Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Syria is Normalizing Ties With Israel, Here’s Why – Analysis

By Robert Inlakesh | The Palestine Chronicle | January 7, 2026

On January 6, 2026, a joint statement was published by the US State Department, affirming that the Israelis and Syrians had established a “joint fusion mechanism”. Despite being labeled an official normalization deal, this mechanism works as a soft normalization arrangement.

As the topic of Syrian normalization is often one that triggers a rather aggressive reaction from all sides, it is important to cut through the propaganda to establish what just happened.

As a product of a direct meeting between Israeli and Syrian officials in Paris, with the participation of the United States, both Damascus and Tel Aviv have agreed to a quasi-normalization deal of sorts.

The joint statement that was published on the US State Department website makes the issue extremely clear: a “joint fusion mechanism”, or “dedicated communication cell”, has now been established. This mechanism includes facilitating Israeli-Syrian cooperation in the following arenas:

  • Intelligence sharing
  • Diplomatic engagement
  • Commercial opportunities
  • Military de-escalation

Some supporters of Syrian President, Ahmed al-Shara’a, have been adamant that what was reached and is being pursued is solely to do with security issues and the issue of southern Syria. Today’s joint statement thoroughly debunks any such claims.

At the same time, no formal normalization agreement has yet to be reached. However, if Syria is directly opening up such communications and striving towards “commercial opportunities” with Israel, it may not be sealed with a signed agreement and ceremony that brings Damascus directly into the so-called “Abraham Accords”, but this would be, for all intents and purposes, a normalization agreement.

There is no longer any space in which reasonable people can argue that Syria’s current leadership has not become a US-aligned force that seeks further cooperation with the Israelis. It is a fact that the US runs the show. The reason why this issue has become so taboo to speak about is that there are many who simply do not want to accept this reality.

According to polling data published by the Foreign Policy political journal on December 6, 2025, only 14% of Syrians said that they support the normalization of ties with Israel.

92% of Syrians also answered that Israel’s illegal occupation of territory in the region was a critical threat to their security. Another telling statistic was that a whopping 66% said they had favorable views of the United States.

These statistics are very telling and can help explain a lot about what is happening publicly, as opposed to privately, when it comes to Syrian-Israeli relations.

For a start, the vast majority of the Syrian people are opposed to normalization, meaning that if President Ahmed al-Shara’a were to publicly attend a signing with Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, it would certainly cause a stir.

In other words, in the interests of stability, reaching a normalization agreement with Israel is best kept out of the spotlight. On the Israeli side, this could also work to their benefit. Netanyahu understands that in the event of signing a formal normalization deal, he may enjoy a propaganda victory, but will also have to make small concessions on his ambitions in southern Syria.

By establishing ties with the Syrian leadership, in the absence of an official normalization agreement, it will provide the Israelis with the ability to maintain freedom of action inside Syria. Meanwhile, the loyalists to the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham government in Damascus will be able to deny the deep ties established between both sides and sell it as a deal comparable to the previous disengagement understandings that Israel tore up in December of 2024.

Another takeaway from the polling data is that a large percentage of Syrians view the US favorably, which explains the rather contradictory takes of some Syrians you may be seeing online. A popular view is that siding with the US is actually a smart idea and that Washington will help Syria rehabilitate itself.

Despite the US overtly being Israel’s closest ally and fueling the genocide in Gaza, which most Syrians oppose, many still manage to delude themselves into believing that in the new Syria that has emerged, the US role is unique in how it has behaved historically and continues to behave in every other country on earth. This is simply a case of mass self-deception and is, in some cases, a protective mechanism that enables people to live safely under a totally illogical worldview.

Where Is This Going?

At this current moment, the Israelis view the government of al-Shara’a as weak and are even anticipating its sudden collapse. Tel Aviv and Washington-based think tanks are also becoming more critical of the current regime in Damascus, after previously celebrating its rise to power. This is largely due to the inability of Ahmed al-Shara’a to bring his own forces and allied militias under control.

From the Syrian military parades late last year, it is very clear that a large contingent of fighters on the side of the Syrian leadership are in favor of a clash with the Israelis and were even filmed chanting for Gaza. Although this won’t result in the HTS leadership backing a defensive war, it is meaningful insofar as it applies enormous pressure and sends strong signals.

