectation is becoming structural.  European publics increasingly demand moral coherence not only from governments but from cultural institutions as well. Cultural diplomacy is being asked to carry ethical weight.

Second, “European values” are being operationalized. They are no longer abstract slogans. They are used as benchmarks to judge institutions and to accuse them of hypocrisy when they fall short.

Third, public opinion has become a strategic force, not background noise.  Digital mobilization can shape state behavior indirectly by pressuring broadcasters, artists, and institutions that sit at the heart of national identity.

Policy takeaways

If the EBU seeks to protect Eurovision’s legitimacy without turning it into a geopolitical tribunal, three steps would help. First, it should clarify participation principles by defining what “neutrality” means operationally and what thresholds trigger institutional action. Second, it should build a credible consistency mechanism, as audiences will continue comparing cases and demanding transparent reasoning. Third, the EBU should treat the digital sphere as part of governance: proactive engagement and rapid clarification now shape institutional survival as much as formal rule-making.

Conclusion

Eurovision 2026 is not simply a cultural controversy with political noise attached. It is a case study in how identity, norms, and digital activism are reshaping Europe’s cultural diplomacy. Constructivism helps explain why withdrawal became not only possible but, for some, necessary: it aligned state-linked institutions with the moral expectations of their publics.

Eurovision was built to bridge Europe after war. Ironically, its newest crisis shows that unity today is conditional: audiences increasingly expect cultural institutions to be transparent, consistent, and ethically credible, especially when global suffering is impossible to ignore.

The United States has fully commited to its enforcement of sanctions on Venezuela by seizing a large oil tanker off its coast. President Donald Trump publicly announced the operation on December 10^th and authorities said a joint FBI/Homeland Security/Coast Guard team executed a court-ordered seizure of the vessel, which was transporting Iranian and Venezuelan crude in violation of U.S imposed sanctions.

This is reportedly the first U.S. seizure of a Venezuelan oil shipment since sanctions began way back in 2019. “We’ve just seized a tanker on the coast of Venezuela, a large tanker, very large, largest one ever seized, actually,” says Donald Trump.

Trying to maintain the credibility of U.S. sanctions at a time when their enforcement have increasingly been challenged by other international actors such as Russia or Iran. Now, The U.S. is willing to take direct action beyond economic wars, even at the risk of diplomatic and military escalation.

Reactions from Caracas

Venezuela publicly denounced the action and accused Washington of blatant theft describing the seizure as “an act of international piracy”. Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has long cast himself as the victim of a U.S. led campaign to oust him from the country in order to seize the vast oil wealth on the country’s shores. He reiterated that the U.S. military buildup, which started this summer, including carrier strike groups and bases is directly aimed at overthrowing him.

Maduro’s supporters rallied in the streets against foreign aggression even as officials prepared diplomatic protests to international bodies. For the time being, he faces limited other practical options for retaliation as Venezuela’s navy is in no position to challenge U.S. maritime dominance, and legal recourse through international courts would likely take years.

Russia’s Offers Full Support

Moscow reaffirmed its backing for Maduro, emphasising the legitimacy of Venezuela’s government and condemning what it described as unilateral U.S. actions. An ally in South America provides Russia opportunities for energy investment, and a way to challenge U.S. influence.

The tanker seizure allows Moscow to frame Washington as overreaching and destabilising, a narrative it also applies to recent U.S. actions in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. While Russia is unlikely to escalate militarily, its political backing is significant.

China’s Strategic Role, A Potential Mediator?

Avoiding direct confrontation with Washington over the seizure, Beijing has reiterated its general opposition to unilateral sanctions and calling for international dialogue. However, China remains Venezuela’s most important economic partner and oil consumer, giving it substantial influence over any talks in the region.

Chinese companies have adapted to sanctions by purchasing Venezuelan crude oil at discounted prices, often through intermediaries. For Beijing, Venezuela is also part of a broader strategy to diversify energy supplies and expand its economic reach to the Americas.

Impact on Oil Markets

The announcement caused a modest spike in oil prices around the globe; for example: Brent crude briefly rose about 0.4% to around $62 a barrel, before returning to normal levels in the following few days.

The incident also highlighted Venezuela’s export challenges: under sanctions, its oil trades at a deep discount for its main trade partners, China and Russia. American oil companies with Venezuelan ties reported no immediate trouble. Chevron the U.S. firm that co-owns Venezuela’s largest oil project said its operations there continue normally, and U.S. imports of Venezuelan crude have even ticked up slightly in recent months.

Broader Consequences

Neighbouring countries such as Cuba and other Caribbean states depend on Venezuelan oil and could feel its effects. Sanctioning Venezuela was intended to pressure the regime into political concessions, yet Maduro remains firmly in power.

Enforcement actions like this tanker seizure may increase short-term pressure, but they also come with great risk for the stability of the Caribbean. Venezuela’s experience mirrors that of Iran and Russia, suggesting that sanctions alone may be insufficient to produce regime change, particularly when the targeted government is provided external backing.

