This is the Global News Podcast from the BBC World Service.
I'm Charlotte Gallagher and in the early hours of Thursday, the 23rd of October, these are our main stories.
Donald Trump has said his conversations on Ukraine with Vladimir Putin have got nowhere after he placed more sanctions on Russia's energy sector.
A war of words has escalated between the US and Colombian officials as deadly American strikes continue to target ships off the coast of South America.
Also in this podcast, the latest on the dramatic jewel heist at the Louvre.
We've waited a lifetime to come see the jewels.
And we've planned this trip for a long time to see the jewels.
And they're not here.
As toppled Confederate statues are turned into an art exhibition, divisions over the past remain.
We can't agree on why the Civil War was fought, right?
Some people say, oh, the Civil War was not about slavery.
It was about states' rights.
States' rights to do what, right?
No matter how you get there.
The reason for the Civil War was slavery and the Roman treasure found in Wales.
Donald Trump has announced new sanctions on Russia's two biggest oil companies, saying the Kremlin isn't seriously committed to a ceasefire and peace deal with Ukraine.
It's a significant turnaround for Mr Trump, who hasn't followed through on several previous threats to impose sanctions on the Russian economy.
They'll certainly have an impact.
They're massive sanctions.
It's sanctions on oil.
The two biggest oil companies, among the biggest in the world, but they're Russian.
They do a lot of oil.
And hopefully it'll...
Push.
Hopefully he'll become reasonable and hopefully Zelensky will be reasonable, too.
You know, it takes two to tango, as they say.
The move comes a day after Donald Trump cancelled a planned meeting with Vladimir Putin.
So how much is this going to cost Russia?
I've been speaking to our North America correspondent, Peter Bowes.
Well, this is a clear attempt and I think the most aggressive attempt during this war by the US to really cripple the Russian economy.
I think the extent to which it could cripple the economy remains to be seen, and that remains to be seen in terms of the cooperation between.
Thank you very much.
All of their assets, that's everything from property to bank accounts in the US, So every possible avenue covered.
At least that's what they're trying to do to make it difficult for these companies to operate internationally.
Now the Trump administration says that these sanctions are intended to degrade Russia's ability to raise revenue for its war in Ukraine, specifically targeting how these oil firms fund what the Treasury Department here calls the Kremlin's war machine.
So really a simple message from the Treasury Secretary.
He said now is the time to stop the killing and for an immediate ceasefire.
Why do we think he's doing it now?
I think it's in large part because of President Trump's frustration with President Putin that, as we know, famously in Alaska they met and that meeting didn't really go anywhere.
Lots of optimism, optimism from President Trump that it would result in a breakthrough, and that breakthrough simply failed, hasn't happened.
So it's only a very significant move.
It's a change in policy by president trump.
It's exerting more pressure, at least financial pressure, on russia than we've seen, as i say, during the course of this war, and it is an attempt, i think, to really hurt russia in its pocketbook, as Americans would say, to an extent that it will make the Russian leader think more than he's already thought already, at least in the terms of Donald Trump, about joining peace talks, at least joining some sort of negotiations.
The US says it destroyed a boat smuggling drugs off the Colombian coast, the first time the US military has struck a suspected vessel in the Pacific Ocean.
The Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, said two people were killed in international waters, describing them as narco-terrorists and belonging to a designated terrorist organization.
President Trump says the strikes are saving U.S. lives.
Every time you see that happen, you're saving 25,000 American lives.
Every one of those boats that gets knocked out is saving 25000 American lives, not to mention the torn up families all over the country.
Over the weekend, Mr Trump labelled the president of Colombia, Gustavo Petro, a drug trafficking leader.
President Petro has hit back, saying he will take legal action in US courts against what he described as slanderous accusations.
So far, 34 people are known to have died in a total of eight strikes by the US military.
All but this one took place off the coast of Venezuela, dramatically increasing tensions in the region.
Eric Schmidt is the US national security correspondent for The New York Times.
He's been following the story and spoke to the BBC's Tim Franks.
What's significant about this strike versus the previous seven strikes in the last two months, is this was in the eastern Pacific Ocean, off the coast of Columbia.
Up until now, the strikes had been limited to the Caribbean Sea and questions had been raised about why the administration was taking these strikes.
And, in doing so, not releasing very much information about their location, the people who are actually on the boats.
And so now, what's significant about this is these strikes.
The theatre in which these strikes are taking place is expanding from the Caribbean over to the Eastern Pacific.
There is a continuing debate over whether these strikes are legal.
What is the administration's case that they are?
