The economic landscape of Venezuela is witnessing a significant transformation, as indicated by the impressive growth of 9.32% in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) during the first quarter of 2025. This remarkable figure surpasses the growth rate of 9.13% observed in the same period of 2024, signaling a continuous recovery that has been underway for sixteen consecutive quarters. The recent report from the Central Bank of Venezuela underscores this positive trend, highlighting an annual growth of 8.54% for the year 2024.

The Heroic Resistance Against Economic Blockade

At the heart of this economic resurgence lies the valiant spirit of the Venezuelan people who have shown resilience in the face of an economic blockade imposed on the nation. Over the years, the government has adopted a series of policies aimed at revitalizing the economy, fostering participation across various sectors.

This collective effort has been pivotal in navigating through the adversities presented by international sanctions and economic challenges. The statistics paint a picture of hope and determination. The oil sector experienced a staggering growth of 18.23%, while the mining industry also thrived with a growth of 13.46% in the same quarter.

Such figures not only illustrate the effectiveness of current economic policies but also demonstrate the ability of the Venezuelan economy to rebound despite facing external aggression.

A Strategic Response to International Challenges

The ongoing conflict between the United States and Venezuela has created a complex scenario for international trade, with threats of a potential global recession looming large. However, the Venezuelan economy showcases its capacity to adapt and overcome these hurdles. The sustainable growth of key sectors, particularly oil and mining, signals a strategic response to the challenging international environment.

Moreover, this economic performance indicates that Venezuela is not merely surviving; it is evolving. The successful navigation through these tempestuous waters speaks volumes about the inherent strength of the Venezuelan economy. It is a testament to how, even amid external pressures, a nation can chart its path toward recovery and prosperity.

GDP growth: More than just a number

As we look to the future, it becomes evident that Venezuela is prepared to meet the challenges posed by global economic instability. The lessons learned over the past four years have equipped the nation with the tools necessary to confront unilateral aggressions and external pressures.

With a solid foundation built on resilience, unity, and strategic policy implementation, Venezuela stands ready to capitalize on its growth momentum. In conclusion, the 9.32% growth in GDP during the first quarter of 2025 is not just a number; it embodies the triumph of a nation against adversity.

It reflects the indomitable spirit of the Venezuelan people and their unwavering commitment to rebuilding their economy. As Venezuela continues to advance amidst the storms, the world watches closely, recognizing that this journey of recovery is a powerful narrative of hope and determination.

Trump’s rare earths agreement with Ukraine cements U.S. access to critical minerals, raising concerns over sovereignty, peace prospects, and the marginalization of Ukrainian interests as Washington acknowledges Russia’s hold over Crimea.

The long-anticipated minerals agreement between the United States and Ukraine was signed this week, granting Washington preferential access to Ukraine’s rare earths and other valuable resources. The deal, championed by President Donald Trump, comes amid shifting geopolitical winds, with the U.S. administration openly recognizing Russia’s annexation of Crimea and casting President Volodymyr Zelensky’s resistance to peace talks as an obstacle to regional stability.

For months, the Biden-Trump administration pushed Kyiv to cede control over its critical mineral resources, framing the agreement as a pathway to Ukraine’s reconstruction and a means for the U.S. to recoup military aid expenditures. The final text grants the U.S. sweeping rights to exploit up to 55 minerals, with provisions for further expansion, and establishes a joint fund to manage revenues from extraction. The White House has not concealed its intentions: Trump himself described the pact as a “great deal for us,” emphasizing the expected windfall from rare earths and other materials vital to U.S. industry and military technology.

However, Ukrainian negotiators were forced to accept terms under the shadow of ongoing conflict and mounting pressure from Washington, which made further military assistance contingent on the deal’s completion. The agreement’s timing-coinciding with U.S. overtures to Moscow and tacit acceptance of Russia’s hold over Crimea-has left Zelensky politically isolated and facing criticism from sectors of Ukrainian society that see the deal as a surrender of economic sovereignty.

Left-wing analysts across Latin America have long warned of the dangers posed by U.S. interventionism and resource extraction deals that echo neocolonial patterns. The Ukraine agreement fits this mold, with Washington leveraging its military and financial power to secure privileged access to strategic assets. While U.S. officials tout the pact as a win-win, critics point out that the supposed “rare earth bonanza” in Ukraine is largely speculative, with little evidence of significant, easily exploitable deposits. Instead, the real beneficiaries may be U.S. corporations and defense contractors, while Ukraine is left with environmental risks and uncertain economic gains.