Possible Future Scenarios and Implications

One scenario is a continuation of this low-level rise in tensions, with the U.S. stepping up enforcement and Venezuela responding through diplomatic protests while relying on Russian support.

Another is a negotiated de-escalation, potentially linked to limited sanctions relief in exchange for political concessions, though past efforts suggest this would be difficult to achieve with the current White House administration.

A more destabilising scenario would involve a potential confrontation at sea and broader disruption to energy markets. However, this scenario remains unlikely for the time being.

With information from Reuters and BBC News.

China has successfully achieved economic development in recent years by shifting towards a model that relies on stimulating domestic demand. This not only ensures economic stability but also addresses crucial considerations related to China’s national security and international competitiveness. China has indeed succeeded in this by focusing on four key factors that are the main determinants of its remarkable economic growth: economic reform policies, the government’s commitment to Chinese-style reform, the government’s dedication to integrating into the global economy, and industrial upgrading and technological innovation. The Chinese government has also unveiled measures to boost service consumption and pledged to open up more sectors, such as the internet, culture, and the promotion of hosting international sporting events, in an effort to bolster the Chinese economy and connect it globally.

 China’s Fifteenth Five-Year Plan further spurred this shift from high-speed growth to high-quality growth, placing science and technology at the forefront of national priorities.  Over the past five years, China has strengthened its comprehensive opening-up policy, implementing practical measures to improve the business environment and fostering continued cooperation with all countries, especially developing nations of the Global South, through its Belt and Road Initiative. The Belt and Road Initiative has become a model for a new type of international cooperation and has been recognized as such by international organizations, including the United Nations. During this same period, China has also made concerted efforts to improve the ecological environment and fulfill its international commitments through its “green economy” policy. This policy emphasizes the Chinese government’s commitment to environmentally friendly economic projects worldwide, particularly in African, developing, and Globally Southern countries. China is rapidly advancing a cleaner and greener economy, with strong commitments to environmental protection, clean energy, ecological protection, and the development of green industries.

 China’s economic development has achieved remarkable success in recent years through a long-term plan focused on economic reforms. This plan involved transitioning from a centrally planned economy to a market-oriented one, adopting a policy of openness to foreign investment, establishing special economic zones to attract foreign investment, and investing heavily in infrastructure development, particularly in transportation, energy, communications, information technology, and artificial intelligence. China has also become the world’s largest exporter of advanced technology, with the Chinese government allocating approximately 2.6% of its GDP to research and development across various economic sectors. Furthermore, China boasts the world’s fastest-growing consumer market and is the second-largest importer of goods.  China’s industrial output is double that of the United States. The Chinese government has addressed poverty through development, guided by market principles, economic restructuring, the utilization of domestic resources, peaceful production development, and the strengthening of self-reliance and development capabilities. It has employed various methods and approaches to reduce poverty through self-reliance and hard work, building infrastructure in agriculture, industry, roads, and irrigation, providing the necessary funds for development and training, and allocating all necessary resources for technological advancements in each sector. Simultaneously, efforts have been made to protect the environment by conserving soil and water, promoting ecological construction, and implementing the sustainable development strategy set by the central government. China has not only eradicated poverty but has also raised the standard of living in all areas, enabling it to compete with developed nations in many fields.

 One of the most prominent strengths of the Chinese economy in recent years is its success in achieving high levels in education and scientific research. China spends 2.5% of its GDP on research and development.  The number of people employed in research and development sectors is approximately 1,687 per million inhabitants, enabling China to remain a leading exporter of high-tech goods globally. This has been achieved while the Chinese government has encouraged the formation of rural and private enterprises, liberalized foreign trade and investment, eased state control over certain prices, and invested in industrial production and workforce education.

What Happened

Netflix has announced a proposed $72 billion acquisition of Warner Bros Discovery, aiming to absorb HBO Max and consolidate a subscriber base of 428 million. To justify the massive scale, Netflix argues it needs this merger to compete effectively with YouTube, which Nielsen ranks as America’s most-watched TV platform. However, antitrust experts and former regulators are deeply skeptical, noting that YouTube’s model built on user-generated content, influencers, and advertising, differs fundamentally from Netflix’s premium, scripted, subscription-based ecosystem. The Department of Justice and global regulators are expected to scrutinize the deal closely, particularly Netflix’s claim that it competes in the same market as YouTube.

Why It Matters

This isn’t just another media merger, it’s a defining test for how regulators view competition in the digital entertainment era. If accepted, Netflix’s “YouTube as rival” argument could set a precedent allowing giant streaming platforms to consolidate further by defining their market extremely broadly. The deal would give Netflix unprecedented control over both premium original content and major legacy film/TV libraries, potentially allowing it to dominate pricing and distribution in the paid streaming sector. How regulators respond will signal whether antitrust enforcement can keep pace with the evolving, platform-driven media landscape.

