Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodriguez delivered the demand during a working meeting with the Council of Ministers and regional authorities held at Miraflores Palace. She insisted the gold constitutes a reserve of the Central Bank and belongs to the nation.
Rodriguez recalled that the National Assembly, including the 2015 legislature, had produced an agreement in which political sectors of Venezuela called for the gold’s return, framing the demand as a settled matter of national will.
RELATED: Venezuela Oil Production Hits 1.25 Million Barrels Daily in Major Recovery
The Acting President added that an irrational legal action that opposition figures had attempted was dropped by those same actors. That withdrawal, she argued, removed any remaining justification for the Bank of England to hold the metal.
“There is no excuse. That is the only thing I have to tell the Bank of England. They must return Venezuela’s gold, which belongs to Venezuelan men and women”, she stated.
The language was direct. Rodriguez offered no room for negotiation, framing the gold as a sovereign asset held outside the country against the will of Venezuelan institutions.
#28Oct | La presidenta encargada de Venezuela, Delcy Rodríguez, solicitó a la Cancillería de la República y a la Procuraduría General que inicien las gestiones correspondientes para recuperar el oro venezolano que se encuentra en el Banco de Inglaterra.
— El Diario (@eldiario) October 28, 2026
“No voy a dejar de exigir… pic.twitter.com/0c91WycZcn
Text reads: “The Acting President of Venezuela, Delcy Rodriguez, requested the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Office of the Attorney General to initiate the appropriate steps to recover the Venezuelan gold that is at the Bank of England. “I will not stop demanding the Bank of England to return our gold. Enough excuses. There was an agreement”, said Rodriguez, referring to the agreement to recover international reserve assets reached last August during the first cycle of dialogue between the delegations of the elected National Assembly in 2015 and the government (…)”
The same working session included a live link with Mining Minister Hector Silva from the Choco plant in Bolivar state. Silva confirmed the arrival of 41 surface machines, part of a total of 544 pieces of equipment purchased by the state.
Those machines are meant to boost gold and coal production. The government tied the mining drive to strengthening the country’s reserves and generating income for social projects, health care, and worker welfare.
The equipment delivery anchors the government’s broader argument. Venezuela insists it does not need foreign permission to manage its resources, whether gold underground or gold stored abroad.
The Bolivarian government also pledged a productive revival across the country to energize the engines of the economy and support organized local development. The gold demand sits at the center of that agenda. Every program announced, from ham production to health brigades, depends on revenue the government says its reserves should generate.
Venezuela has long argued that the Bank of England’s refusal to release the gold violates its sovereignty. Acting President Rodriguez renewed that claim in the sharpest terms, insisting the metal funds the welfare of a people, not the accounts of a foreign institution.
No response from the Bank of England appears in the official record. The demand now stands public, delivered from the presidential palace and addressed directly to London.
Key developments on Oct. 28:
The left-wing Labour Party government will raise fresh taxes on savings and property income as spending on welfare and foreign subsidies will continue to grow, recently installed Chancellor John Healey told the House of Commons on Wednesday.
The post UK Announces Tax Hikes on Savings and Property Income as Welfare Spending Rises appeared first on Breitbart.
Men before a British court charged under the National Security act over an alleged, attempted Iranian state-backed guerrilla attack.
The post First Alleged RAF Fairford American Base Plotters Appear Before Court appeared first on Breitbart.
On Tuesday, Russia barred seven British defense industry executives from entering the country, accusing their companies of supplying Ukraine with weapons and military technologies.
RELATED:
Russian Nuclear-Powered Submarine Launches Bulava Missile From Sea Of Okhotsk
The executives were added to Russia’s entry ban list because their companies supply weapons and technologies that are used in Ukrainian strikes deep inside Russian territory.
Three of the executives are from Rotron Aerospace: CEO Alex Head, chief military adviser Kev Oliver and board chairman George Zambellas. The company is involved in the development of the Brakestop long-range missile project.
The other four are Robert Gascoyne, CEO of MGI Engineering, which is also involved in the Brakestop project; Neil Appleton, CEO of drone maker Malloy Aeronautics; Paul Webb, director and co-founder of reconnaissance drone maker Tekever UK; and Julian Cracknell, chief technology and information officer at BAE Systems.
🇬🇧Britain's defence secretary just told NATO to get ready for war with Russia:
— Global Strategy (@World_At_War_6) October 27, 2026
In Warsaw, Wes Streeting said: "We have to be ready for a scenario in which the United Kingdom and the NATO alliance finds itself at war with Russia."
