Argentine lawmaker Marcela Pagano filed a criminal complaint against officials of the Milei administration to investigate how Brazilian senator Flavio Bolsonaro crossed into Argentina and departed for United States despite a judicial ban on leaving Brazil.

---

The complaint was presented before the Federal Court in Puerto Iguazu, in Misiones province. It seeks to establish the circumstances of Bolsonaro’s entry into Argentina and his later departure toward United States.

The far-right senator, son of former President Jair Bolsonaro, lost the presidential run-off to Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva on Sunday. He faces criminal cases in Brazil for corruption and money laundering, and Supreme Federal Court justice Alexandre de Moraes had prohibited him from leaving the country.

RELATED: What Role Did Milei Play in Flavio Bolsonaro’s Escape?

Pagano framed the matter in stark terms. “The justice system has to establish who organized Bolsonaro’s passage through our territory toward U.S. and whether Argentine officials facilitated it. A government cannot become the escape route for someone who is barred from leaving his country by court order”, she said.

The reconstruction presented to the court traces the route in detail. The Brazilian Senator crossed the international border between Foz do Iguazu and Puerto Iguazu through the Tancredo Neves crossing at 10.50 P.M. local time on Tuesday.

Forty minutes after entering Argentine soil, Flávvio Bolsonaro and his family boarded a private Gulfstream G400 jet at Iguazu International Airport. The aircraft belongs to the firm Baires Fly and had been positioned there since Monday.

🇧🇷 "I address the Brazilian people and the international community as the true elected president of Brazil."

Senator Flávio Bolsonaro, who lost Sunday's presidential runoff to incumbent Lula da Silva by about 4.4 million votes, is claiming the presidency in a statement released… pic.twitter.com/oTTodsaOcU

— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) October 28, 2026

A Flight Around Brazil

The jet traced a path through the airspace of Paraguay, Bolivia, and Peru. It made a technical stop in Guayaquil, Ecuador, before landing Wednesday in Miami, avoiding Brazilian airspace at every stage.

Pagano detailed that Flávio Bolsonaro reached the air terminal under escort from an Airport Security Police patrol car. That force answers to the Security Ministry, which falls under the federal Executive.

The National Directorate of Migration initially denied on Tuesday that the conservative leader was present or had any flight plans. Yet the government of Javier Milei officially acknowledged his passage at 2.00 A.M. Wednesday, when the aircraft was already airborne.

The complaint demands clarification of another element, the presence in Misiones of Santiago Caputo, political strategist and chief advisor to the Argentine presidency. Caputo reportedly arrived in the province earlier in the week aboard the same private plane.

La Dirección Nacional de Migraciones informa que a las 22:50 hs del dia 27/10, ingresaron por el paso fronterizo de Puente internacional Tancredo Neves en la provincia de Misiones, los ciudadanos Flavio Nantes Bolsonaro, Fernanda Antunes Figueira Bolsonaro, Carolina Figueira…

— Migraciones (@Migraciones_AR) October 28, 2026

Text reads: “The National Directorate of Migration reports that at 10:50 P.M. on October 27, entered through the border crossing of Tancredo Neves International Bridge in the province of Misiones, citizens Flávio Nantes Bolsonaro, Fernanda Antunes Figueira Bolsonaro, Carolina Figueira Bolsonaro and Luiza Figueira Bolsonaro, who did so with skilled travel documentation without any legal impediment to entry into the country, also the transits were registered by the enforcement authority without incidents. For its part, at 11:30 P.M., the incoming party boarded a private flight dispatched by the company Baires Fly S.A to the city of Guayaquil, Ecuador, as reported in the flight plan.”

The written filing asks the court to investigate alleged crimes of illegal trafficking of persons, facilitation of illegal stay, abuse of authority, violation of public official’s duties, and cover-up. It requests urgent evidence measures including camera footage from the border bridge, aeronautical records, and the Airport Security Police duty logs.

The political fallout reached the legislature quickly. Argentine Congressman and former Defense Minister Agustin Rossi formalized a request to summon the Chief of Cabinet, Diego Santilli, to answer before Parliament.

The sequence raises the question at the heart of the complaint. A senator barred from leaving his country crossed a border, boarded a private jet, and flew to Miami without touching Brazilian airspace, all with a police escort on Argentine soil.

The government first denied any knowledge. It then confirmed the passage hours later, after the plane was gone. That gap between denial and confirmation sits at the center of the criminal filing.

Ver esta publicación en Instagram

Una publicación compartida de teleSUR English (@telesurenglish)

The denunciation now forces the federal justice system to determine whether officials in the Milei administration facilitated a fugitive’s exit. The demand in Congress puts the same question to the Cabinet’s Chief.

After fierce debate, faculty members will begin voting Thursday on a resolution to condemn the administration’s handling of campus sexual assault.

© Lauren Petracca for The New York Times

U.S. federal judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, who presided over the criminal case against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, died Wednesday at the age of 92, and his pending cases will pass to another judge.

---

Alvin K. Hellerstein died Wednesday at 92 of natural causes after nearly three decades presiding over high-profile matters. He had led the penal process against President Maduro and Cilia Flores since the two were kidnapped on January 3 during a U.S. military incursion into Venezuelan territory.

Ed Friedland, administrative director of the Federal Court for the Southern District of New York, confirmed the death.

RELATED: Global Manifesto Demands Immediate Freedom for President Maduro and Cilia Flores

Hellerstein held the role for nearly three decades. He was appointed in 1998 by then U.S President Bill Clinton to the Southern District of New York, considered one of the most significant federal tribunals in United States.

BDE: Longtime Manhattan federal Judge Alvin Hellerstein, an Orthodox Jew appointed by President Clinton in 1998, has died at 92, according to a court spokesperson. He was overseeing the prosecution of deposed Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro. pic.twitter.com/w0nHyrcwc2

— KolHaolam (@KolHaolam) October 28, 2026

A New Judge

The federal case against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has a new judge. Analisa Torres will preside over the Southern District of New York proceedings after the death of Alvin K. Hellerstein, court records confirmed Wednesday.

The tribunal posted a document covering the reassignment of matters “previously assigned to judges no longer serving due to retirement or death.” The notice names Torres as the magistrate now handling the file.