This deal is also meaningless to the Israelis, beyond what they are able to force the Syrian side to deliver for them. In all likelihood, we should expect the regime in Tel Aviv to treat the new mechanism like it does its ceasefire with Lebanon. By this, it means that the Israelis will demand that their requests be met by Damascus, some of which won’t be possible, while they continue to act with impunity, whenever and wherever they choose.

There are a number of key components to any security deal that may be signed in the near future between both sides, one of which will be the demand that the south of Syria be demilitarized. Damascus will agree to this, but is incapable of actually achieving such an outcome. The Bedouin tribes will not disarm as long as the Druze militias are armed, the villages and local militias of Dara’a will also refuse to give up their weapons, and so on.

In fact, if the Syrian authorities try to disarm their own people, who are under the direct threat of the Israeli occupation forces, it could even cause major destabilizing clashes. All throughout the country, organized militant groups, separatist movements, and local armed factions have refused to disarm.

The best the Syrian authorities have been able to do is to try to integrate many fighters into the ranks of their own security forces, which has already resulted in major issues for them; in one case, the killing of three US service members late last year.

There were even indications that an assassination attempt had just failed in the past week against Ahmed al-Shara’a, right before the latest round of direct talks with the Israelis was announced last Sunday.

Syria is also on the verge of a major conflict erupting to its northeast, with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), with both the Alawites and Druze minorities now calling for federalism. While foreign powers have influence within these minority communities, they genuinely do not seem able to coexist in the current Syrian State, which is one that not only fails to protect their rights, but whose security forces themselves are filled with fighters who seek to exterminate them.

It is clear that Syria’s civil war is far from over; the only difference is that the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) no longer exists, and Bashar al-Assad has been removed from the picture. Damascus used to be ruled by a leadership backed by Russia and Iran; now it’s ruled by a leadership that is backed by the US and Türkiye.

Ankara does have power in Syria, yet it has become clear that the US currently holds the major cards. So far, the Turkish government has failed to establish red lines and contest Israel inside the country, something that it needs to do in order to wield serious power. The US, UK, and even Israelis are the ones with the major sway at this current time, none of whom care to see Syria succeed for its own people.

All of this is relevant to the new Israeli-Syrian mechanism, as this deal is not one that the HTS leadership entered into from a position of strength. In fact, Damascus is being bullied by the United States and forced to accept realities imposed on it by the Israelis.

For Israel, it is a win-win deal. Either Syria fails to implement its side of the bargain and Zionism can continue to pursue its expansionist agenda; or, Syria succeeds and becomes more stable, plus it is on Tel Aviv’s side against its enemies in Lebanon and Iran.

For the Syrians, it’s a lose-lose deal. If they fail, the Israelis will batter them and they may even find the agreement further destabilizing the country; if they succeed in implementing their side, the Israelis will still act with impunity where they choose and instead of protecting their homeland, the Syrian people of the south will have no means of defending themselves.

Anyone framing this in a positive way is either lying to their audiences, lying to themselves, or both.

– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine.

January 7, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , | Leave a comment

UK and France unveil troop commitments for Ukraine

RT | January 7, 2026

The leaders of the UK and France have announced that they’ve agreed to deploy forces in Ukraine if Kiev reaches a peace deal with Russia, despite Moscow categorically ruling out the presence of NATO forces in the country under any pretext.

The agreement was unveiled on Tuesday at a meeting of the so-called ‘coalition of the willing’ group in Paris. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the three countries had signed a “Declaration of Intent” on deploying forces “in the event of a peace deal.” He called the agreement “a vital part of our iron-cast commitment,” while asserting it would create a legal framework for British, French, and partner forces to operate on Ukrainian soil.

Starmer said that “following a ceasefire,” Britain and France would establish “military hubs” throughout Ukraine and build protected facilities for weapons and equipment, while also joining US-led monitoring of the truce.

French President Emmanuel Macron described the proposed contingent as a non-combat force consisting of “potentially thousands” of troops, while stressing they would be stationed “a long way behind the contact line.”

However, neither Starmer, nor Macron, nor Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky cited exact troop numbers, deployment locations, or timelines.