Moreover, the deal undermines Ukraine’s ability to chart an independent path toward peace. By tying resource revenues to U.S. interests and acknowledging Russian control over Crimea, Washington is effectively dictating the terms of Ukraine’s future, sidelining popular demands for genuine sovereignty and self-determination.

The minerals agreement is being hailed in Washington as a strategic masterstroke, securing critical supply chains and countering China’s dominance in rare earth markets. Yet for many in the global South, it is a stark reminder of how resource-rich nations are pressured to trade away their wealth in exchange for security guarantees and fleeting promises of reconstruction.

True peace cannot be built on the foundations of economic dependency and external control. The U.S.-Ukraine deal, far from fostering stability, risks entrenching new forms of domination and deepening divisions within Ukraine itself. With Zelensky marginalized and peace talks stalled, the prospect of a just resolution to the conflict appears more distant than ever-while the machinery of extractivism grinds on.

Svyrydenko's statementa

26 February agreement.

Let's look at it:

1. Full ownership and control remain with Ukraine. All resources on our territory and in territorial waters belong to Ukraine. It is the Ukrainian state that determines what and where to extract. Subsoil remains under Ukrainian ownership — this is clearly established in the Agreement.

That was never up for debate, it's actually a part of the agreement. In fact, for the agreement to work, the Ukrainian government has to own (directly or indirectly) the resource extraction projects and manage them: The Fund will collect and reinvest revenues contributed to the Fund, minus expenses incurred by the Fund, and will earn income from the future monetization of all relevant Ukrainian Government-owned natural resource assets (whether owned directly or indirectly by the Ukrainian Government).

2. Equal partnership. The Fund is structured on a 50/50 basis. It will be jointly managed by Ukraine and the United States. Neither side will hold a dominant vote — a reflection of equal partnership between our two nations.

The February 26th agreement already states this, jointly managed fund, Ukraine 50%, and USA share the maximum amount permissible under US laws: The Fund will be jointly managed by representatives of the Government of Ukraine and the Government of the United States of America... The maximum percentage of ownership of the Fund’s equity and financial interests to be held by the Government of the United States of America and the decision-making authority of the representatives of the Government of the United States of America will be to the extent permissible under applicable United States laws...The Government of Ukraine will contribute to the Fund 50 percent of all revenues earned from the future monetization of all relevant Ukrainian Government-owned natural resource assets.

3. National assets are protected. The Agreement does not alter privatization processes or the management of state-owned companies — they will remain Ukrainian. Companies such as Ukrnafta and Energoatom will stay in state ownership.

Again, this was already stated, current Ukrainian projects are not included: For the avoidance of doubt, such future sources of revenues do not include the current sources of revenues which are already part of the general budget revenues of Ukraine.

4. No debt. The Agreement includes no provisions regarding any Ukrainian debt obligations to the United States. Its implementation allows both countries to expand their economic potential through equal cooperation and investment.

Debt obligations (such as the $500 billion clause or 2021 GDP match clause) were already removed prior to the 26 February agreement, at a cost to other areas. Also on co-operation and investment: The Fund, in its sole discretion, may credit or return to the Government of Ukraine actual expenses incurred by the newly developed projects from which the Fund receives revenues.

5. The Agreement complies with the Constitution and maintains Ukraine’s European integration course. It is consistent with national legislation and does not conflict with any of Ukraine’s international obligations. Importantly, the Agreement sends a signal to global partners that long-term cooperation with Ukraine — over decades — is not only possible but reliable.

Word for word what is written in the 26 February agreement: In drafting the Fund Agreement, the Participants will strive to avoid conflicts with Ukraine’s obligations under its accession to the European Union or its obligations under arrangements with international financial institutions and other official creditors.

6. The Fund will be financed exclusively from NEW licenses. Specifically, 50% of the revenues from new licenses in the field of critical materials, oil, and gas — generated after the Fund is created — will be directed to it. Revenues from existing projects or those already accounted for in the budget will not be included. The Agreement also outlines future strategic cooperation.