The court’s standard procedure produced the transition. A docket left by a deceased judge passes to a colleague, assigned without public choice. The reassignment document makes no special provision for the President Maduro file, treating it like every other pending matter.

Analisa Torres was born in New York in 1959. She reached the federal bench in 2013 by appointment of President Barack Obama, and she has since presided over a wide range of civil, criminal, and regulatory matters.

Her path runs deep in the law. Descended from a family of Puerto Rican judges, she graduated with honors from Harvard, earned her doctorate at Columbia Law School, and worked in private firms before entering the courts. Before her federal appointment she sat for almost a decade on the New York State Supreme Court. Earlier she served on the city’s civil and criminal benches.

New judge on the Maduro case is Analisa Torres, a Barack Obama appointee who took the bench in 2013. https://t.co/y37dLBuXia pic.twitter.com/YmbF6pAm7A

— Erik Uebelacker (@Uebey) October 28, 2026

June Trial Still Scheduled

The trial against the Venezuelan President and his wife remains set for June 14, 2027. The judge’s death did not alter that date, and the schedule already fixed by the court holds.

On October 15, President Maduro and Flores appeared at a judicial hearing in New York after prosecutors tightened the accusations against them. The two listened to the arguments and pleaded “not guilty” to the new charges of alleged conspiracy to commit torture brought by the U.S. Attorney’s office.

That same day Hellerstein accepted a request presented by both the prosecution and the defense to postpone the start of the trial by two weeks. The extra time allows both sides to present pretrial motions.

The next hearing was programmed for December 17. On that date the defense will argue its motions to dismiss the case. The outcome of those arguments could reshape the proceeding before it reaches a jury. President Maduro’s lawyers affirmed that sovereign immunity shields the President from prosecution in a foreign court.

Hellerstein’s career extended far beyond this single file. Over nearly three decades on the federal bench he supervised a wide variety of matters, including the litigation tied to the September 11 attacks.

That new judge will inherit the pretrial motions, the pending defense requests, and the responsibility of presiding over a trial that involves a sitting head of State and his spouse.

Venezuelan authorities have characterized the detention of President Nicolas Maduro and Cilia Flores as a kidnapping carried out during a military incursion into sovereign territory. The December 17 hearing stands as the next concrete step in a process scheduled to stretch into mid 2027.

We can learn a lot from a long-dead labor leader about how to reckon with technology that threatens our jobs.

"I'm sending a sledgehammer message to shipping companies whose tankers are transporting illegal Russian diesel to our ports," Sen. Richard Blumenthal said. "Reverse course while there's still time."

By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | October 28, 2026

The needle may not have moved on ending the Ukraine war but the joint phone call on October 27 by Finland’s President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre to Russian President Vladimir Putin can be regarded as a defining moment. The two Nordic leaders insisted that their initiative was taken solely in their capacity as neighbours of Russia rather than on behalf of Europe, but the fact remains that their initiative was borne out of their exclusive meeting in Oslo on October 20 with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and US special envoy Stephen Witkoff.

Russian expert opinion is that it is unlikely that Oslo and Helsinki acted without the consent of Brussels [EU] and Kyiv. But no one is making an issue of the white lie. Clearly, European countries are attempting to re-establish direct communication channels with Russia. Entry of Finland and Norway in the negotiation process indicates that even Ukraine’s most vocal supporters are shifting their position in favor of dialogue with Russia. According to official data, Norway has provided Kyiv with nearly €17 billion in aid, while Finland has provided €5 billion.

On October 21, Witkoff flew into St. Petersburg from Oslo to transmit some fresh proposals on Ukraine in light of his discussions, which is leading to the first trilateral US-Ukraine-Russia talks since the start of the year, tentatively planned for early November in Abu Dhabi. Zelensky said Stubb and Støre debriefed him after the call to Putin and that he was grateful for their “active support.” Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha remarked that the call had been “the right approach”.

The two Nordic leaders stated that their 90-minute call from Helsinki to Putin was part of “the diplomatic efforts to end the war and promote peace and stability in Europe”; the conversation had been “frank and substantive.” Støre added that there were “big differences in views” with Putin.

European Union is a divided house on how to go about engaging with Russia after riding the high horse all through the tumultuous years since Moscow’s ‘special military operation’ began in February 2022. But they are sensing that the last train is leaving the station and they should be on board.

However, President Donald Trump is estimating from the feedback received from Witkoff on Putin’s reaction to the peace proposals – which followed his own call to Putin on October 9 – that an opportune moment is at hand to advance the peace process. By the way, Trump must be having a ‘feel good’ over the mutually respectful working relationship between the Kremlin and his spouse Melania that resulted in a localized humanitarian ceasefire in the Russian-occupied city of Oleshky in the southern region of Kherson brokered by the US First Lady. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has suggested that the ceasefire in Oleshky could be a model for other areas of the contact line as well – “especially when it comes to the positive, coordinating participation of American negotiators, including First Lady Melania Trump.”

In the downstream of the recent US-Russia Diesel Deal, a payment system needs to be put in place and Trump is reportedly considering the lifting of sanctions on the Russian Direct Investment Fund (an at least $10 billion sovereign wealth fund created by the Russian government to co‑invest in the Russian economy). Suffice it to say, a door is opening for large projects involving American companies in other areas in the Russian economy as well.

Trump has virtually mothballed the Lindsey Graham Act empowering him to sanction Russia’s oil and gas exports. He is reportedly also planning to have an agreement to import large volumes of Russian fertilizer to meet the demands of the American farmers. In political terms, Trump would probably explain all this as a strategy to ‘incentivize’ the Russian side to be flexible at the negotiations but it will no doubt give stability and predictability to the overall Russian-American relationship.

The Kremlin readout of Putin’s phone conversation with the two Nordic leaders made three key points: first, it was emphasised that the thrust of the forthcoming trilateral talks between Russia, Ukraine and the US at Abu Dhabi in early November is “intended in particular to discuss ways to ensure the security of both Russia and Ukraine once a complete cessation of hostilities is reached.”

Second, Putin underscored that “a just and lasting peace would be possible only if the interests of the Russian Federation are considered in full and without any conditions attached.” Third, Putin took exception to “the EU and NATO’s confrontational policies which result in prolonging the hostilities.” The reference is to the escalatory moves by European powers.