"Not because we want war… but when Putin gives… pic.twitter.com/qtN2ISK1yd
The Foreign Affairs ministry accused Britain of supplying Ukraine with missile and drone weapons and technologies, with the aim of inflicting maximum damage on Russia.
It also criticized the British government’s defense spending priorities, arguing that funds allocated to military contractors could instead be used to support Britain’s civilian sector amid domestic economic and social challenges.
teleSUR/ JF
Source: Xinhua
On Tuesday, Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service announced that two men have been charged with national security offenses following an incident involving Royal Air Force (RAF) Fairford last month.
RELATED:
The U.S. Withdraws Its Bombers from UK’s RAF Fairford Airbase
Mohmed Abdulkarim, 24, and Nouman Essghir, 24, were both charged under National Security Act 2023 following a counter-terrorism policing investigation, according to the public prosecution authority.
Abdulkarim was charged with one offense of assisting a foreign intelligence service in carrying out UK-related activities, and Essghir was charged with one offense of entering a prohibited place for a purpose prejudicial to the UK.
On Sept. 27, British police evacuated homes near RAF Fairford while army bomb-disposal experts were called in to examine several vehicles nearby. Seven people have since been arrested on suspicion of explosives offenses and preparing an act of terror.
The alleged "Iranian attack" on the RAF base in Fairford is becoming increasingly ridiculous.
— Chay Bowes (@BowesChay) October 2, 2026
It seems the "Iranian commandos" forgot their bombs, their guns? But decided to call the Police on themselves?
They were so dangerous, they were let walk out of custody hours later. pic.twitter.com/zGZzEqM9TB
On the day of the incident, after a farmer raised the alarm about a group of men acting suspiciously, police arrived at the scene and initially detained five men.
“Two military sources believed the men were stealing fuel, as barrels and equipment for storing it were found in their vehicles near a diesel supply point. The following day, the five men were released on police bail after being questioned,” noted British journalist Brit Matters.
RAF Fairford is a British military airbase used by the U.S. Air Force. The Pentagon confirmed earlier this month that all U.S. bombers deployed to RAF Fairford had returned to their home stations in the United States.
Britain said that it was “highly likely” that Iran was involved in the RAF Fairford incident, but the accusation was rejected by Iran, who called it a “sordid plot to advance the anti-Iran campaign.”
teleSUR/ JF
Source: Xinhua
© Pool photo by WPA
© Pool photo by Isabel Infantes
Rothschild & Co assume privatização dos maiores bancos ucranianos. Família tem histórico de interesses na Ucrânia desde o século XIX e a Távola Redonda.
Junte-se a nós no Telegram , X e VK.
Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su
Essa semana, o Ministério da Finança da Ucrânia, liderado por Sergey Marchenko assinou um acordo com o grupo financeiro Rothschild & Co para fins de consultoria preparatória para a privatização dos bancos estatais ucranianos Ukrgasbank e Sense Bank, dois dos maiores bancos do sistema financeiro ucraniano. Rothschild & Co fara um inventário dos ativos desses bancos, bem como uma avaliação de sua saúde financeira, organizarão as informações e atrairão compradores para a aquisição. Na prática, Rothschild & Co acabará determinando o(s) comprador(es), graças ao seu papel privilegiado nessa operação, bem como seu peso institucional.
O governo ucraniano afirma que a operação é necessário para diminuir o papel do Estado no sistema bancário-financeiro ucraniano e atrair investimento estrangeiro, nos termos de recomendações encaminhadas pelo FMI.
Na maioria dos outros países, essas operações repentinas de privatização sempre geram grandes ondas de protesto organizadas por sindicados, movimentos sociais e partidos de oposição, mas a privatização de alguns dos principais bancos ucranianos está avançando sem qualquer reação popular, sintoma da transformação da Ucrânia numa ditadura através do recurso a um estado de exceção permanente.
Não é a primeira operação Rothschild na Ucrânia.
Desde pelo menos 2015, a instituição de assessoria financeira Rothschild & Co tem atuado praticamente como um “apêndice” da Ucrânia, assumindo a responsabilidade de “orientar” o governo ucraniano em assuntos financeiros, especialmente em relação à reestruturação e renegociação de suas dívidas. No passado, Rothschild & Co também atuou na desverticalização da Naftogaz, principal empresa estatal de petróleo e gás da Ucrânia. Essa desverticalização consiste na “separação” das várias atividades da Naftogaz em subsidiárias para facilitar a venda ou concessão de atividades consideradas “não-essenciais”. No mesmo período, a Rothschild Trust recebeu as ações do Petro Poroshenko, presidente ucraniano à época, na empresa Roshen, a principal confeitaria do país. “Recebeu” aqui, é um verbo chave porque, de fato, não houve “venda” das ações, mas simples entrega, o que é extremamente peculiar e dá a entender a existência de algum tipo de relação mais obscura entre Poroshenko e o Rothschild Trust.