Meanwhile, Zelensky claimed Ukraine had had “very substantive discussions” with the American team on the issue. “America is ready to work on this,” he said, adding that the sides have made progress on documents concerning security guarantees.

US envoy Steve Witkoff, who also attended the Paris talks, did not confirm a US commitment to deploy troops, but spoke of tough “security protocols” meant to deter attacks on Ukraine.

Russia has repeatedly opposed foreign troop presence in Ukraine, warning that these forces would be treated as “legitimate targets.” Moscow has also said that Ukraine’s ambition to join NATO and host the military alliance’s troops was one of the key reasons for the conflict in the country

January 7, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

US to ease Venezuela oil sanctions after Maduro kidnapping: CNBC

Al Mayadeen | January 7, 2026

The United States is preparing “to recalibrate” its unilateral sanctions regime on Venezuelan oil, CNBC reported. Washington says the move would allow crude exports to continue without a fixed end date, a claim Caracas and several international observers reject as part of a coercive campaign to seize control over the country’s strategic resources.

The reported policy shift comes amid extraordinary tensions following the kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro by US forces, an operation carried out without an extradition process, a United Nations mandate, or consent from Venezuelan institutions. Caracas has described the act as a grave breach of sovereignty and international law, while allied governments have warned it marks a dangerous escalation from sanctions enforcement to outright military intervention.

Against this backdrop, US President Donald Trump is expected to meet executives from major American oil companies on Friday to discuss what the White House has described as the “future” of Venezuela’s energy resources. Fox Business, citing a senior US official, said the talks will focus on managing Venezuelan oil flows as sanctions are selectively eased.

Oil Coercion Campaign

The discussions follow reports that US authorities have instructed Venezuela’s what it blatantly described as “interim leadership” to prioritize American buyers and partner exclusively with US firms in oil production, while simultaneously demanding that Caracas cut economic and security ties with key allies, including China, Russia, Iran, and Cuba.

Beijing has condemned the demands as “typical bullying,” warning that Washington is attempting to reshape Venezuela’s foreign relations and economic model through force and pressure.

Trump earlier claimed that Venezuela’s interim authorities had agreed to supply the United States with between 30 million and 50 million barrels of oil, pledging that the proceeds would be used for the benefit of both countries.

“We’re talking about 30 to 50 million barrels of oil being turned over,” Trump said. “We’re going to use the money for the benefit of the people of both countries.”

Caracas and its allies reject that framing, arguing that any such transfers, announced in the aftermath of military pressure, maritime interdictions, and the kidnapping of the country’s head of state, amount to resource extraction under duress, regardless of claims that transactions would occur at “market prices.”

Venezuelan officials note that Washington has simultaneously enforced seizures of tankers, restricted access to non-US buyers, and threatened senior political and military figures with similar treatment, narrowing Caracas’ options while portraying the outcome as voluntary trade.

Sovereignty Under Assault

The White House has yet to release full details on the scope or conditions of the sanctions rollback. Critics, however, say the sequence of events, including military escalation, leadership seizure, recognition of an interim authority, threats against remaining officials, and rapid moves to redirect oil exports, reflects a longstanding US strategy of using sanctions and force to assert control over energy assets in resource-rich states.

For Venezuela, which holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves, officials insist that oil belongs to the Venezuelan state and its people. They argue that Washington’s actions represent an escalation from economic warfare to outright aggression, setting a precedent that threatens international norms governing sovereignty, non-intervention, and the prohibition on the use of force to secure economic advantage.

January 7, 2026 Posted by | Economics, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Somaliland and the ‘Greater Israel’ project

By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | January 7, 2026

More than a simple recognition of Somaliland, “Israel” is hatching a scheme alongside its Emirati allies aimed at a regional expansion agenda. For the so-called “Greater Israel” vision to come alive, dominance must be secured not only across West Asia and North Africa, but also throughout the Horn of Africa.

The recent decision by the occupying entity in “Tel Aviv” to recognize Somaliland as a State has triggered outrage across Africa and much of the Islamic World, while drawing condemnations from most Arab capitals, with the notable exception of Abu Dhabi.

For the most part, analysts have pointed to “Israel’s” desire to use Somaliland as a staging ground for aggression against Yemen as a primary motivation behind the move. Some have further noted that officials of the Zionist regime have expressed interest in ethnically cleansing Gaza’s people and forcibly transferring them to Somaliland. While these factors evidently inform Israeli decision-making, they do not exhaust its strategic calculus; yet the conspiracy goes much deeper.