Critical Analysis

Netflix’s YouTube argument faces several critical weaknesses. First, content and business models are fundamentally different: Netflix invests billions in exclusive, scripted originals and operates on a subscription-first model, while YouTube monetizes user-generated videos through ads and creator partnerships. Second, historical precedent works against Netflix: regulators have repeatedly rejected broad market definitions in favor of specific “sub-markets” (e.g., “premium natural supermarkets” in the Whole Foods case), and internal company documents often reveal how firms really view their competition.

Third, new merger review rules will force Netflix to turn over internal strategic documents early, which could undermine its public claims if those materials don’t mention YouTube as a primary competitor. Finally, Netflix’s claim that bundling will lower prices for consumers is viewed with extreme skepticism by regulators, who often see such promises as unenforceable and worry more about price hikes for non-bundled users.

Conclusion

Netflix faces an uphill battle to convince regulators that swallowing Warner Bros Discovery is necessary to compete with YouTube. The DOJ is likely to define the relevant market narrowly, around premium, subscription-based streaming, where the combined entity would hold overwhelming share and pricing power. Unless Netflix can produce compelling internal evidence that it genuinely views YouTube as a direct competitor for the same viewer time and dollars, this deal is at high risk of being challenged or blocked. The outcome will not only shape the future of streaming consolidation but also test the boundaries of modern antitrust logic in a platform-dominated world.

This briefing is based on information from Reuters.

Have you ever wondered what movie might draw praise from Jacob Elordi and Benicio Del Toro for its cinematic reverie?

When you gather six actors from some of this year’s most acclaimed films, a thoughtful discussion about their roles and the craft is to be expected. But in kicking off The Envelope’s 2025 Oscar Actors Roundtable, the talent reminded us that they’re movie fans like the rest of us, picking the films they wish they could experience again for the first time.

“I’d like to watch ‘The Dark Knight’ again in the exact same circumstance that I watched it,” Elordi said, referring to Christopher Nolan’s dark retelling of Batman’s battle with the Joker. “I was 11 and I was with my dad. I’d been told by my mother that I wasn’t allowed to see it because there’s a horrific sequence with a pencil and a magic trick. My dad — when my mum was away — took me to the cinema to see it. I remember the first time I saw Heath [Ledger, as the Joker] onscreen and really feeling just totally moved by something.”

Then Del Toro chimed in with his pick, “Papillon,” Franklin Schaffner’s 1973 prison film starring Dustin Hoffman and Steve McQueen: “I saw it when I was a kid. We got in late in the movie, and it was a scene where they’re trying to get a gator. And they’re running around the crocodile. I’ve always really enjoyed that film.”

“And you really see Steve McQueen do more in that movie than ever before,” Elordi says. “When he starts going mad in that cell.”

Jesse Plemons is more sheepish when coughing up his selection.

“Everyone’s listing serious movies. The movie that popped into my head was ‘Nacho Libre.’ In life, some things just give you simple pleasures that aren’t necessarily elevated or high art. But that movie makes me very happy, guys.”

There was no judgment. An atmosphere of friendly sharing and mutual understanding was felt throughout the conversation, which brought together Elordi, who portrays the misunderstood and abused Creature in Guillermo del Toro’s “Frankenstein”; Plemons, in his turn as Teddy, a conspiracy theorist who is convinced that aliens live among us in “Bugonia”; Benicio Del Toro, who plays Sergio St. Carlos, a karate sensei and revolutionary immigration activist in “One Battle After Another”; Will Arnett, who stars as Alex Novak, a middle-age suburbanite whose crumbling marriage inspires him to try stand-up comedy in “Is This Thing On?”; Wagner Moura, who portrays Marcelo Alves, a teacher trying to escape the Brazilian dictatorship in “The Secret Agent”; and Stellan Skarsgård, who plays Gustav Borg, a veteran film director and absentee father who decides to make a movie about his family in “Sentimental Value.” Read on for excerpts from our discussion.

These roles take you to intense places — emotionally, physically, mentally. But what’s the furthest you’ve gone to book a role because you really felt like it was something you were meant to play?

Moura: “Narcos” was a crazy adventure for me because I was cast to play that part that had nothing to do with me. I was a skinny Brazilian guy who didn’t speak Spanish at all. So I had to go through a very intense thing. I had to learn a language in order to play a character. That was crazy. That was the the furthest I’ve [gone] to play a part.

Plemons: Those early weeks are a lot of fun, right? The beginning. It’s like Christmas every day.

Moura: The beginning is always like, “What am I doing?” And you go to bed and go like, “Jesus Christ, this is … There’s no way I can pull this off.” At the same time, I remember going to bed and thinking, “Have I done everything I could?” And then I was like, “Yeah, go to bed. Sleep.”

Arnett: Did you ever think about quitting, about not doing it?

Moura: No. I had to go ahead and do it. That director trusted me, and he was like, “You can do it.” I didn’t want to disappoint him.

Have you gotten to that point, Will? Wanting to quit something because it felt like too much?