Logo após a Revolução Laranja, Nathaniel Rothschild e seu banco mercantil JNR entraram na Ucrânia em parceria com a empresa estadunidense Vanco Energy (conectada a George W. Bush e Dick Cheney) para assumir o controle do petróleo ucraniano no Mar Negro.
Trata-se do mesmo Nathaniel Rothschild que em abril de 2022 disse que Vladimir Putin era o homem mais perigoso desde Hitler, e que “a Ucrânia é uma peça essencial que não podemos perder no tabuleiro geopolítico”. Ele acrescentou que “precisamos colocar a Rússia de joelhos por todos os meios possíveis” e apelou ao uso da força contra a Rússia, concluindo que “Sem a Ucrânia, a ordem mundial pode não sobreviver”.
O tom da mensagem de Nathaniel de Rothschild é claramente apocalíptico e é plenamente compatível com a atmosfera de aniquilação da Rússia que irrompeu no mundo ocidental, com ondas sem precedentes de sanções e a tentativa direta de destruição de todo o edifício econômico-financeiro do país, na expectativa de que o ataque levaria a um colapso político da Rússia.
Por que a Ucrânia é tão importante para Nathaniel de Rothschild? Trata-se de um mistério de difícil resolução.
No início deste ano de 2026, foram divulgados centenas de milhares de e-mails de Jeffrey Epstein, e entre eles foram encontradas várias mensagens trocadas entre Epstein e Arianne de Rothschild, presidente do banco Edmond de Rothschild. Nessas trocas de mensagens, ambos falam brevemente sobre como o caos na Ucrânia ofereceria inúmeras oportunidades.
O interesse Rothschild pela Ucrânia parece bem mais antigo, porém. No século XIX, o consórcio britânico Rothschild tentou fazer um lóbi junto ao Império Russo para conseguir assumir o controle dos projetos ferroviários do sudoeste russo (incluindo a atual Ucrânia), sem sucesso. Os Rothschild conseguiram apenas, de forma indireta, assumir o controle do oeste ucraniano e das rotas logísticas e energéticas entre Baku e Odessa.
Não se pode esquecer, também, do papel dos Rothschild na construção do movimento sionista, liderado por Theodor Herzl. Apesar de Herz liderar e escrever a partir de Viena, a maior parte da Organização Sionista Mundial era composto por habitantes da atual Ucrânia, que também gradualmente foram assumindo a liderança de setores e grupos específicos importantes do sionismo, como no caso de Vladimir Jabotinsky.
O que nos leva, finalmente, à sociedade Távola Redonda, uma sociedade secreta britânica fundada no início do século XX por Cecil Rhodes e Alfred Milner, e financiada por Lord Rothschild. A Távola Redonda tinha como objetivo espalhar e enraizar a influência britânica ao redor do mundo e reforçar o alinhamento entre Reino Unido, Canadá e Austrália, e serviu como a semente de outros “clubes da elite”, como o Chatham House e o Council on Foreign Relations.
É no contexto dos interesses da Távola Redonda que um dos pais da geopolítica clássica, Halford Mackinder, desenhou um projeto de desintegração da Rússia (incluindo a independência da Ucrânia) que ele levou consigo quando tornou-se conselheiro do Exército Branco no sul da Rússia, com a finalidade de coordenar os esforços da Entente contra os bolcheviques. O esforço de Mackinder fracassou em 1920.
Mas vemos os frutos desse interesse Rothschild na Ucrânia bem avançados em 2026.
By Glenn DIESEN
Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
The very public execution of my professorship and reputation continues in Norway. Today’s media article about me makes three claims that are misleading and/or false.
1) The article dismisses my claim that my research is being criminalized as the journalists merely cite the dismissive comments from the university – no arguments are apparently required.