Of course, the trilateral talks in November are not going to bring the conflict to an end. The EU countries are more focused on their status in a conflict resolution than apply themselves to making constructive proposals in the negotiating process, so their inclusion in the current format is irrelevant not possible for the time being. On the other hand, Moscow would realize that creating a new European security architecture without European participation is impossible.

The Russian presidential aide Yuri Ushakov previously noted that dialogue with Europe is necessary, as it is the European Union that supports Kyiv. Peskov also previously spoke of openness to negotiations with Europe. There is no question that further developments depend largely on relations between Europe and the US. Most European countries continue to look up to Washington.

In the entire history of the ex-colonial European powers, this week would have been a most humiliating experience, having to go to the Kremlin to engage with Putin whom they used to demonize like nobody’s business till the other day. The two Nordic politicians, according to Ushakov, sheepishly asked Putin whether it is possible for Zelensky to have a meeting with him. These are the first signs that they are disowning and dispossessing Zelensky now that he is becoming a liability. Brussels is having a problem to find money for him to tide over the period till an agreement is reached. No one is willing to contribute – not even Germany – since everyone knows this money is never going to be returned.

The unkindest cut of all is the suggestion from Witkoff and Jared Kushner that EU countries should resume sourcing Russian oil and gas. The two American negotiators gently advised that Nord Stream gas pipeline could be repaired and used. Per European media reports, American companies are talking to the Russians about reviving Nord Stream and selling Russian gas to the European market.

An in-depth look at thirty years of dynastic clientelism, illicit property purchases, and attacks on democratic institutions

The Bolsonaro family’s political trajectory marks a polarizing era in modern Brazilian history. Led by patriarch Jair Bolsonaro, a former army captain who served nearly three decades in Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies, the political clan built its brand on anti-establishment rhetoric, militarism, social conservatism, and zero-tolerance policies toward crime.

RELATED:
Brazil’s Court Probes Foreign Funds in Flávio Bolsonaro’s Campaign

Despite promoting an image centered on traditional values and law enforcement, investigative records and judicial proceedings of the Bolsonaro family depict a political network deeply tied to public fund diversion, money laundering, and connections with armed paramilitary groups.

The Bolsonaro family expanded its influence into a dynasty, embedding sons Flávio, Carlos, and Eduardo across local, state, and federal offices.

Flávio Bolsonaro served as a Rio de Janeiro state deputy for sixteen years before his election to the Federal Senate in 2018. Carlos Bolsonaro directed public messaging as a Rio city councilor, while Eduardo Bolsonaro represented São Paulo as a federal deputy.

The structural base of this network began unraveling following political shifts, election defeats, and growing scrutiny from the Supreme Federal Court (STF) and federal authorities.

Clientelism, Militias, and the Rio de Janeiro Subculture

Jair Bolsonaro’s public life began in the late 1980s following his departure from the Brazilian Armed Forces. Elected to the Rio de Janeiro City Council in 1988 and to Congress in 1990, Jair Bolsonaro established a conservative political base anchored in military sector interests, opposition to progressive social policies, and public defense of paramilitary activity.

During his parliamentary career, Jair Bolsonaro openly defended Rio de Janeiro’s irregular security forces, known locally as milícias. These militias are armed paramilitary groups formed by former and active police officers who exercise territorial control over neighborhood communities.

Unlike drug trafficking networks, militia groups operate illegal local monopolies in extortion, land sales, private security, public transport, and cooking gas distribution. In parliamentary speeches, Jair Bolsonaro repeatedly characterized these militia groups as “self-defense units” that brought order to neglected communities.

The expansion of the Bolsonaro family’s political influence relied heavily on these political networks. In 2002, Flávio Bolsonaro was elected to the Legislative Assembly of Rio de Janeiro (ALERJ) at age twenty-one. Carlos Bolsonaro secured his city council seat in 2000 at age seventeen.

This strategy allowed the family to secure multiple legislative budgets, employ political operatives across jurisdictions, and maintain influence in local communities.

During his time at ALERJ, Flávio Bolsonaro maintained direct political and employment ties with figures associated with Rio’s militia structures. Flávio Bolsonaro employed Raimunda Veras Magalhães and Danielle Mendonça da Costa—the mother and ex-wife of Adriano Magalhães da Nóbrega—in his legislative office.

Nóbrega was a former Special Police Operations Battalion captain who led the Crime Bureau (Escritório do Crime), a professional hit squad linked to militia extortion and high-profile assassinations.

Official records show Flávio Bolsonaro conferred the Medal of Tiradentes, the highest honor awarded by the Rio legislature, on Nóbrega in 2005 while Nóbrega was incarcerated on murder charges.

Financial audits showed that funds drawn from legislative payrolls were routed through accounts controlled by Nóbrega’s family members, linking parliamentary staff operations directly to informal militia networks.

Defeated Brazilian presidential candidate Flávio Bolsonaro and his family have landed in Miami after fleeing his country.

This comes a day after they were granted United States visas by the Trump administration. pic.twitter.com/oB91ejWab5

— The Associated Press (@AP) October 28, 2026

Flávio Bolsonaro and the Rachadinha System

During his mandate in the Legislative Assembly of Rio de Janeiro, Flávio Bolsonaro operated a systematic financial embezzlement enterprise through his parliamentary office.

This illicit network relied on a practice known locally as a salary kickback scheme (rachadinha), a scheme in which legislative staff members are required to return a substantial portion of their public salaries to the elected official or an appointed intermediary.

Investigations conducted by the public prosecutor’s office of Rio de Janeiro and financial intelligence reports from the Council for Financial Activities Control (COAF) revealed that numerous staff members appointed to Flávio Bolsonaro’s office did not perform their legislative duties, functioning instead as nominal ghost employees.

Fabrício Queiroz, a retired military police officer, long-term associate of the Bolsonaro family, and former advisor to Flávio Bolsonaro, served as the primary operator of the collection network. COAF reports identified atypical financial transactions moving through Queiroz’s bank accounts, including transfers directed to members of the Bolsonaro family.

Investigators documented that a significant portion of the embezzled funds was funneled back to cover personal expenses for the Bolsonaro family, ranging from utility and school tuition payments to real estate acquisitions.

To legitimize the illicit funds generated through the rachadinha structure, Flávio Bolsonaro acquired commercial and residential properties and established a franchise business, a chocolate shop located in a Rio de Janeiro shopping mall.