Arnett: All the time. Doing [“Is This Thing On?”], I felt like I was at the bottom of a mountain. Every day, I thought, “There’s no way I can do it.” I would come home and just think, “That was probably the worst day that anybody’s ever filmed a scene,” then just have to let it go.

With “Is This Thing On?,” you did a stand-up act in front of people, and they were tourists. Some of them didn’t know who you were. And you bombed a few times, right? Place me in that moment, and what does that do for your performance.

Arnett: I had them introduce me by my character name. So the people who did know who I was, we were saying that [they] thought I was probably having a midlife crisis or something, which I was, but for different reasons. I’d never done stand-up before, so going up and doing this in front of people and bombing was super vulnerable. There’s nowhere to hide, and you can’t just walk off. There was one time where I’d done a set at the Comedy Cellar, in the main room, and it was great. And went around the corner, like five minutes later, onto a different stage, with the same material, and it was dead silent. And the only person laughing was Bradley. I could see him laughing, and [I was] thinking, “Can I just walk off stage right now?” That was ego-stripping. It becomes kind of absurd. You end up kind of laughing at yourself, at the absurdity of it. It’s not out-of-body, but you separate yourself from the words as they’re coming out.

Stellan, “Sentimental Value” is, in some ways, about how the choices a parent makes in the service of their job or their art shape the lives of your children. How did it make you reflect on the choices you’ve made in your career and the impact it had on your family?

Skarsgård: I thought it had nothing to do with me. This was a good escape. But my second son, he called me and said, “You recognize yourself?” And I went, “Uh, no.” And of course I don’t recognize myself because he’s a different kind of man. He’s an old-fashioned man in a sense, a 20th century man. And I’m a 21st. [Laughs.] But it reminded me — since I stopped at the Royal Dramatic Theatre [in] 1989, I spent four months a year in front of the camera and eight months a year changing diapers and wiping asses. I don’t think I’ve been away a lot, but it made me think about, “Have you been present?” Not really. I have eight kids, which means there are eight different personalities, and some kids need a lot of attention and some don’t. You’re imperfect, but I’m sort of settled with that. My kids have to settle with it too. They’re not perfect either.

We often hear from the women who are mothers, how they balance their work with their careers. Many of you are fathers. How have you learned to navigate it?

Moura: For me, it’s the most difficult thing ever. I was thinking the other day, “What are the things that really define me as a human being?” Being a father is the strongest one, but being an artist is almost there. It’s hard because with our job, we have to travel a lot, and you’re not always able to bring your kids with you. They have school, and they have their own lives and their own things. I kind of think this is sort of an impossible perfect balance. But like Stellan said, it is what it is. And when I’m with them, I try to be with them. But being aware that, of course, there will be parts of their lives that I won’t be able to be there for them and sort of accept that.

Arnett: It’s funny, I’ve been traveling a lot doing this stuff. I’ve been back for a couple of days, but I’ve been busy. I’ve been going out all day, doing work and doing these things, and my 15-year-old said to me — I checked in on him. He’s doing his homework. I said, “How are you doing?” He said, “Good,” and he said, “I miss you.” And I was in the same place with him. I don’t even know if this is appropriate for this forum, but it really struck me. Him saying that stayed with me all day. And I woke up thinking about [that] this morning, and even this [round table], and saying, “Hey, we’re gonna have dinner tonight.” I had those moments of thinking, “Am I that guy?” Now I’m saying, “Let’s have dinner after … I gotta go do this thing.” It weighs on you. It is the most difficult balance.

Del Toro: I’ve tried to include my daughter in the process sometimes, you know? Sit her down, bounce lines with her, go see the movie when I’m done with the movie. Make her part of it too.

Jacob, so often when you’re talking to an actor, at least on my end, there’s curiosity about the research process and what you’ve had to learn to prepare for a role. But in playing the Creature in “Frankenstein,” this amalgamation of parts, your character’s really in a process of discovery. Did you have to unlearn things? How did you approach that?

Elordi: The nature of the character actually gives you an excuse to be absolutely free because he’s sort of the first man, in a lot of ways. You can really draw from everything and anything, like a smell or light, because he hasn’t felt the sun on his face. But there’s so many things that you can go back on and reconsider. A lot of the process was just closing the world off for the time of filming — not eating a cheeseburger when I wanted to eat a cheeseburger or just little stuff that made me feel Other. But strangely enough, because he’s made of so many different parts, and you get to go from being born to finding consciousness to the death of consciousness at the end, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. You can’t really miss because everything is happening to him all the time. It’s interesting because you say you want to ask someone about the process, but the process is so f— boring.

Plemons: You studied some form of Japanese dance or movement?