On November 24, 2025, the influential Israeli think-tank Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) released a report detailing both the benefits and drawbacks of recognizing Somaliland. While the report acknowledged multiple strategic incentives for such a move, it ultimately advised against proceeding before the United States had done so.

The INSS had advocated against the move, hedging that such a declaration would further isolate “Israel” within the framework of the so-called “Abraham Accords”, triggering backlash on the international stage regarding the issue of Palestinian statehood.

So what changed since the Israeli think tank report?

Understanding the Israeli thinking here, such a move would not be made if they saw it as a net negative. Instead, the recognition was offered in a very public and brazen manner. In order to make sense, we therefore have to look at the broader picture.

To begin with, the normalization drive [“Abraham Accords”] has clearly stalled, at least in terms of any major developments in this regard. The last country to enter into the fold of the broader Trump administration-led normalization movement was Kazakhstan. For context, Astana already normalized ties with the Zionist regime back in 1992.

Although US President Donald Trump announced Kazakhstan’s declaration as a development of great significance, the move was clearly seen as a weak attempt at keeping the normalization project alive amid the conspicuous absence of Saudi Arabia. In parallel, an increasingly desperate Israeli entity has launched what it calls the “Isaac Accords”, a separate normalization project with Latin American nations that are client regimes of the US.

In other words, the Israelis were not actually in a position where they necessarily viewed recognition of Somaliland as an impediment to their normalization agenda. In fact, through projecting power in the Horn of Africa, they may even see it as an advancement of this project, especially given that some 6 million people who identify as belonging ethnically to Somaliland are Muslims.

Another element of the move is to assert their dominance and to lash out internationally over the wave of recognition, last September, for the state of Palestine.

In addition, the elephant in the room here is that the Israelis are currently pursuing a joint agenda with the United Arab Emirates, particularly in both the Horn of Africa and Northern Africa. This alliance seeks to co-opt sectarian movements, separatist groups, and to weaponize warlords in order to reshape the continent as a whole.

The Emirati and Israeli agendas are one in this regard. They are inseparable and connected on almost every conceivable level, this is to the point that the de facto head of intelligence operations for the UAE has long been a man named Mohammed Dahlan, well known for his alleged involvement with Mossad and the CIA; particularly in Africa.

The UAE’s proxy in Yemen, the Southern Transitional Council (STC), seized the Hadhramaut and al-Mahra provinces from Saudi-backed forces in early December, bringing around 80% of Yemen’s oil resources under their control. The STC’s militants have even been trained by “Israel”. The UAE’s move, which would not have come without Zionist backing, now threatens the stability of the Arabian Peninsula and triggered major backlash from Riyadh.

While “Israel” is reportedly seeking to build up a military presence near the strategically located port of Berbera in Somalia’s Somaliland, the UAE began constructing the Berbera airbase as early as 2017, securing access to it for a period of 25 years. Similarly, the UAE–Israeli alliance has extended to the establishment of a joint military presence on Yemen’s strategically located island of Socotra.

It is speculated that the Emirati-backed STC, in southern Yemen, may launch an offensive aimed at capturing the Ansar Allah-controlled port city of Hodeidah, likely receiving Israeli aerial support. The coastline of Somaliland lies only 300 to 500 kilometers from Ansar Allah-controlled lands, making such an air campaign much more manageable than launching strikes from occupied Palestine.

Furthermore, turning to “Israel’s” agenda in Somalia itself, it is clear that this is a calculated move that targets Türkiye. Ankara maintains enormous influence in Somalia and remains a strong proponent of the “One Somalia” agenda. Therefore, at a time of heightened regional tensions, especially in Syria, where both Turkish and Israeli forces are seeking to carve out zones of influence and establish red lines, “Tel Aviv’s” move appears to be another attempt to land a strategic blow on Ankara.

Together, the Emiratis and Israelis are adamant about combating the Muslim Brotherhood and any Islamic governments or groups that voice their concerns for the Palestinians, which is why they are lobbying Western governments so hard on these issues and running non-stop propaganda campaigns against so-called “radical Islam”.