Financial audits of the chocolate business revealed statistical anomalies: cash deposits into the store’s accounts frequently mismatched daily retail sales volumes, indicating the business operated partly as a front to inject cash from the legislative payroll scheme into the formal financial system.

Public prosecutors formally denounced Flávio Bolsonaro for embezzlement, money laundering, and running a criminal organization based on these findings.

Flávio Bolsonaro just two days ago:

“I will not give up on my Brazil.”

Two days later, he has reportedly fled Brazil for the U.S. pic.twitter.com/f91KsZ3V74

— Clash Report (@clashreport) October 27, 2026

Broader Crimes and Systemic Attacks on Brazilian Democracy

The financial allegations against Flávio Bolsonaro formed part of a broader pattern of asset accumulation and institutional interference linked to the wider Bolsonaro family network.

Investigative reports tracking real estate transactions across Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, and Brasília revealed that a substantial portion of the family’s property acquisitions over three decades were conducted using physical cash payments.

Public registries and journalistic investigations showed that family members purchased multiple residential and commercial units without utilizing standard banking mortgages or formal credit lines, raising concerns regarding the origin of the funds and potential systemic money laundering.

Beyond financial offenses, the family’s political dominance was maintained through continuous friction with investigative bodies and democratic institutions.

Throughout Jair Bolsonaro’s presidential term and the subsequent legislative mandates of his sons, the administration systematically attempted to alter leadership positions within federal agencies, including the Federal Police and the Federal Prosecutor’s Office.

The systemic subversion extended to public discourse, where state apparatuses were utilized to discredit journalists, civil society organizations, and judiciary members examining the clan’s legal exposures.

By framing routine judicial oversight and anti-corruption investigations as partisan political persecution, the Bolsonaro network undermined public trust in regulatory institutions while insulating its members from administrative accountability.

These maneuvers laid the groundwork for an escalating judicial crisis that culminated when electoral outcomes shifted control of the executive branch and removed institutional protections from the family’s inner circle.

The Anatomy of the Bolsonaro Exodus

The national elections on October 25 and subsequent rulings by the magistrate Alexandre de Moraes, representing Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court, marked a decisive shift in the legal landscape surrounding the Bolsonaro family.

As anti-corruption investigations advanced, the Supreme Federal Court, under the leadership of justices overseeing inquiries into financial crimes, institutional subversion, and antidemocratic acts, began tightening judicial restrictions on key figures within the clan. For this reason, Justice Moraes prohibited Flávio Bolsonaro from leaving Brazil and ordered the seizure of his passports—both his ordinary and diplomatic ones. After 24 hours, as he had not physically surrendered them, the Federal Police proceeded to officially cancel his travel documents.

It has been known through the medias that since October 27 Flávio Bolsonaro, along with his family, traveled via private transport to cross Brazil’s border; they are currently in the United States, having arrived there by private plane.

This strategic retreat mirrored patterns observed among regional political figures seeking to evade national accountability systems through foreign asylum or extended stays abroad.

The exodus highlighted broader questions regarding international cooperation and judicial jurisdiction. Right-wing political factions and sympathetic organizations abroad played a facilitative role, offering platforms and legal assistance to political figures fleeing Latin American jurisdictions.

Other media outlets reported that a U.S. State Department official stated that Flávio Bolsonaro and his family would be granted visas, allowing them to reside in the United States following his loss in the Brazilian election to Lula.

The departure of key family members underscored the challenges facing Brazilian legal institutions as they sought to enforce judicial rulings against individuals with transnational resources and foreign political allies.

WATCH: Brazilian President Lula on Flávio Bolsonaro leaving Brazil for the U.S.:

For the Bolsonaro family, Brazil is their second homeland.

Their first homeland is licking boots in the United States, just as they are accustomed to doing. pic.twitter.com/ugCdYWD9gg

— Clash Report (@clashreport) October 27, 2026

Impunity vs. Institutional Resilience in Brazil

The trajectory of the Bolsonaro family and the specific criminal charges leveled against Flávio Bolsonaro illustrate the structural contradictions of contemporary populist right-wing political movements.

While campaigning on platforms of moral renewal, fiscal discipline, and strict law enforcement, the Bolsonaro’s constructed a sophisticated network of public fund embezzlement, real estate money laundering, and structural alignment with paramilitary groups.

The legal actions and subsequent international flights of Flávio Bolsonaro and his family carry profound implications for Brazilian democracy. On one hand, the coordinated evasion of judicial mandates highlights the enduring vulnerability of state institutions when confronted with entrenched political dynasties possessing international safety valves.

On the other hand, the rigorous investigative work conducted by federal prosecutors, financial intelligence units, and the judiciary demonstrates the operational capacity of Brazil’s democratic framework to investigate and prosecute powerful political actors regardless of office.

Ultimately, the handling of the Bolsonaro family’s legal exposures serves as a critical test for the rule of law in Latin America.

As Brazilian courts continue to address the financial and institutional infractions of the Jair Bolsonaro administration, the outcome will define the boundaries of accountability for political elites in the region for decades to come.

Sources: Brasil de Fato – Agência Brasil – Gov.br – O Globo – Folha de S.Paulo – O Estado de S.Paulo – El País – CNN Brasil – EFE – TeleSUR – NYT

Concerns have been raised about Russia's true motives in agreeing to the ceasefire, as well as its agreement to allowing Trump to mediate it.

In a unilateral declaration by the health secretary, several injections promoted by online influencers will become widely available. The F.D.A. had advised against the move.

© Almaas Masood/Reuters

The Russian delegation will use the two-day meeting, held from Oct. 30 to Oct. 31, to "promote Russian ideas, aimed at strengthening the foundations of a multipolar world," Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said.

(Bloomberg) — The US military said vessels that have no need to move between ports in the Gulf of Oman and the Strait of Hormuz should stay away, as tensions...

Mr. Bolsonaro, who lost Sunday’s presidential election, fled Brazil for the United States via Argentina after the police canceled his passport in relation to an investigation.

© Eva Marie Uzcategui/Reuters

Al Mayadeen | October 28, 2026

The US military killed five people in a strike targeting a vessel in the eastern Pacific Ocean on Thursday, marking the latest operation in Washington’s expanding military campaign against alleged drug trafficking networks across Latin America.