Elordi: Guillermo had this idea to study Butoh. It’s a movement thing, like you’re in drama school again where [the instructor]’s like, “Imagine fire in your fingertips and a hurricane in your lungs, and your foot is a steam train.” And then you walk around the room for 40 minutes … I remember being in drama school, and I had to carry a stick that was called my Intellikey for two hours. It was a piece of bamboo. And move around the room as if that stick was a part of my soul or something. Something completely f— absurd. It was a similar process to that, but it was actually helpful because I had something to apply it to that was sort of physically not so human.

Do any of you have a thing that really helped you find your way into a character? Jesse, I feel like you have gone to some dark places.

Plemons: I guess the most curious is I do dream work. There are symbols and whatnot that you are gifted with that may not make sense on a conscious level, or they may. That’s something that’s hard to talk about. Anything that makes me feel like I’m just following my curiosity and I’m not working; I’m just following some trail that I don’t necessarily know where it’s leading — it’s hard to describe because the way I like to work is where anything goes.

Elordi: You kind of know when you get onto that thing too. When a dot does connect. Something happens, then, all of a sudden, you’re six hours down this little road on this sound that you heard in a song or something like that. You also know when it’s not working. But to be conscious about it can mess it up as well, if you’re like, “I’m gonna do this kind of thing and this. And this is gonna go to this voice.”

Does the work need to feel hard in order for you to feel like you’re challenging yourself?

Skarsgård: No. [I need] to not be afraid and not to be blocked; I need to feel safe. And I need [for] everybody on the set, they want me to be good, and I feel it. Then I can be free. I’m with you [Jesse], you have to be in a state where anything is possible. I don’t do backstories for my characters, ever, because it reduces the possibilities. Then you have to follow the backstory — so he couldn’t do that. You, as an actor, say to the director, “No, my character wouldn’t do that.” “How do you know?” Your character might be more interesting than you are.

Plemons: And this thing doesn’t exist yet, this moment —

Moura: There’s no better thing than being in a scene with another actor, and you look at the other guy or the other actors, and you go, like, “This can go anywhere.” Because these other guys, or this other actor, she’s ready to do whatever, to take this wherever. This is the thing that really moves me in a scene. It’s really hard when you work with an actor or with a director that sticks with the thing that they want the scene to be, that thing they thought at home, that they prepared for, and you can’t really move into that space.

Benicio, you really know how to make a character memorable and leave a lasting impression. With Sensei Sergio and what we see onscreen, what were you working with on the page and how much came from you in collaboration with Paul [Thomas Anderson, the film’s director]?

Del Toro: I just asked questions. Paul wants to hear what the actors have to say. I just bombard him with questions. Paul was very flexible … He’s very quick, and if he likes something, he would jump on it. My character was introduced by killing someone in my dojo. So, I asked him, “OK, so I killed this guy in the dojo … I’m not gonna drive Leo anywhere. I have to get rid of the body. And we’re gonna have to clean the dojo or set it on fire. And why am I doing that?” So, from there, it evolved into, like, “We’re not killing anybody.” I approach it a little bit like that — common sense. Logic. But every character is different and every story is different, and every director is different. I’ve been in movies where you just have to find yourself in there. And those are challenging, and they make you better.

“The Secret Agent” really explores how brutal a dictatorship can be on regular people. Wagner, your character Marcelo is not trying to overthrow the government. He’s just a man who’s trying to stick with his values. Tell me about portraying a person in that situation.

Moura: The dictatorship in Brazil was from ’64 to ’85. I was born in ’76, so the echoes of the dictatorship were still there. I remember my parents speaking like [mimics whispering] because they didn’t want people to hear what were they talking about. It’s important that Brazilian cinema is going back there to look at that big scar in our country. I directed a film [2019’s “Marighella”] about a freedom fighter, a guy who wanted to overthrow the government. But this one is different. Like you said, it’s just someone who’s trying to stick with the values that he has. And I think that this is a reality in many different parts of the world, where just the fact that you are who you are makes your life difficult or puts your life in danger, just by the color of your skin or your sexual orientation. You see the dictatorship and and what a dictatorship can do, but not in a obvious way.

Do any of you read reviews?

Skarsgård: Yes, sometimes. I prefer to read the good ones.

Has there been a bad review that propelled you or motivated you or helped you?

Skarsgård: Once I read a theater review that was really bad and that pointed out a grave mistake I made in the show, so I corrected it afterwards. But otherwise —

Elordi: You took the advice?

Skarsgård: Yeah.

Arnett: I did this show for Netflix like 10 years ago, and this guy wrote this review, and I’m embarrassed to say I wrote a point-for-point rebuttal email. I sent it as a draft to Mark Chappell, my partner, and he said, “Oh, hold on. Don’t send it. I’m gonna come over. Let’s talk for a minute.” And I didn’t send it.

Plemons: I’ve got one journalist — I am not gonna say their name — but …

Arnett: Who’s got it out for you?

Plemons: In a way that wasn’t even that intense, but said it [a performance of mine] was “misguided” — which, is just like, “What?” And then I started reading more of his reviews, and everything’s “misguided” to this guy. It’s like, “What do you mean?” So, I’m trying to be less misguided.