In reality, the Israeli-UAE-backed militias in Yemen are riddled with al-Qaeda-linked fighters and hardline Takfiri Salafists. The STC’s toughest fighting force, known as the Southern Giants Brigades, is reportedly led by the core of experienced militants who are former al-Qaeda fighters. In Gaza, meanwhile, the UAE and the Zionist Entity are also backing five separate proxy militias with alleged links to ISIS.

The Emiratis and Israelis are huge fans of these Salafist militants, who are totally obedient to them and adopt a mass Takfir doctrine that they use to justify the mass slaughter of Muslims. This was the same exact strategy adopted inside Syria by the Zionists, using Wahhabi extremists to do their bidding, while dividing the Muslim World and paving the way for their expansionist agenda.

If the Zionist Entity is to achieve “Greater Israel”, the common misconception is that they wish to directly occupy the entire region between the River Nile and the Euphrates. According to the Zionist vision, they would rule as an empire instead, whereby they enter into formal alliances with countries broken up into ethno-regimes and sectarian rump States. Divide and conquer.

So, dividing Somalia, in order to help the Emirati proxy-militias secure a southern Yemeni State, is precisely in line with the Zionist agenda. They will attempt to rule these territories through proxy support, using their puppets to destroy the Palestinian cause. In the case of Somaliland, if they are to succeed, they would also certainly attempt to ethnically cleanse the population of Gaza there. In other words, Somaliland recognition isn’t a small, isolated move; it is a piece being strategically positioned on their wider chessboard.

January 7, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Donald Trump, and Most Americans, Do Not Understand the Monroe Doctrine

By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR | January 7, 2026

I want to make you a wager… I bet that 99% of Americans have never read the speech that President James Monroe made to the US Congress on December 2, 1823. As part of that speech — which was the seventh annual address to the US Congress — President Monroe outlined a policy that is now commonly referred to as the Monroe Doctrine. Understanding what President Monroe actually said has taken on more importance because Donald Trump referenced the Monroe Doctrine to justify his kidnapping of Venezuelan President Maduro. I am going to show you that President Monroe said nothing that would excuse or support Trump’s action. To the contrary, Trump is behaving like one of the old European colonial tyrants.

Trump is not the first to misunderstand the Monroe Doctrine, which is now widely interpreted in America as giving the US control of the Western Hemisphere and giving the US the right to take action against ANY foreign government that has relations with the countries of Central and South America, Mexico and Canada.

The essence of the Monroe Doctrine originally was a firm declaration to oppose European colonization of the Americas. Read carefully what Monroe said:

In the discussions to which this interest has given rise and in the arrangements by which they may terminate the occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers

All US presidents in the 20th Century — including Trump — believe that the Monroe Doctrine gives the US a veto over political or economic relations that any country outside the Western Hemisphere can have with Canada, Mexico, and the countries of Central and South America. But Monroe’s focus was on European colonial imperialism. President Monroe did not declare that the US would be the final arbiter in deciding whether a country in Central or South America can voluntarily form a political or economic alliance with another country, such as China or Russia.

Monroe’s specific concern was to keep the US out of the wars that were ravaging Europe in the 19th Century. He said:

In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do so. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense. With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. . . .

We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintain it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States. In the war between those new Governments and Spain we declared our neutrality at the time of their recognition, and to this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided no change shall occur which, in the judgement of the competent authorities of this Government, shall make a corresponding change on the part of the United States indispensable to their security.

Monroe made two critical points in the preceding two paragraphs… First, the US will act only if it is attacked or threatened by European powers. Again, his concern was to keep America free of the wars among the various European powers as they sought to secure and consolidate their respective colonial ambitions. Second, Monroe insisted that the US will not interfere with existing colonies or dependencies. However, if people in Mexico, Central America or South America decided to declare independence — as did the 13 British colonies on July 4, 1776 — then any European military action against those former colonies would be viewed as an attack on the United States. In other words, the US policy proposed by Monroe gave priority to those American countries that declared independence a tacit promise that the US would support them. However, this did not grant the US the right to unilaterally insert itself into the political affairs of countries in Central and South America, nor did it empower the US to carry out regime changes in those countries simply because we did not like the new rulers or the structure of the new government.