US Southern Command said the vessel was targeted along what it described as “established narco-trafficking routes.” However, despite citing “confirmed intelligence”, the military did not publicly provide evidence that the boat was transporting narcotics at the time of the attack.

Footage released on social media showed a vessel in the crosshairs before being struck and engulfed in flames.

By media counts, the operation is one of over 70 such attacks carried out since US President Donald Trump returned to the White House for a second term, with the combined death toll now topping 240.

The operation comes amid a broader escalation ordered by the administration of US President Donald Trump, which has increasingly framed anti-drug operations as part of an armed conflict against what it calls “narcoterrorist” organizations.

Critics, however, have questioned both the evidentiary basis for many of the strikes and the classification of those targeted as “narcoterrorists”.

The US administration has yet to offer conclusive proof that the targeted vessels were carrying drugs, and the strikes have fueled a dispute over whether they are lawful.

Extrajudicial executions
The growing campaign has attracted increasing scrutiny from lawmakers, military legal experts, and human rights organizations.

Human rights organizations contend that the killings may qualify as extrajudicial executions, since the people hit appear to have been civilians who posed no imminent danger to the United States.

US senators have repeatedly called on the Pentagon to release unedited footage of the strikes, citing concerns regarding transparency and accountability.

Legal scholars have also challenged the administration’s justification for the operations, arguing that Washington has yet to clearly establish the legal framework underpinning the repeated use of lethal military force outside conventional battlefields.

It’s the elephant in the international living room

By Kevin Barrett | October 28, 2026

On February 28, the US and Israel launched an unprovoked attack on Iran, killing its Supreme Leader alongside many other officials—and around 160 civilians, mostly schoolgirls, at Minab. The attack was an extreme case of the supreme war crime: aggression. Attacks on civilian targets are, of course, also highly illegal. The US and Israel routinely target civilians and civilian infrastructure, and Trump even brags about it.

Western media, dominated by co-ethnics of the genocidal pariah state of Israel, paints black as white, up as down, freedom as slavery, ignorance as strength, and victims as perpetrators. Though the media won’t say it plainly, Israel is the world’s worst outlaw nation in every possible way, including its de facto national mission of the genocide of Palestine and invasion of neighboring states, its outrageous terrorism and torture, its hundreds of ongoing violations of UN resolutions and international law, notably its flaunting of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and its threatening the whole world, including ostensible allies, with the nuclear “Samson option”—while whining about Iran’s NPT-compliant civilian program.

The US, too, is a serial international outlaw, kidnapping and murdering leaders of sovereign nations, shredding the Geneva Convention and the UN Convention Against Torture at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, refusing to recognize ICC jurisdiction, repeatedly threatening dozens of nations with aggression, refusing to allow delegations access to the UN, and on and on.

By contrast, Iran is one of the most law-abiding states in the world. It hasn’t attacked another nation in centuries. It signed and complies with the NPT, despite being repeatedly attacked, and threatened with nuclear weapons, by the US and Israel.

But Iran insists on the equal application of international law. If Saddam’s attack on Kuwait (and before that Iran) was aggression, so are US attacks on Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Venezuela, and elsewhere. If Iran must abide by the NPT, so too must Israel. If Turkey can charge service fees at the Bosporus and Dardanelles, Iran and Oman can charge similar fees at the Strait of Hormuz. If apartheid was unacceptable in South Africa, its vastly worse equivalent is unacceptable in Occupied Palestine. And if “Responsibility to Protect” law enforcement interventions are necessary, obviously the first group on Earth that needs one is the Palestinians.

In a recent seminar I argued that Iran should do its best to highlight the fact that it supports and abides by international law, while the US and Israel do not. It’s a true, powerful message, and it isn’t getting through the deaf ears of Western mainstream media. But if Iran repeats this talking point often enough and loudly enough, some of it will penetrate the world’s consciousness through social media and other alternative channels.

What follows is an extract from a seminar I recently joined on this topic.

-KB

ODVV Online Webinar With Prof. Alfred De Zayas & Dr. Kevin Barrett; War, US Sanctions, And Human Rights: The Humanitarian Impact On Iran

ODVV.org

On Monday, 19 October 2026, the Organization for Defending Victims of Violence (ODVV) held an online webinar titled “War, U.S. Sanctions, and Human Rights: The Humanitarian Impact on Iran.” The discussion examined the humanitarian consequences of U.S. sanctions and military attacks against Iran, the question of international accountability, possible avenues for legal action, and the role of media narratives in shaping public understanding of war.

Dr. Kevin Barrett, an American writer, journalist, and political commentator, holds a Ph.D. in Arabic and Islamic Studies from the University of Wisconsin–Madison. His work has addressed the Middle East, international politics, media narratives, and the political and humanitarian consequences of war.

Professor Alfred-Maurice de Zayas is an international lawyer and Professor of International Law and History at the Geneva School of Diplomacy. From 2012 to 2018, he served as the United Nations Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order. He previously held senior positions at the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and served as Secretary of the UN Human Rights Committee and Chief of its Petitions Department. His contribution to the webinar focused on the legal status of unilateral coercive measures, their humanitarian consequences, and possible avenues for accountability.

The views expressed by the speakers are their own and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Organization for Defending Victims of Violence.

Kevin Barrett: Sanctions, Civilian Harm, and the Definition of Terrorism

Barrett began by discussing the definition of terrorism. He described it as violence against civilians intended to create fear and achieve political or ideological objectives. Applying this definition to the issues under discussion, he argued that U.S. sanctions and military attacks on civilian targets should be examined in terms of the harm they inflict on ordinary people. He maintained that restrictions affecting access to medicine, medical equipment, and food place pressure directly on the civilian population. Barrett said he viewed these measures as an effort to make life increasingly difficult for Iranians and to pressure them into accepting political change.

Addressing the 40-day war against Iran, Barrett referred to the attack on the Minab school and the deaths of schoolchildren, as well as reported attacks on residential buildings, bridges, railway stations, communications towers, desalination and water facilities, wheat storage facilities, healthcare sites, and energy infrastructure. He characterized these as attacks on civilian infrastructure. He also described public threats by Donald Trump against Iran’s bridges, electricity grid, water facilities, and energy infrastructure as threats to commit war crimes.