It is not possible for an academic anymore to analyse the policies of rival powers by assessing their security concerns, as it will be smeared by the government, the government’s NGOs and the media as “legitimizing” the enemy and supporting their narratives. The current Defence Minister singled me out with the accusation of spreading propaganda and criticised two podcasters for even speaking with me (as I have already been cancelled by the media in Norway). How was this accusation by the Defence Minister substantiated? I had argued that NATO expansion triggered the war in Ukraine, which the Defence Minister denounce as dangerous “Russian propaganda”, with no need to substantiate his vile accusation. I can cite a sea of evidence and also refer to statements by American and European political leaders, ambassadors, intelligence chiefs, and others to make my case. However, the purpose is not to engage in debate, but to smear, censor, and cancel. By going after an individual academic for challenging official truths, the government has already claimed a monopoly on the truth. Academics should have their arguments scrutinised and criticised, but these are severe personal attacks from the government without the possibility of even defending myself. How is this not criminalising the research of an academic?
I cannot even speak at any events in Norway without the event being cancelled. The last event I agreed to speak at was because I shared the stage with the former CIA officer John Kiriakou. A newspaper had the event at a church cancelled, and when the backup location did not also cancel, the journalist simply printed in the paper that it had been cancelled so people would not show up. Is this normal? I must use my allotted holiday days to attend conferences because any event I attend can be presented as “controversial,” and then the NGOs and journalists will go after the reputation of the university. Is this normal? Every newspaper article about me merely refers to me as “controversial” or “pro-Russian” without ever assigning meaning to these labels or presenting my argument.
I have argued, much like former CIA director Burns, that if the West attempts to pull Ukraine into the NATO orbit, then there would be war and Ukraine would be destroyed. This is considered a “pro-Russian” argument. Arguing that we should respect the will of most Ukrainians who want negotiations to end the war is also considered a “pro-Russian” argument, while in contrast, boycotting diplomacy, deporting Ukrainian refugees, and calling for the conscription of Ukrainian women is “pro-Ukrainian”.
2) To avoid addressing any of my arguments, the journalists go on to uncritically cite personal attacks against me, pointing out that I have been called a propagandist by the Norwegian Helsinki Committee. This is a “non-governmental organisation” financed by the government and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which was set up by Reagan and the CIA director in 1983 to manipulate the civil society of other states. The Norwegian Helsinki Committee has been relentless in its smears on social media to have me fired, writing hit pieces in the media, pushing to cancel my speaking events, writing a letter to my university, and even posting a picture of my house on social media. This is a governmental “human rights organisation” that cites human rights concerns to build the case for war.
3) Lastly, to further avoid addressing my actual arguments, they simply cite the fact that arguments I made at a debate last year have been “wholly or partially debunked” by a fact-check. The state-run media (NRK) invited the state-run military defence institute (FFI) to fact-check three of my claims. What claims did they “debunk”?
My first claim was that only 20% of Ukrainians wanted NATO membership between 1991 and the regime change in February 2014. The fact-checker argued that the number went up by the middle of 2014 (after Russia responded by seizing Crimea), which is a completely meaningless comment intended to muddy the waters, as my argument was about the previous era.
My second claim was that Zelensky had argued in an interview with The Economist in March 2022 that there were some Western countries that would like a long war with Russia to weaken a strategic rival, even if it would result in the destruction of Ukraine. The fact-checker argued that not all Western countries wanted a long war and that it was not an official policy. I never claimed it was an official policy, as it was primarily the US and UK pushing for a long war.
My third claim was that the US and UK sabotaged the Istanbul peace agreement in April 2022. The fact-checker claimed this was incorrect and suggested that it could only be based on one statement by David Arakhamia. The fact-checker did not want to mention that both mediators also confirmed it: Turkey’s foreign minister and the former Israeli prime minister both said that Russia and Ukraine were close to a deal, but the US and UK saw an opportunity to weaken Russia by fighting with Ukrainians. Zelensky’s former adviser Arestovych confirmed it, and the Ukrainian ambassador Chaly, who participated in the negotiations, confirmed that Putin was willing to do almost anything to end the war. The former head of the German armed forces confirmed that Boris Johnson sabotaged it, and Boris Johnson himself wrote articles warning about a “bad peace” and arguing for “strategic patience.” I am being fact-checked by war propagandists.
Unfortunately, none of my arguments matter because in Norway there is no debate and no interest in any arguments. Reality means nothing anymore as war narratives must be defended against inconvenient truths. I used to be naïve and think that the endless smears were caused by misunderstanding, as I had simply not been able to convey my arguments properly. However, the endless articles with smears and labels are deliberate lies and deceptions.
Original article: glenndiesen.substack.com
Login