Monroe then makes a policy statement that every US president in the 20th and 21st Century has ignored… No interference in the internal affairs of other countries:

Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none.

Monroe concluded his outline of the Monroe Doctrine by emphasizing that would be his policy to prevent foreign governments from forcibly imposing their political systems on countries in the Western Hemisphere:

It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can anyone believe that our southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition in any form with indifference.

Sadly, the Monroe Doctrine has been desecrated and ignored by a bevy of Presidents, starting with President Polk in 1848. Instead of defending Mexico and our Central and South American neighbors from foreign interference, we have repeatedly behaved as an authoritarian dictator. Mexico declared independence from Spain on 16 September 1810. Thirty-six years later, the US provoked a war with Mexico by annexing Texas and manufacturing a border crisis in service of a broader expansionist project. Maybe we should christen this kind of behavior as the Polk Doctrine, i.e., only we, the US, have the right to decide what kind of government the people and nations in the Western hemisphere can have. The Monroe Doctrine was intended to combat foreign interference by imperial powers… The US has bastardized that doctrine and now uses it as an excuse to feed our own imperial ambitions. Venezuela is just the latest casualty.

January 7, 2026 Posted by | Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

US Boarding of Marinera Vessel in Open Waters Violates UN Convention – Russia’s Transport Ministry

Sputnik – 07.01.2026

US navy forces boarded the Russian-flagged oil tanker Marinera at around 12:00 GMT, after which the contact with the vessel was lost, the Russian Transport Ministry said on Wednesday.

“Today around 3:00 p.m. Moscow time, in open seas outside the territorial waters of any state, US navy forces boarded the vessel, and the contact with the ship was lost,” the ministry said in a statement.

On December 24, 2025, Marinera received a temporary permit to sail under the Russian flag, issued on the basis of Russian legislation and norms of international law, the ministry added.

“In accordance with the norms of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, freedom of navigation applies on the high seas, and no state has the right to use force against vessels duly registered under the jurisdiction of other states,” the ministry said.

January 7, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Russian MFA Spox Dismayed by US Statement on ‘Bloodless’ Operation in Venezuela

Sputnik – 07.01.2026

MOSCOW – Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on Wednesday expressed her surprise at Washington’s claim that its military operation in Venezuela was bloodless, pointing the US State Department to the dozens of deceased Venezuelans and Cubans.

“What do you mean by nobody died? What about the citizens of Venezuela and Cuba, are they not people? I have a question: in what dimension are we even living? I want an answer. Just the other day, Mr. Rubio [US Secretary of State] sent Christmas greetings to his Russian counterpart. I, using this opportunity, would also like to congratulate the State Department on Christmas and ask a question, when the US says that this so-called operation was bloodless, does it mean they don’t consider the citizens of Venezuela and Cuba as people? Who gave them such a right? Who gave them the right not to see the bloody consequences which they themselves have caused, which have resulted from their actions?” Zakharova said on Sputnik radio.

Zakharova also said that the UN had similarly failed to properly assess the loss of life.

“What is amazing is just as they don’t see the victims of the recent New Year’s Eve strike on a cafe in the Kherson Region, just as for many years they have not seen the Alley of Angels or the victims of the Lepestok [PFM-1] mines. In exactly the same way they did not see the citizens of Venezuela and Cuba who died there. That is dozens of people in 42 minutes,” she stated.

The remarks followed a report by the Washington Post citing unnamed officials that more than 70 people were killed during the US military operation in Venezuela on January 3.
US President Donald Trump previously expressed regret regarding the large number of people killed by the US military personnel during the operation in Venezuela.

On January 3, the US launched a massive attack on Venezuela, capturing Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, and taking them to New York. Trump announced that Maduro and Flores would face trial for allegedly being involved in “narco-terrorism” and posing a threat, including to the US.

Caracas requested an emergency UN meeting over the US operation. Venezuela’s Supreme Court temporarily transferred the duties of the head of state to Vice President Delcy Rodriguez, who was officially sworn in as acting president before the National Assembly on January 5.

Russia, China, and North Korea have strongly condemned the US actions. The Russian Foreign Ministry expressed solidarity with the Venezuelan people and called for the release of Maduro and his wife, as well as for the prevention of further escalation of the situation.