Can I jump in with a question for anyone? Talking about that balance between preparation — in certain cases, it’s necessary — then your experience where you rethink all of that. Given the fact that we’re not machines, that on any given day there are a number of variables that influence your mood and influence your mind and influence your ability to relax and do the scene, I’ve thought a lot about that ideal baseline place of being fully relaxed and in your [element]. I wish acting teachers had told me that when I was younger, that that’s like over half of the battle. I’m curious if you have any —

Top row, from left to right: Will Arnett, Wagner Moura and Jesse Plemons. Bottom row, from left to right: Benicio Del Toro, Jacob Elordi and Stellan Skarsgård.

Skarsgård: Tips?

Plemons: No, routines or [an] approach, anything you do to get yourself into a place where you feel like you can leave the preparation and [just be].

Skarsgård: The preparation can serve that purpose. You feel that you’re doing something because it’s a f— strange business, what we’re doing. You don’t know what it is, really, but you feel that, “OK, I’ve done this preparation. I’ve done three months of baking because I’m [playing] a baker.” You feel that you’re prepared, so you feel safer. But, personally, I make sure that the set is safe. I’m first on set. I come in early and, while they’re setting up, I’m gonna see what they’re doing. I’m making sure that I know what all the sound guys, the prop guys, what they’re doing at the same time. So, I feel a part of the unit. That’s my way of feeling safe.

Plemons: Yeah, I find that too. Any time you try and block anything out, you’re missing it. I know that’s sort of a cliche, but the times when I’ve felt maybe the best, I wasn’t blacked out. I was aware of everything.

Elordi: Key to the whole thing is you practice.

Plemons: Yeah, I was looking at the DP I had.

Elordi: That’s when I feel, like, the most comfortable, is when you feel like you are in a dialogue with the operator and the lighting guard and your director, and you’re all in the scene working towards [the same thing]. It’s not like, “Everyone, shut the f— up now. I need complete silence.” Complete silences are unnerving to me on a set. It’s like you’re all trying to reach this point for cut, and then you’ve got that piece of the thing. That makes me feel comfortable when it’s technical and not actually getting lost in this thing of like, “I need complete silence. My body needs to be supple and ready.”

For the first time since the termination of the Cold War, a major military crisis is heating up in the Caribbean. Since early September 2025, United States aerial combat drones have been patrolling and targeting the suspected smuggler boats in the international waters of the Caribbean Sea. These strikes were initially portrayed as kinetic measures to choke off the drug trade through the Caribbean Sea. According to US officials, by 04 December, 22 strikes have been conducted and 87 narco-terrorists have been killed. However, it’s worthy to note that the majority of cocaine production is centered in Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, and Mexico and enters into the United States through an inland or Pacific route—not through the Caribbean Sea. Out of 22 strikes, only 10 have been conducted in the Pacific waters.

Washington’s political ambitions eventually became evident in October once it forward deployed a naval flotilla at the strike range to Venezuela. Currently, eight US Navy vessels are operating in the Caribbean Sea. The USS Gerald Ford aircraft carrier, with its vast combat aviation wing comprising F-35C Lightning IIs, F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets, and a variety of support fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft, is currently stationed in the US Virgin Islands. Other forward-deployed naval vessels include the MV Ocean Trader command vessel and the USS Iwo Jima amphibious assault ship with over 4,000 marines. These ships are supported by two Ticonderoga-class cruisers, two Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, and the USS Newport News, a Los Angeles-class nuclear attack submarine (SSN), each equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles. The presence of this naval flotilla suggests that the USN has mustered enough capability to not only launch aerial and cruise missile strikes but also conduct amphibious operations at the Venezuelan coast. In parallel, Venezuelan airspace has been declared ‘closed’ by the Trump administration. Such assertive measures are not meant for anti-narcotic operations but perhaps for regime change either through coercive diplomacy or through direct military action. Whatever the case may be, it’s evident that for the first time in decades, the United States is apparently preparing for a direct military conflict in its own hemisphere.

Understanding how this crisis escalated requires looking back at the recent history of bilateral tensions. The fractures began to appear in US-Venezuela relations from 1999, when Hugo Chávez came to rule on a wave of anti-American populism and nationalized the country’s oil industry. Within three years, mutual relations collapsed so abruptly that first Washington imposed sanctions and then briefly removed Chávez from power through a CIA-backed coup. Chávez regained the rule in a matter of a few days. This move, however, further intensified anti-American sentiments in the Venezuelan public. Chávez made subversion of Washington a political identity; his successor Nicolás Maduro turned it into state doctrine. In 2019, Washington even declared Juan Guaidó, the opposition leader of Venezuela, as the country’s ‘legitimate president.’ Besides the open political signaling of the White House, the CIA also attempted another coup to topple the Maduro regime but again failed to achieve the requisite results.

Maduro successfully exploited continuous intervention by the United States to augment its political narrative at the public level and managed to earn a third consecutive term in 2025. However, the results of elections were regarded as dubious and were generally dismissed as fraudulent, further degrading relations with the West.