During the question-and-answer session, Barrett was asked whether international courts could provide a meaningful path to justice when powerful states refuse to comply with international law. He criticized the practical limitations of the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice in compelling the United States to accept adverse decisions. However, he clarified that this did not mean the courts should be abandoned. In his view, submitting evidence and pursuing legal cases remain important because they document alleged violations and bring them to the attention of global public opinion.

Barrett also emphasized the importance of presenting Iran consistently as a party seeking the equal application of international law. He argued that documented accounts of civilian harm, supported by independent reporting and public advocacy, could help challenge selective media narratives and strengthen demands for accountability…

Read the whole post at ODVV.org

A planned meeting between Ukraine, Russia, and the U.S. in Abu Dhabi will focus on de-escalating Russia's war, President Volodymyr Zelensky told reporters on Oct. 27, as Moscow seemingly agreed to resume talks with Kyiv after a pause of more than eight months.

Although Ukrainian officials do

Una guerra total en ciernes será parida por el curso inexorable de la Historia.

Únete a nosotros en Telegram , X y VK .

Escríbenos: info@strategic-culture.su

“No permitiría que las decisiones de las grandes potencias fueran juzgadas por países pequeños”

Iosif Stalin. Actas de Yalta 1945

“El pasado no puede cambiarse; el futuro está en nuestras manos, pero las leyes que rigen el destino de las civilizaciones son tan implacables como el movimiento de los astros”

  Arnold J. Toynbee. Estudio de la Historia.  1933

Adivinar antes de demostrar. ¿Necesito recordaros que así se han hecho todos los descubrimientos importantes?

— Henri Poincaré El valor de la ciencia 1902

La mayoría de los escritores de otras y esta prestigiosa publicación, Strategic Culture Fundation, entregan sus apreciaciones y cavilaciones con base en una mayor o menor capacidad de acceso a fuentes primarias, complementadas con lo que se denomina ‘fuentes abiertas’.

En mi caso particular mis análisis se fundamentan en el registro histórico, las fuentes abiertas y la información de portales fiables o instituciones oficiales de los gobiernos y estamentos, según el tema abordado en cada tema. A ello sumo una profunda desconfianza acerca de que aquello que puedo observar sea tal cual como se presenta, incluso el decir de los personajes centrales de la vida pública internacional.

Este preámbulo para reivindicar la tarea de todos los analistas, sobre todo aquellos sin fuentes primarias y cercanas al poder, porque ofrecemos eso: un uso objetivo de la imaginación, una intuición afinada a pulso de seguir el día a día del acontecer y afirmarlo, compararlo, ponderarlo con el registro histórico. Van así, algunas especulaciones, sobre lo que será y no será la reunión a tres bandas de las grandes potencias actuales.

Reunión Xi – Putin – Trump ¿Pre-Yalta 2.0?

Los días 18 y 19 de noviembre, tendrá lugar el foro número 33 de Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperacion, APEC, en China. El lema elegido es “Construyendo una comunidad Asia-Pacífico para prosperar juntos”. Al margen de la misma, se especula sobre una reunión a tres bandas de los líderes de las grandes potencias globales y se presume un diálogo donde China, indiferente a la violencia en el mundo, es tenida en cuenta como un alto jerarca que dará la venia a los acuerdos entre las partes del conflicto o al menos, no interferirá, mientras logra algunos intereses.

En Yalta, Península de Crimea, actual Federación de Rusia, los mandatarios, Franklin D. Roosevelt, presidente de Estados Unidos, Winston Churchill, primer ministro del Reino Unido y Iósif Stalin, líder de la Unión Soviética, en febrero de 1945, tuvieron la histórica reunión concretada cuando la derrota de la Alemania Nazi era inminente. Se define como la reunión donde se repartieron las áreas de injerencia de los vencedores de la guerra.

Al parecer, aunque no conozco pronunciamiento definitivo de ningún gobierno, la reunión es tan inminente como la derrota de la OTAN y su proxy ucraniano, y es también inminente la crisis de fertilizantes, ergo de alimentos y de combustibles por el problema en los estrechos de Ormuz y Bab El Mandeb, por la guerra Israel – EE.UU. contra Irán.

Si esto parece un Yalta es porque Ucrania, exhibida como ‘defensora de su soberanía’ bajo el lema europeo de ‘ataque ruso no provocado’, así como la OTAN, de una forma irónica, no son convidadas. Son por el contrario tratadas como al nazismo derrotado.

A esto se suma la ambivalencia hipócrita de Estados Unidos, líder de la OTAN y agresor asesino de civiles rusos y que siendo co-beligerante en el conflicto se exhibe como mediador.

Europa, al margen del nuevo ciclo histórico de grandes potencias, se encuentra inmerso en protestas por la crisis de su Estado de bienestar en varios de sus países y no ignora cómo lo deja su ausencia en la reunión en Shenzhen, según el viejo dicho: ‘si no estás en la mesa de comensal, estás en el menú’. Por cierto. El 27 de octubre, ya comenzaron a llamar los pusilánimes líderes europeos de Finlandia y Noruega, al presidente Putin.

Estados Unidos negocia cierto aislamiento de Irán, por parte de Rusia y China. Esto con el fin de obrar de la mano del sionismo de manera más agresiva e impune. También, hablará de un acuerdo nuclear que comprometa a China, pese a no tener ésta ni una tercera parte del armamento que poseen Rusia o EE.UU.

La compra del diésel a Rusia, no es sólo una cantidad simbólica. Determinará en parte cómo se acumulará tal exportación rusa a través de la ruta del ártico, de la cual acaba de activar su mayor puerto exportador de combustible, Vostok Oil, en la región de Krasnoyarsk, con una capacidad inicial de 30 millones de toneladas al año de petróleo proyectadas en aumento gradual.

En promedio, entre 2023-2024, por el golfo Pérsico circularon alrededor de 860.000–870.000 barriles por día (bpd) de exportaciones marítimas de diésel de la región. Y llegaron a 1,8 millones bpd en junio de 2024, esto impulsado por nuevas refinerías en Kuwait y Omán.

Mientras, Rusia en 2025 exportó alrededor de 780.000–820.000 bpd (aprox. 3,3 millones de toneladas al mes). Siendo el segundo mayor exportador mundial de diésel después de EE.UU. Puede alcanzar 3–3,5 millones de toneladas al mes (equivalente a unos 700.000–850.000 bpd).