A rehash of point 3, and also already part of the February 26th agreement: The Government of Ukraine will contribute to the Fund 50 percent of all revenues earned from the future monetization of all relevant Ukrainian Government-owned natural resource assets (whether owned directly or indirectly by the Ukrainian Government), defined as deposits of minerals, hydrocarbons, oil, natural gas, and other extractable materials, and other infrastructure relevant to natural resource assets (such as liquified natural gas terminals and port infrastructure) as agreed by both Participants, as may be further described in the Fund Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, such future sources of revenues do not include the current sources of revenues which are already part of the general budget revenues of Ukraine. Timeline, scope and sustainability of contributions will be further defined in the Fund Agreement.

7. Legislative changes will be limited and targeted. Only amendments to the Budget Code are required for the Fund to operate. The Agreement itself will be submitted to the Verkhovna Rada for ratification.

The Fund agreement shall be ratified by the Parliament of Ukraine according to the Law of Ukraine "On International Treaties of Ukraine."... Contact persons responsible for preparing the Fund Agreement on the basis of this Bilateral Agreement are: from the Government of the United States of America: the Department of the Treasury; from the Government of Ukraine: Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Economy.

8. The United States will help attract additional investment and technology. The Fund is supported by the U.S. government through the DFC agency. This will assist us in attracting investments and technologies from U.S., EU, and other international partners that support Ukraine’s fight against the Russian aggressor. Technology transfer and development are a key part of the Agreement — because Ukraine needs not only capital, but also innovation

The Government of the United States of America and the Government of Ukraine intend that the investment process will lead to opportunities for distribution of additional funds and greater reinvestment, to ensure the sufficient supply of capital for the reconstruction of Ukraine as set out in the Fund Agreement... Further contributions may be comprised of funds, financial instruments, and other tangible and intangible assets critical for the reconstruction of Ukraine...The Fund Agreement will include appropriate representations and warranties, including those necessary to ensure that any obligations the Government of Ukraine may have to third parties, or such obligations that it may undertake in the future, do not sell, convey, transfer pledge, or otherwise encumber the Government of Ukraine’s contributions to the Fund or the assets from which such contributions are derived, or the Fund’s disposition of funds...The Fund Agreement will pay particular attention to the control mechanisms that make it impossible to weaken, violate or circumvent sanctions and other restrictive measures.

9. The Agreement provides tax guarantees. Fund revenues and contributions will not be taxed in either the United States or Ukraine, ensuring maximum effectiveness of the investment process.

That's not a good thing if it's only revenue... Also: Neither Participant will sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of, directly or indirectly, any portion of its interest in the Fund without the prior written consent of the other Participant... The Fund will collect and reinvest revenues contributed to the Fund, minus expenses incurred by the Fund... The Fund, in its sole discretion, may credit or return to the Government of Ukraine actual expenses incurred by the newly developed projects from which the Fund receives revenues.

I guess sole discretion of the fund decided on tax free.

The United States will contribute to the Fund. In addition to direct financial contributions, it may also provide NEW assistance — for example, air defense systems for Ukraine.

To promote the safety, security and prosperity of Ukraine...Further contributions may be comprised of funds, financial instruments, and other tangible and intangible assets critical for the reconstruction of Ukraine.

Bolivia's former president Evo Morales said Wednesday (30.04.2025) that he feels that "justice has arrived" after a judge annulled the arrest warrant and charges against him, for a case related to the alleged abuse of a minor when he was president, "After a long time I feel that justice has arrived. The tireless struggle" always bears "good fruit," Morales wrote in X about the first instance ruling in his favor.

In the resolution, criminal judge Lilian Moreno ordered to "leave without effect" the investigation of Morales for alleged human trafficking, derived from a relationship he had with a minor during his mandate (2006-2019). The prosecutor's office had ordered in October the arrest of the 65-year-old indigenous leader, who since then has taken refuge in the coca-growing region of Chapare, where his followers mounted a surveillance device to prevent his apprehension.

Morales thanked in his message the supporters " who "took care of him" and who never betrayed him and remained firm "in the vigils at the head of the Tropic of Cochabamba". Judge Moreno's decision can be revoked or reaffirmed by a higher instance.

In what he described as possibly his last address to the Security Council, the head of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) warned today that “violence has become the defining currency of our age” — from Sudan to Ukraine, from the Sahel to Myanmar and beyond — and urged the 15-member organ to fulfil its responsibility for maintaining peace.

Despite knowing the gravity of the crises, the Council’s inaction itself is “an indictment”, said Filippo Grandi, UN High Commissioner for Refugees, asserting that the organ has “chronically failed to live up to” its responsibility.