Well, the administration is basically saying that drugs coming into the United States, whether it's by land or by sea, are causing thousands and thousands of deaths.
And so the President basically is saying I am taking – using my presidential authority and using the military to stop these boats.
Even though for decades the United States Coast Guard has boarded vessels just like this, seized the illicit drugs and seized the people aboard them for prosecution or to be sent back to their country.
So the means of intervening now is quite different and seems to be suggesting, at least in the most recent cases.
The strikes are not so much to thwart drugs, because most of the drugs coming in the United States are coming in through the border of Mexico or through the Pacific if it's cocaine but rather to put pressure on the regime of authoritarian president Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela.
I mean, there's obviously been opposition from him.
There's been opposition from the Colombian authorities, the Ecuadorians as well, to what's going on.
How much pressure do you think the administration is under?
These boats really are packed with drugs and there is no other way but this extreme military action.
Well, at least here in the United States, the president's feeling very little pressure indeed.
The government, of course, is in the midst of a three week shutdown.
So a lot of members of the government aren't aren't working right now.
So any pressure that might be coming to the White House is coming from Democrats.
And the president is basically swatting that aside, as do his aides, and basically saying the president is acting to protect the country.
Now, as you point out, the presidents of the various countries, including President Petro of Colombia, has said several of these strikes have killed Colombians and accused the United States of murder.
And this has kind of set off a new controversy.
And President Trump said on Sunday he was going to cut off foreign aid to Colombia in response.
Is it a slightly murky business as to exactly what the law is over military targeting civilians?
Well, I mean in this case the legal experts we've been speaking to over the last several weeks.
It's fairly clear that, without presenting any evidence beyond what they've done so far, there really does not appear to be a legal basis for this.
It's not just by declaring these individuals terrorists, they have the right to kill them.
Congress has to basically give the administration permission, as they did after the attacks on September 11th 2001, to do so against al-Qaeda.
They have not given that kind of permission, however, to deal with any kind of narco-terrorists.
And as loathsome as they may be, the United States just cannot go out and strike boats willy-nilly.
Eric Schmidt talking to Tim Franks.
The International Court of Justice has said that Israel, as an occupying power, has a legal obligation to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid into Gaza, the same aid it's blocked from entering throughout the war.
The court also stated Israel should cooperate with the relevant UN agencies, including UNRWA, its main relief agency for Palestinians.
Last year, Israel severed ties with UNRWA, accusing it of collusion with Hamas.
Anna Holligan spoke to us from The Hague.
It came as an urgent request from the UN General Assembly.
ICJ judges listened to arguments put forward by 40 countries and three international organisations.
Israel also made a written submission but didn't appear here in court.
And what we've heard from the judges is their interpretation of where the law stands with regards to the operation of UNRWA and the provision of aid.
The judges did not say that Israel is in breach of its obligations because...
In terms of this request, it's for an advisory.
It's not to determine whether or not Israel is in breach of the law.
So the judges didn't use that word, but they talked about Israel's obligations repeatedly.
So it's really just outlining, with a definitive legal guidance, Israel's obligations under international law and in accordance with its status as a UN member.
Although this is an advisory, it comes with moral, legal and political weight.
And beyond that, there are other contentious cases pending here at the International Court of Justice but, as you know, also at the International Criminal Court.
What will happen now is that this goes back to the UN General Assembly as the requesting body, but it will also probably be used in other cases relating to Gaza and the West Bank.
Anna Holligan, next to a story which has gripped people across the world.
The Louvre Museum in Paris has reopened three days after the French crown jewels worth 100 million were stolen.
The hunt is still on for the four people behind the audacious heist which happened just after the museum opened on Sunday.
Using a ladder mounted on a truck, they cut through a first floor window before escaping on scooters.
Our Paris correspondent Hugh Schofield sent this report.
The most visited museum in the world opened its doors again.
In theory, it's business as usual, but of course it isn't.
A section around the Apollo Gallery where police are still working remains closed and post-heist.
The atmosphere for staff and visitors alike is different.
It's very sad.
We've waited a lifetime to come see the jewels.
And we've planned this trip for a long time to see the jewels.
And they're not here.
Some of my friends back in America.
When I sent them pictures of me coming to Paris, they sent me a message and said hey, were you the one that stole the jewels from the Louvre?
And I thought they were just kidding.
And then today, when we came here and I talked to you and you mentioned that someone actually did steal the crown jewels, I couldn't believe it.
No news about the criminal investigation, but attention turned to questions concerning security.