For Venezuela, oil has attracted more trouble than prosperity. The country has more than 300 billion barrels of proven oil reserves—more than Saudi Arabia (267 billion barrels)—yet it produces less than 10 percent of its 1990s highest productivity rate. The Venezuelan crude oil is ultra-heavy (8-12° API) and has very high sulfur content. Such dense oil is not only very challenging to refine—both economically and technologically—but also very hard to transfer and cannot be pumped through pipelines without imported diluents. In a nutshell, despite possessing the largest proven oil reserves, Venezuela cannot refine and export its black gold without significant foreign assistance. The current oil infrastructure, developed during the Cold War, is gradually crumbling. Pipelines are either blocked or leaking, and refineries are now operating below 15 percent capacity. Approximately 58 billion USD worth of investment is required to repair and revive the current infrastructure. Being a struggling economy, Venezuela simply does not have the financial capacity to do so. Meanwhile, the majority of technical expertise has been eroded due to brain drain. For example, PDVSA once employed more than 40,000 engineers but now has a total strength of only 12,000 with a large portion of untrained manpower. Currently, while Gulf nations are earning huge revenue from oil exports, Venezuela stands isolated as an oil superpower that cannot even power itself.

The aforementioned factors have imparted grave consequences on the Venezuelan economy. Its national GDP has shrunk from about 300 billion USD to a mere 110 billion USD approximately. More than half of the population is living in poverty, and unemployment has crippled public development. Roughly 28 percent of the total population is in need of humanitarian assistance. These financial woes have compelled common Venezuelan citizens to seek refuge outside the country. Currently, nearly 8 million locals have left the country and are living as refugees in neighboring countries, including Columbia, Peru, Brazil, and even the United States.

To survive internal implosion, Caracas has sought external assistance from Washington’s strategic competitors, including Russia, China, and even Iran. Both Russia and Venezuela are signatories of the 10-year Strategic Partnership Treaty, which was ratified in Oct-Nov 2025 with the overarching objective of combating unilateral coercive measures. Russia has provided military assistance and technical support for the training of troops and maintenance of military equipment, which is predominantly of Soviet origin. China has repeatedly provided diplomatic support and financial loans to support Venezuela’s energy infrastructure. Both Russia and China have vetoed resolutions at the UN Security Council for imposing stringent sanctions against Venezuela. With Iran, Venezuela also shares a strong relation, which was formalized by a 20-year agreement in 2022. Their domains of cooperation include trade, repairing of energy infrastructure, modernization of the defense force, and technology sharing for refinement of crude oil. For the United States, these collaborations are meant to develop a foothold in Latin America by Russia, China, and Iran—something Washington considers intolerable.

When the Trump administration returned in 2025, within weeks, it scrapped Chevron’s license, eliminating Venezuela’s last stable revenue stream. The most significant escalation came on July 25, 2025, when the US Treasury designated Venezuela’s military leadership—the Cartel de los Soles—as a global terrorist organization. No foreign military in American history had ever received such a label. Simultaneously, the reward for the arrest of President Nicolás Maduro has been doubled to 50 million USD by the Trump administration on federal charges of narcoterrorism and conspiracy to import cocaine. And now, with a fully equipped US naval strike force sailing in the Caribbean Sea, the situation is getting increasingly volatile. The Venezuelan military simply does not possess the capability to defend against such a strike force.

If hostilities break out, then instead of placing boots on the ground, the United States is likely to conduct targeted strikes at key assets, impose and sustain a naval blockade, and eventually undermine the Venezuelan military’s and nation’s loyalty to Maduro through coercive diplomacy. The current crisis illustrates that although the Trump administration claims to have taken numerous initiatives to end conflicts and promote trade & collaboration in the Eastern Hemisphere, it will show little to no tolerance for the growing influence of Moscow and Beijing in the Western Hemisphere. Under the Monroe Doctrine, the United States seeks to sustain its control in the Western Hemisphere, including Latin America. For Trump, an example can be crafted out of Venezuela to demonstrate the potential consequences of deepening collaboration with Moscow and Beijing in Washington’s backyard.

This year marks a critical juncture for the global realisation of the right to education.

In just three weeks, we will start the final four-year countdown to 2030, when the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) should have been achieved. That includes SDG 4, which calls for inclusive, equitable, and quality education and lifelong learning opportunities for all.

At the heart of the commitment to lifelong learning was the recognition that free primary education alone is insufficient to prepare children to succeed in today’s world.

Early learning opportunities create vital foundations

Early childhood learning has profound long-term benefits for children’s cognitive and social development, educational attainment, health, and employment prospects. It’s also a powerful equaliser. It can narrow early achievement gaps for children from disadvantaged households and place them on a more equal footing with better-off peers.

Giving children access to quality early childhood care and pre-primary education can help get them ready to learn in primary school, supporting them to acquire vital early literacy and numeracy skills.