January 7, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

US seizes Russian oil tanker

RT | January 7, 2026

The US military on Wednesday seized the Russian-flagged oil tanker Marinera in the North Atlantic, after pursuing it all the way from the Caribbean Sea.

The vessel, previously named Bella 1, was intercepted for alleged “violation of US sanctions” in the international waters to the northwest of Scotland.

The action was taken by the US Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security in coordination with the military, the US European Command has announced.

“The vessel was seized in the North Atlantic pursuant to a warrant issued by a U.S. federal court after being tracked by USCGC Munro,” it said.

The action against the tanker supports US President Donald Trump’s “proclamation targeting sanctioned vessels that threaten the security and stability of the Western Hemisphere,” the command noted. US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth confirmed that the seizure of the vessel was related to the “blockade of sanctioned and illicit Venezuelan oil.”

The tanker first came into the US crosshairs after reportedly trying to approach Venezuela late last year. The US Coast Guard attempted to detain the vessel, yet the crew declined to let the Americans on board, and headed for the Atlantic. During the pursuit, the vessel changed its name and switched to the Russian flag.

Shortly after the capture of the Marinera, the US Southern Command said it had seized another vessel in the Caribbean Sea, describing it as “a stateless, sanctioned dark fleet motor tanker.”

“The interdicted vessel, M/T Sophia, was operating in international waters and conducting illicit activities in the Caribbean Sea. The US Coast Guard is escorting M/T Sophia to the US for final disposition,” the command stated.

January 7, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

US Actions in Venezuela Threaten Global Supply Chain Stability – Chinese Foreign Ministry

Sputnik – 07.01.2026

BEIJING – The US military operation against Venezuela has threatened the stability of the global supply chain and the economic situation in the country, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said on Wednesday.

Earlier in the day, the ABC TV channel reported, citing sources familiar with the White House’s position, that the US had required Venezuela to “agree” to an exclusive partnership with the US on oil and give preference to Washington in the sale of heavy oil. US President Donald Trump has previously called himself a key figure in the governance of Venezuela after the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by US forces.

“The blatant use of force against Venezuela has seriously affected Venezuela’s economic and social order and threatens the stability of the global supply chain. China strongly condemns this,” Mao said.

Cooperation between China and Venezuela is cooperation between sovereign states, protected by international law and the laws of both countries, Mao added when asked about Beijing’s plans to protect its energy interests in Venezuela.

On January 3, the US launched a massive attack on Venezuela that led to the capture of Maduro and his wife. The presidential couple was flown to New York to be tried under US laws on charges of “narco-terrorism.” On Monday, the Venezuelan Supreme Court temporarily transferred the presidency to Vice President Delcy Rodriguez, who was sworn in before the National Assembly.

The Russian Foreign Ministry has expressed solidarity with the Venezuelan people, calling for Maduro and his wife to be released and for the situation not to be allowed to escalate further. Following Moscow, Beijing called for the immediate release of Maduro and his wife, stressing that the US actions violate international law. The North Korean Foreign Ministry has also criticized the US actions.

January 7, 2026 Posted by | Economics, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

Daniel Davis: Chaos & More Wars After the Attack on Venezuela

Glenn Diesen | January 6, 2026

Lt. Col. Daniel Davis is a 4x combat veteran, the recipient of the Ridenhour Prize for Truth-Telling, and is the host of the Daniel Davis Deep Dive YouTube channel. Lt. Col. Davis discusses why the illegality of the attack on Venezuela will fuel uncertainty, chaos and more wars.

Daniel Davis Deep Dive:    / @danieldavisdeepdive  

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen: Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/

X/Twitter: https://x.com/Glenn_Diesen

Patreon:   / glenndiesen  

Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:

PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/glenn…

Buy me a Coffee: buymeacoffee.com/gdieseng Go Fund Me: https://gofund.me/09ea012f

Books by Prof. Glenn Diesen

January 7, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Video, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

When the US ‘puts Maduro on trial,’ the world also puts the US under scrutiny

Global Times – January 6, 2026

On Monday local time, a highly anticipated international meeting and an equally high-profile so-called “trial” unfolded on the same day in New York, the US. Inside the UN headquarters in Manhattan, the Security Council convened an emergency meeting to discuss the heightened tensions triggered by US military actions against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. The UN secretary-general, multiple Security Council members, and representatives from many countries all stressed the imperative of adhering to the UN Charter and opposing the use of force to resolve international disputes. This cross-regional, cross-alignment consensus underscores a fundamental point: defending international law is not an “interest choice” of any single country, but a basic consensus of the international community.