We welcome this afternoon Laurence Descartes.
President and Director of, Laurence Descartes, who's been president of the Louvre for four years, was giving evidence to the Culture Committee of the Upper House of Parliament, the Senate.
Criticised for not putting more money into upgrading the Louvre's ageing security systems.
She hit back in her evidence, arguing that from the moment she took office, she'd warned about the dangers of exactly what happened on Sunday.
In fact, the security in place had worked correctly, she said.
Alarms went off.
Police were on their way.
But there was one weak point, she conceded, the lack of cameras on the street.
There are few external cameras, but they are aging.
What we have is totally inadequate and does not cover the whole of the Louvre façade.
And unfortunately, outside the Apollo Gallery, the only camera was pointing towards the west and therefore did not cover the balcony where the thieves broke in.
President Macron said today that planned security upgrades at the Louvre will now be accelerated.
Small comfort when a priceless part of France's cultural history has now gone.
Many young players from Africa harbour dreams of playing professional football abroad, and it's with good reason.
It's used as a gateway to get out of poverty.
The success of their African counterparts in Europe shows them what's possible.
But there have been instances when those dreams are shattered, as young players unwittingly fall prey to scams or crimes.
Only last week, the government in Senegal blamed the death of a young goalkeeper on fake football agents who demanded a ransom.
His family couldn't pay.
Zimbabwean footballer, Marshall Manetsi, who plays here in the UK with Wolverhampton, has recently warned players to remain vigilant.
Here he is speaking on Footballers Unfiltered, a podcast by FIFPro, a global union for professional footballers.
A lot of people then end up paying money to that agent with promises of going to Europe.
They do then go to Europe, because I actually had about two, three guys who came to France when I was at Reims asking for accommodation because an agent had promised them some trials in Europe.
And then they were just stuck at the airport when they got there.
Nobody was there.
I'm talking about guys who are playing for top teams in Africa.
You know that will also spend their money with agents.
So it's really, really a big, big problem that needs to get real attention.
James Cotnell spoke to Kogosana Massaseng, the general secretary of FIFA Pro Africa.
For us, it's very concerning, especially in Africa.
What we did in 2023.
We launched a fake agents campaign which was led by the fifth pro-Africa honorary president, Didier Drogba.
His foundation and the ILO partnered with us to give especially young players' information about fake agents.
But before then we had surveyed about seven countries Botswana Cameroon, DR Congo Ghana Kenya, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
And we realized that more than 70 of those players were contacted by a person who said they wanted to help them move to a club.
And then 56% of those players did not get the trial that was promised to them.
And then lastly, 44% of those players said they did not sign any contract, which they expected.
And I suppose, in terms of fake agents, one aspect could be a player simply not getting the trial or the opportunity they've been promised.
But it seems that sometimes it can lead to even more serious consequences for the individual.
Yeah, we were involved in...
And Laos, where about 16 young boys were kept dumped after being promised that they would be taken to play elsewhere.
And all that?
We've seen 18 players in Zimbabwe who were stuck in UAE because the guy who took them there just left them there.
They overstayed.
Some have since been declared persona non grata.
Just this year, we had one player stuck in Malaysia from Kenya.
These are many of the cases that have been reported, but in some it it goes to worse situations and this is very alarming for us because we think now people are trying to take advantage of this unsuspecting young stars who really wants to make it big in football.
So what's the solution?
Do you think what can be done practically to make things a little better?
I think it's just for us to continue the education part, to talk to the parents, to talk to the football association, to talk to FIFA, especially on the enforcement of the fake agents, punitive measures that can be taken.
FIFA had said that every... recognized agent will now need to be registered.
They will publish the list.
But you know, these guys target unsuspecting youngsters, some who are not literate enough to see through all these things.
Kogosana Massasang speaking to James Cotnell.
Still to come in this podcast.
On a purely economic basis, you could not buy a minor league baseball team in America for the equivalent amount in football.
Why famous American faces are increasingly seen in the owner's box at UK football grounds?
In Los Angeles, a new art exhibition is opening.
It will display removed and toppled statues of US Civil War generals who fought for the Confederates, the breakaway republic in the southern states, who fought to preserve slavery and ultimately lost the war.
The monuments, many of which were covered in graffiti during the Black Lives Matter protests, have been removed from their pedestals and transformed alongside works of contemporary art.
Reagan Morris reports.
Kick them down!
Kick them down!
Hundreds of Confederate statues have been knocked off their public pedestals over the last decade, as many Americans objected to venerating men who fought for the South, which didn't want slavery to end.