Despite these benefits, nearly half of all children miss out on early childhood education. In low-income countries, just one in five children has access to preschool.

Secondary education is the key to unlocking more and better human capital

Secondary education is also increasingly important for success in today’s world. Children with secondary education are more likely to find work as adults, earn more, and escape or avoid poverty.

The inclusion in the SDGs of both early childhood and secondary education reflects a broad international consensus that they are essential to children’s development and national progress.

Unfortunately, this consensus is not adequately reflected in international human rights law.

Strengthening children’s right to education

Existing international law guarantees children free and compulsory primary education. However, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) says nothing explicit about early childhood education. Nor does it require states to guarantee every child free secondary education.

While the SDGs are significant political commitments, they do not have the force of law. Countries report on their progress through voluntary national reviews, with no formal mechanism for children to claim redress if governments fail to deliver, nor a plan for ensuring progress beyond the year 2030.

Better legal protection, monitoring and realisation

A strong and clear legal standard in a human rights instrument would have the force of law, be subject to independent monitoring mechanisms, and need not be limited to a specific time period.

This is why Sierra Leone, Luxembourg, and the Dominican Republic moved a resoultion at the UN Human Rights Council calling for the development of a new human rights treaty that makes early years, pre-primary, and secondary education an undeniable part of the right to education.

I am delighted that the resolution was co-sponsored by 49 additional states and that significant progress was achieved during consultations on the initiative in Geneva earlier this year.

The power of international law to effect change

I am under no illusion that a new human rights instrument will offer a panacea to the challenges many states face in delivering a quality education to children. In fact, some people argue that international law in general—and international human rights law in particular—has had its day.

It’s true that the international human rights regime faces significant challenges and serious threats. But universal human rights laws and practices still have a central part to play in defending and advancing human dignity.

International human rights law has shaped legal and public understandings of human dignity and non-discrimination, resulting in improved rights for individuals, including women, children, persons with disabilities, minorities, and other vulnerable groups. Billions of people now possess rights that protect them from practices that had long been common in many societies.

For example, in the decade following the adoption of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict, nearly twenty countries, including Sierra Leone, adopted or amended national legislation to raise their minimum age of voluntary recruitment to at least 18.

Human rights treaties can and do influence policy and practice. They also help build political will to ensure that the rights they set out can be enjoyed in practice.

Affirming our commitment to education

As the due date of the SDGs approaches, there is still a wide gap between what we committed to and what we have achieved.

Supporting this new human rights treaty, which will make it clear that the right to education includes learning both before and beyond primary school, is an important way to commit to closing that gap.

It will also provide a much-needed signal that international cooperation to advance human rights is still viable.

So on International Human Rights Day, I urge other UN member states to join Sierra Leone and the other countries supporting an Optional Protocol on the right to education, to ensure that every child has the opportunity to receive a quality, free pre-primary and secondary education.

Russia’s Lukoil has until December 13 to negotiate the sale of most of its international assets following U. S. sanctions and the rejection of Swiss buyer Gunvor. Lukoil’s international assets, which include oil and gas ventures, refining, and over 2,000 gas stations across various regions, are valued at around $22 billion, and any deals must be approved by the U. S. Treasury.

Potential buyers for Lukoil’s assets include major U. S. oil companies like Exxon Mobil and Chevron, the Abu Dhabi International Holding Company, Austrian investor Bernd Bergmair, Hungary’s MOL, and U. S. private equity firm Carlyle.

Lukoil’s significant upstream operations in the Middle East include a 75% stake in Iraq’s West Qurna 2 oilfield and a 60% stake in Iraq’s Block 10 development. In Egypt, the company holds stakes in various oilfields alongside local partners. In the UAE, Lukoil has a 10% stake in the Ghasha gas development. In Central Asia, Lukoil owns portions of important oil and gas projects in Kazakhstan and operates fields in Uzbekistan.

In Africa and Latin America, Lukoil holds interests in several offshore oil blocks in Ghana, Congo, Nigeria, and Mexico.

Lukoil also possesses refining assets, including the Neftohim Burgas refinery in Bulgaria, which is the largest in the Balkans. The Bulgarian government has made moves to potentially seize and sell these assets. The U. S. Treasury has allowed some transactions involving Lukoil’s Bulgarian refinery until April 29, 2026. In Romania, Lukoil owns the Petrotel refinery and has about 300 gas stations, with companies reportedly interested in purchasing these assets.

For fuel retail, the U. S. Treasury extended the deadline for transactions involving Lukoil’s gas stations outside Russia to April 29, 2026. Despite this, Lukoil’s Finnish subsidiary Teboil has filed for restructuring and anticipates selling its petrol stations. The Romanian government is also moving to take control of Lukoil’s assets in the country. Lukoil operates around 200 gas stations in the U. S.

U. S. sanctions are dismantling Lukoil’s trading arm, Litasco, causing significant layoffs in its offices worldwide.

With information from Reuters