He painted a bleak picture of today’s wars, driven by the “perverse, yet powerful delusion: that peace is for the weak”, where victory is pursued not through negotiation but by inflicting unbearable suffering. As a result, “the norms of international humanitarian law… are cast aside, dismissed as easily as the thousands of lives destroyed in the pursuit of supremacy”. Quoting Pope Francis, he reminded members that “every war represents not only a defeat of politics but also a shameful surrender”.

Highlighting the plight of 123 million forcibly displaced people worldwide, he described their hope for safety and eventual return, noting especially the devastating situation in Sudan, where “one out of every three people” has been displaced. Refugee-receiving countries are doing their part. “You must be more committed and more united to do yours,” he urged.

On Ukraine, he emphasized the need for a “just peace” that would allow more than 10 million displaced Ukrainians to return safely, cautioning that “solutions are hard work” requiring “commitment and compromise”. In Myanmar, he urged breaking eight years of “dangerous inertia” concerning the Rohingya crisis, stressing that while challenges are immense, dialogue with all parties is “a critical first step” towards creating conditions for the safe, voluntary and dignified return of refugees. “It is a long shot, for sure”, he admitted, but insisted that stagnation is no longer an option, urging the Council to sustain its robust focus on the situation in Myanmar.

Referencing the symbolic moment of the new Syrian flag being raised at the UN on 25 April, he said: “For the first time in decades, there is a spark of hope, including for the millions of Syrians who remain displaced today, 4.5 million of them refugees in neighbouring countries.” But achieving lasting solutions will require prioritizing the Syrian people over “long-standing politics, some of which are frankly outdated”.

Finally, he warned against the global trend of retrenching from aid and multilateralism at a critical time for several displacement crises. “Aid is stability,” he declared, noting that by freezing or cutting aid budgets — which means taking support away from very fragile host countries and abandoning displaced people to their fate — “you are undermining your own stability”.

In the discussion that followed, some members warned of the global trend of aid cuts, while others called for more equal burden-sharing.

China’s delegate emphasized that “solving the refugee problem requires strengthening international cooperation”. However, a certain country has drastically cut foreign aid, forcing many humanitarian organizations to reduce their aid activities. “This is undoubtedly a serious blow to refugee relief,” he said, warning that more people would be displaced. He called on developed countries to shoulder their responsibilities by fulfilling their aid commitments and providing more support to refugee-hosting countries and multilateral humanitarian organizations. He also warned against unilateralism and “hegemonic and bullying” behaviour.

The representative of the United States said that “the UN exists for collective action, and collective action demands collective responsibility”. Underscoring the responsibility for every Member State to share the burden of humanitarian response to conflict, she said that “the United States has disproportionately shouldered this burden for decades”.

The representative of the Russian Federation said that Western countries, “who have provoked a lion’s share of conflict throughout the world”, are very reluctant to finance UNHCR’s programmes to assist refugees from Syria, Afghanistan, Sudan and many other conflict-ridden countries.

Pakistan’s delegate, noting that his country has provided shelter, protection and opportunities to millions of Afghans, expressed concern that developing countries — many grappling with their own socioeconomic challenges — continue to shoulder the greatest burden. Meanwhile, developed nations, despite their far greater resources and moral obligations, have increasingly turned inward. “Physical and political barriers have been erected, closing doors to those most in need,” he said.

Several speakers highlighted other factors causing mass displacement, with Guyana’s delegate stating that climate change is also becoming a major driver of such movement. Citing the 2024 global data over the past decade, she said that weather-related disasters have caused 220 million people to be internally displaced. Slovenia’s representative added: “Climate-fuelled floods, fires and prolonged droughts now drive families from their homes as ruthlessly as any gunman or bombs.”

Citing Sudanese women fleeing to Chad, Congolese women in displacement camps around Goma, and Rohingya women and girls in long-term refugee camps in Bangladesh, Sierra Leone’s delegate said that climate-induced disasters further compound their vulnerability and increase the severity of such violence.

Responding to comments and questions by Council members, Mr. Grandi said that “I am leading an internal effort, which may conclude with the retrenchment of my organization to up to one third of its capacity.” There will be fewer offices, fewer programmes and fewer operations, he added, noting that UNHCR — founded in 1950 — will “unfortunately” observe its seventy-fifth anniversary in 2025. “It is not a date to celebrate, but one perhaps on which to reflect on the challenges that we all face, and to try and find some inspiration to address them together,” he concluded.