Eight years ago in Charlottesville Virginia, clashes turned deadly after white nationalists protested plans to remove a monument to Robert E Lee.
That monument is now displayed in an LA museum, melted down into bronze ingots, artfully stacked next to a broken pedestal, and someone has spray-painted on it as white supremacy crumbles.
Professor and activist Jelaine Schmidt was there when the Lee Monument was removed in 2021 and melted down two years later.
Here we have the beautiful purified bronze, but here is the slag that came out of the process from the foundry when they were melting it down.
And so at the meltdown, it was so toxic.
Lead and magnesium.
This is a toxic material.
You know, it's a toxic representation of history.
And we're purifying it.
Contemporary artworks surround the monuments, including a replica of the iconic General Lee Carr from the Dukes of Hazzard TV show.
It's next to a massive graffitied equestrian statue of Lee and Stonewall Jackson, the two most famous Confederate generals in the US.
Civil War which the Confederacy lost in 1865 and which ultimately ended slavery in the United States.
What did these men stand for?
They fought for slavery.
Curator Hamza Walker has been working for eight years to acquire and borrow the 10 monuments, amid numerous lawsuits and the logistical challenges of moving tens of thousands of pounds of bronze and granite to Los Angeles.
The removal of the Confederate monuments both in New Orleans and Charlottesville was the catalyst for the exhibition.
Recognizing that that's a very big deal for me marked the idea that we were going to go back to square one.
What do you mean by that?
Well, to put it bluntly, we can't agree on why the Civil War was fought.
Some people say, oh, the Civil War was not about slavery.
It was about states' rights.
States' rights to do what?
No matter how you get there, the reason for the Civil War was slavery.
So Robert E. Lee was a great general.
Abraham Lincoln developed a phobia.
He couldn't beat Robert E. Lee.
Coming at a time when President Trump is ordering statues and paintings of Confederate generals to be reinstalled.
The warring narratives of American history are at the heart of monuments.
The centerpiece of the exhibition is a completely transformed sculpture of Stonewall Jackson by artist Kara Walker.
I think the southern vernacular would be a haint. which would be a ghostly form.
A ghostly form.
Yeah, to describe it is a hard one for audio, just because what we're looking at is a disembodied horse and rider or a horse and rider separated from their intended purpose and purpose.
We've had a lot of words like zombie and reanimation and things like that popping up as we describe in horror.
And so those weren't what I went into it thinking, but it's sort of what came out.
Most of the monuments in this exhibition will be returned to the cities and towns they came from when the show closes in May.
Kara Walker's transformed statue will find a new home, and the melted-down bronze ingots from the Robert E Lee sculpture will be turned into a new work of art.
Regan Morris reporting from Los Angeles.
The European Union's most prestigious human rights award has been awarded this year to two journalists.
The Polish-Belorussian journalist Andrzej Pozabut and Georgia's Mazia Amiglobelli will both share the Sakharov Prize, which is named after the Soviet dissident Andrzej Sakharov.
He's currently in prison on charges relating to his work reporting on human rights.
Ms Amiglobelli, who supported investigations into corruption, is in jail after she took part in an anti-government demonstration.
My colleague, James Menendez, spoke to Irma Dimitradz, who's a journalist at one of the independent Georgian news outlets founded by Miss Amiglobelli.
The current regime in Georgia has aimed on destroying independent media.
She is someone who represents Georgian independent media and they aimed making example out of her punishment and having a chilling effect on other fellow journalists and media outlets.
However, it worked otherwise and she just became a symbol of fight and resistance.
How is she at the moment?
She's in prison since January 12th of 2025.
She went through 38 days of hunger strike and she lost most of her eyesight during her detention.
She has only 10% of her vision in one eye left.
So her situation is like a nightmare.
You know, ticking bomb as doctors told us that her vision could go to zero any moment.
So she's a woman who started her job when she was 26 and she's been doing it forever since then.
And she founded her media outlet on the day of independence of Georgia.
And in early October here for elections.
She called to the newsroom from prison just to warn us once again that not for even a second forget that you are doing ethical journalism.
And even though you are targeted with all sorts of attacks.
You need to do your best and the best of journalism that can be done ever.
So this is what drives her.
How difficult is it operating as a journalist in Georgia right now?
I mean, do you come under constant threat?
That's a question, like you know.
To give you explanation, just in the last few days, three journalists have been detained and sentenced to administrative detention.
And independent media outlets are basically banned from receiving all sorts of foreign funding.
There are threats and attacks.
There are physical attacks, which is never investigated.