Lo anterior tenderá a estabilizar en parte la demanda de diésel y además vincular la ruta ártica como una forma vanguardista de circulación de todas las demás mercancías. De hecho, China, país no ártico, se ha sumado en lo que llama “Ruta de la Seda del Hielo” Donde además hay cooperación científica.

Aun siendo socios de Irán con similares intereses geopolíticos esto de alguna manera debilita la carta iraní para afectar a Trump en las elecciones y tensionar la economía global para presionar a USA y claro, proyecta una ruta poderosa que puede debilitar otros pasos marítimos de su socio BRICS+ -Egipto en el canal de Suez- y en el contexto del cambio de temperatura que afecta también al canal de Panamá con prolongadas sequías mientras se despeja el tránsito glacial del ártico a causa de la misma variación de temperatura.

A lo anterior se conecta, por un lado, el control que finalmente ha ejercido EE.UU. sobre Dinamarca para ceder Groenlandia, punto de salida ártica al Atlántico. Por otro, una dulce venganza china que fue apartada de su participación creciente en Panamá por la ‘doctrina Donroe’.

También EE.UU. negocia inversiones en los óblast nuevos que ha incorporado Rusia, donde hay grandes riquezas naturales, incluido litio e industrias metalúrgicas, además de querer administrar el gaseoducto Nord Stream, luego de haberlo hecho volar por los aires en 2022.

A cambio, Rusia espera que esta vez sí se cumplan los acuerdos a diferencia del encuentro en Anchorage, Alaska, en 2025. Estos acuerdos deben presionar a Ucrania a reconocer las regiones rusas, hacer elecciones, renunciar a su deseo de incorporación en la OTAN y a la vez, crear una arquitectura de seguridad mutuamente beneficiosa para Rusia y Europa; además el reintegro de los activos rusos incautados ilegalmente por Euroclear. A esto se suma la reanudación de las conversaciones trilaterales entre Rusia, Ucrania y Estados Unidos en Abu Dabi en noviembre.

Por su parte China desea respeto a las mismas leyes del mercado inventado ‘libre’ por occidente y articulado por la OMC; lo que implica no ser bloqueado en su rama expansiva automotriz ni de alta tecnología, -IAG- ni interrumpida en su corredor de la Ruta de la Seda que cruza por Irán. Se suma, y creo a esto se debe en parte el resultado electoral en Brasil, respetar las inversiones en el país suramericano, que es el brazo fuerte de Latinoamérica en BRICS+. Esto también implica respetar las inversiones chinas y rusas en la nueva y americanizada Venezuela.

Abro un paréntesis, respecto a las recientes elecciones en Brasil, en mi concepto el Big-Tech estadounidense es lo suficientemente fuerte para acomodar elecciones donde quiera y, por cierto, en la misma fecha del 25 de octubre, Vucic en Serbia, perdió las elecciones y denunció la previsibilidad del resultado ante el acorralamiento planteado por Europa – OTAN.

¿Hubo acaso una guerra electrónica China – EE.UU. determinando el resultado electoral? ¿Cómo entender la derrota sionista en Brasil? ¿En verdad creen que hubo tal derrota? La Bancada Evangélica que hace lobby en el parlamento, Frente Parlamentario Evangélico, o la Igreja Universal do Reino de Deus en São Paulo, réplica del Templo de Salomón, son parte de lo activo que es el sionismo desde hace años. Por si hace falta decirlo, Lula es un administrador del capitalismo brasileño, a ningún millonario le va mal con él y el sionismo sigue en expansión.

Los ‘progres’ del planeta estaban contentos por el triunfo de Lula, pues desconocen los matices duros y subrepticios de la política, sobre todo, de la política de grandes potencias. Yo también la ignoro, pero sé que siempre negocian sus intereses y no los de terceros. Recuerde el lector la cita de Stalin con la que inicio el artículo.

Esto se aprecia en la mirada a otro lado de China, India y Rusia, ante el genocidio israelí en Gaza, Líbano y Cisjordania. Esto se vio en las negociaciones ruso-estadounidenses de la crisis de los misiles en 1962 donde omitieron a Cuba. Esto no los hace países malos, son simplemente las expresiones inerciales del poder; cosa que tenía clara el cubano Enrique José Barona al describir a inicios del siglo XX a la naciente potencia norteamericana.

En mi concepto Brasil ganó con Lula, sí. Pero también puede explicarse como un principio de flexibilidad del neo imperialismo estadounidense que ha aprendido de El arte de la guerra, de Sun Wu (孫武), en aquel segmento donde señala que, al enemigo acorralado siempre se le deja una salida, para evitar volverlo violento, indómito y peligroso, al sólo poder huir hacia delante.

Si la región pierde la esperanza por estar copada de sionistas y neoliberales, puede volverse más proactiva. La tesis funciona también como complemento a las negociaciones entre potencias. No vi muy acongojado a Trump.

Cálculo de la guerra y cumplimiento de los objetivos rusos

Los objetivos de la Operación Militar Especial, si bien no han cambiado en su fondo sí lo han hecho en su forma, y ésta, es la forma de las regiones necesarias a incorporar en Rusia para acabar con la esperanza de nuevas guerras en 20, 50 o 100 años con la Ucrania occidental; que siendo la más anti rusa, es la que menos muertos ha puesto, menos destrucción ha sufrido y la que más respalda la continuación de la guerra. ¿Por qué bailan tranquilas las élites no busificadas -reclutadas por la fuerza- en bares nocturnos en Kiev y Leópolis?

Es la zona más oriental rusa étnica, idiomática y con doctrina ortodoxa la que más destrucción y muerte ha sufrido. Entonces ¿Qué negociará o negoció Rusia?

Dijo el propio presidente Putin que el acuerdo de Anchorage lo había aceptado bajo la condición de que Ucrania cedería gran parte del Donbás (Donetsk) a Rusia y a cambio, Rusia devolvería territorios que ocupa en Sumy y Járkov, que servían como “zonas de amortiguación”. Moscú mantendría su ofensiva hasta que esa fórmula fuera aceptada.