And impunity is super high.
Every day there are statements coming from the officials calling Zia, us and every journalist.
You know, foreign agents, traitors.
It's super insecure.
It's something like being on the front line in the war zone where you don't know anything.
When will you get attacked?
Now, the fall of independent media or journalism in Georgia will mean, you know, destroying of all personal freedoms as well.
Irma Dimitrazzi.
A huge haul of Roman coins that could be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars have been found in Wales by an amateur metal detectorist who said he got goosebumps when he came across two clay pots with around 15000 coins inside them.
Thomas Morgan has the details.
36-year-old David Moss has been metal detecting for more than a decade.
The two clay pots he found in what he described as a virtually untouched area of North Wales in August far surpassed his previous findings.
It took David and his friend almost six and a half hours to dig up the coins.
He then slept in the car with them for fear they may be stolen for three days, and then took the hoard down to Cardiff, where experts at the National Museum of Wales will now analyse and date the coins.
Their investigation should be completed by next year.
Thomas Morgan.
Finally, from Hollywood A-listers to rappers and private equity funds, US ownership has become a huge part of English and Welsh football.
Teams up and down.
The leagues, from Wrexham and Reading to Manchester City and United, are now owned in part or entirely by US investors.
Will Bain has been finding out more.
From private equity megafunds to Hollywood actors and hip-hop stars.
What was a drip-drip of US investment into British football has become something of a deluge.
A month or so into the new professional season, more than a third of the 72 professional clubs from England, and some from Wales as well, are now either fully or part owned by US investors.
I believe that the meatier opportunities with English football have not even been scratched.
That's the businessman and lawyer Rob Kuig.
He'd been a long-term owner of Wickham Wanderers in the leagues below the Premier League, but he's back to ride the football rollercoaster once again, having this summer bought Reading FC.
He told us why from his home in Louisiana in the southern United States.
The more I looked at it.
It's an undervalued commodity or asset that most people don't understand in England.
For us.
We thought we could get in and do some things that would change valuations and actually show that you could operate it in a sustainable manner.
And we did it. undervalued how?
It's an international mark.
People really love the game of soccer obviously, but on a purely economic basis, you could not buy a minor league baseball team in America for the equivalent amount in football.
Two years ago, Birmingham City, one of the clubs based in the UK's second largest city Birmingham, was taken over by the US private equity firm Knighthead Capital Management.
And along with them came a very famous minority owner.
We're here to support the club.
We want success on the pitch.
We want to be winning, and that's what we're committed to.
The NFL star Tom Brady.
And what do you need if you have a celebrity owner like say Rexhams, Ryan Reynolds and Rob McElhenney?
Well, a competing documentary sold to a streaming platform, of course.
The way we've been sold it, we're going to the top.
We're trying to make Birmingham City a world-class team.
If that was one stream of revenue, Nighthead Capital had other plans for growing its revenues off the pitch as well.
That patch of wasteland will soon become a must-visit destination.
The sports quarter will be a proud new chapter for the club.
A promise, for example, to build a new so-called sports quarter for the city, including a 62000-all-seater stadium, an indoor events arena and new training facilities.
So what do fans at Birmingham make of their US owners so far?
It's just unrecognisable.
We're stood out by the fan park that we never had before.
We've got full houses, we're selling out every week.
We see what they see and it's revenue.
Everything's about revenue, being able to get the players on the pitch. making the ground better.
We need to have infrastructure because we're trying to get a new ground as well.
So for me, it's all positive.
Synonymous with this new wave of ownership, it seems, has been the documentaries on the likes of Amazon, Netflix and Disney Plus, to show fans an insight behind the scenes at the clubs they love, or don't that they hope they'll fall in love with.
Rob called me and said, I have this idea.
And then the next thing he knew, we were co-chairmen of Rex and Red Dragons.
But is it worth it?
And do clubs actually make money from the exposure they get from them?
Here's Christina Philippou, Associate Professor in Accounting and Sport Finance at the University of Portsmouth.
Absolutely.
I mean, if you look at 24 accounts, which is the last year that we have of Wrexham right, they went from.
In terms of sponsorship and advertising revenue, it went up more than seven times.
OK, from 2023 to 2024.
That is crazy.
A lot of these brands would not be on board if the global interest wasn't there.
That was Will Bain reporting.
Use the hashtag Global News Pod.
This edition was mixed by Darcy O'Brie and the producer was Charles Sanctuary.
The editor is Karen Martin.
I'm Charlotte Gallagher.
Until next time, goodbye.