Pero esto fue hace un año. La situación siempre ha cambiado según como marche todo en el terreno. Rusia no quería incorporar regiones en la Operación Militar básica, pero ante el fracaso de las negociaciones en Estambul, saboteadas por Inglaterra, se efectuó un referéndum y se asumieron como rusas las cuatro regiones, más Crimea. Sólo resta un 9% del Donbás, ¿Por qué no tomarlo militarmente?

En mi concepto esto no es suficiente. Rusia debe tomar toda la región de la costa del Mar Negro, que implica adhesión total a Rusia de la región histórica de Novorossiya integrada por Odesa, Mykolaiv, Kherson, Dnipropetrovsk, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, Luhansk y Crimea. Si esto no se cumple, quedará el mar negro abierto para una futura escalada con Europa, siendo necesario tocar frontera con Moldavia y la franja de Transnistria para evitar también desestabilización, así como apoyar a los ciudadanos rusos, que son el 30% de la población allí, particularmente hostilizada o segregada. Además, toda Novorossiya es étnicamente rusa.

Entonces, luego de casi cinco años de guerra, Rusia simplemente mientras gana abrumadoramente en el campo de batalla, hará un trato que le pondrá en unos años en una amenaza quizá peor, cuando Europa y la OTAN o el cuerpo militar que sea, tal vez la propia Alemania, se hayan recuperado. ¿Perdonará Rusia una vez más a sus enemigos históricos que la odian hasta el tuétano de sus imperialistas huesos?

Los europeos y los nazis ucranianos no firmarán una derrota por convicción, guardarán más resentimiento, sus bases más radicales están casi intactas en Europa y Ucrania occidental, Rusia al menos debería acrecentar los bombardeos en esa zona y entender que es la Ucrania católica prooccidental la que debe ser desmantelada, piedra por piedra, para evitar su resurrección. Un imperio es arrogante por inercia, sólo la derrota humillante en su piel e ideas fundacionales le harán ver la verdad.

El presidente Putin tiene como reto ser tan o más grande que Pedro y Catalina. Debe corregir el error de Lenin, Stalin y Khruschev, así como el error de la firma de acuerdo entre Bielorrusia, Ucrania y Rusia -Tratado de Belavezha de diciembre de 1991- que cimentó en Ucrania el camino hacia la apología al nazismo, a Stephan Bandera y a la reescritura de una historia deformada y excepcionalista.

Otro aspecto que el canciller Sergei Lavrov ha señalado desde el acercamiento con la administración estadounidense trata sobre el castigo a victimarios nazis que deben ser juzgados en un Nuremberg 2.0 y para lo cual debería habilitarse una orca. Este tema de los juicios y reparaciones no se vislumbra o es de lo que menos se habla; lo que implicaría una impunidad de los crímenes sobre la población rusa e incluso la ucraniana desde 2014, cuando con el golpe de Estado, se inició la des rusificación de los oblast que intentaron ser autónomos mediante los acuerdos de Minsk y que ahora son parte del cuerpo político administrativo de la Federación de Rusia y gozan de representantes en la Duma, según las últimas elecciones de septiembre.

Entonces, desmilitarización, desnazificación, castigo a crímenes de guerra, allanamiento de toda posibilidad de osadía occidental contra Rusia, ¿Quedarían totalmente resueltas en una mesa de diálogo? ¿Congelar los logros en el terreno sin copar todos los territorios que ya son parte de Rusia, no es una debilidad? Por otra parte, ¿Entiende el Kremlin que China es un enemigo latente y solapado que tampoco desea la paz de Rusia, sino su atemperamiento mediante una guerra eterna? ¿Dimensiona la pobreza intelectual y diplomática de los emisarios estadounidenses, Kushner y Witkoff, vulgares mercaderes inmobiliarios?

La Historia es superior a los hombres, incluso a los más poderosos

Cuando en el título señalo un pre – Yalta 2.0, quiero enfatizar que, si bien se reúnen tres potencias globales, la única que desea la paz es Rusia y puede ser, como señalé, una paz que sacrifique objetivos urgentes para el futuro.

Sin embargo, la pérfida y detestable Europa, llena de crisis por estos días, no soportará ser un convidado de piedra al concurso del nuevo orden mundial post unipolar. Podría obrar de mala fe. Las élites internas de Estados Unidos que odian a Rusia volverán a impedir un acuerdo; la CIA – Mossad son su arma. Israel no desea una Rusia fuerte, aunque la mayoría de sus sionistas tienen sangre eslava, desde hace ochenta años se alinearon con el mundo anglosajón.

Como señalé, China tampoco es un socio fiable y no olvida la osadía del viejo zarismo ruso que le quitó los actuales oblast de Primorie y Amur. Tampoco los varios conflictos sostenidos, incluso durante la era soviética.

Sólo si alguno de los tres hombres y sus élites se rinde en el pre-Yalta 2.0, habría paz relativa o una nueva forma de guerra solapada. Si entiendo el carácter existencial de esta guerra para al menos dos de las partes, no será una mesa de diálogo la que lleve el fin de la guerra en Ucrania y la que se ha producido en Irán; profundamente interconectada con la primera.

Una guerra total en ciernes será parida por el curso inexorable de la Historia. Nunca un humano ha podido detener aquello que con tanto ahínco se fue formando durante siglos. Pueden los hombres aplazar los fenómenos, pero no detenerlos. Rusia deberá despejar por la fuerza las dudas que tienen sus enemigos sobre su determinación a existir.

Vladímir Putin, presidente de Rusia, siempre ha sido un buen lector de la Historia. La ve como un río que fluye inexorablemente y le pone piedras con cuidado para moldear cadencias en su cause o atemperarlo, retardarlo, pero nunca para detenerlo o desviarlo. Eso implica que la guerra total será, pero en los términos que va moldeando Rusia, Putin, su Staff.

The relationship with Brazil will require a twofold effort: to contain Chinese expansion and to negotiate with an awkward, unreliable — yet inevitably necessary — partner. 

The relationship with Brazil will require a twofold effort: to contain Chinese expansion and to negotiate with an awkward, unreliable — yet inevitably necessary — partner. 

As Ukraine prepares for another winter under Russian attacks, its energy strategy is undergoing a fundamental transformation.

As Ukraine prepares for another winter under Russian attacks, its energy strategy is undergoing a fundamental transformation.