If Washington seeks to intimidate and deter others through the public spectacle of humiliating a foreign head of state, it has clearly underestimated both the shared consensus and the bottom lines of the international community. From any perspective, US actions lack both legitimacy and legality. Such blatant invasion and abduction flagrantly violate all core norms and fundamental principles enshrined in the UN Charter. Under whatever pretext – without Security Council authorization and in the absence of conditions for legitimate self-defense – the use of military force against a sovereign UN member state, including the abduction of its head of state, constitutes outright aggression. Subsequent justifications by the US government only amount to an obvious attempt to cover up the truth: elevating domestic “judicial” accusations – based on tenuous or even false evidences – above international law, and substituting unilateral military actions for multilateral diplomatic mechanisms. In essence, this is unilateral hegemonic behavior that fundamentally challenges, and even negates, the universal binding force of international law.

What such practices undermine is the institutional foundation of the international system. Sovereign equality, non-interference in internal affairs, and the prohibition of the threat or use of force are the pillars upon which the post-WWII international order rests. If certain countries are allowed to decide, based on their own judgments, “who is guilty, who should be punished, and how punishment should be carried out,” international law will be reduced to a selectively applied tool, and the collective security mechanism established by the UN Charter will be hollowed out. As many representatives pointed out at the Security Council meeting, this issue concerns not only the sovereignty and security of a single state, but also whether international law still retains authority and predictability.

Historical experience has repeatedly shown that replacing rules with sheer power doesn’t bring lasting stability. The overwhelming majority of countries are unwilling to return to a Hobbesian international jungle governed by the law of the strong preying on the weak.

Since the end of the Cold War, instances of bypassing the UN and relying on unilateral military actions to address complex political problems have been far from rare. The results have often been prolonged regional turmoil, breakdowns in national governance, and worsening humanitarian crises. The price paid by the international community has been extremely heavy. The hard-won peaceful environment in Latin America and the Caribbean today should likewise not be undermined by unilateralism and power politics.

The US’ brazen military actions against Venezuela, followed by threats toward Colombia, Cuba, and other countries, once again warn the world that imperialist thinking and hegemonic practices remain the most destructive forces undermining global peace and stability. The United Nations is the core of the current international system, and international law is the fundamental norm governing international relations.

The more turbulent and uncertain the global situation becomes, the more necessary it is to return to the UN framework and manage differences through political solutions such as dialogue, negotiation and mediation to prevent escalation. When Maduro was put on trial, the US was also standing in the dock of the international community. Any action that weakens the authority of the United Nations or denies the binding force of international law will ultimately backfire on the hegemon itself.

No country can act as the international police, nor can any country claim to be the international judge. The international community does not need hegemonic politics based on “might is right,” nor does it require an “imperial order” that places itself above other nations. Only by adhering to true multilateralism and upholding international law, as well as the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, can the international system avoid descending into a jungle logic where the strong prey on the weak, allowing the world to move toward a more stable and just direction.

January 6, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Don-roe Doctrine? A close look at a 200‑year scourge across Latin America under US’ shadow

Global Times – January 6, 2026

The US’ sudden military operation against Venezuela and the forcible seizure of the country’s president has dominated headlines worldwide since Saturday. The operation is viewed by global media and observers as a real-life example of the Monroe Doctrine in action, under which the Trump Administration claims that the Western Hemisphere is its sphere of influence.

Focus on the Monroe Doctrine intensified further after US President Donald Trump invoked the doctrine to defend the strike on Venezuela at a press conference on Saturday amid mounting international condemnation. “All the way back, it dates back to the Monroe Doctrine,” Trump stated at the press conference, according to a Sunday report by ABC News. “The Monroe Doctrine is a big deal, but we’ve surpassed it by a long shot. They’re calling it the ‘Don-roe Doctrine’ now,” he added.

Trump’s version of Monroe Doctrine, centered on “America First,” is a geopolitical strategy for the US to impose hegemonic control over the Western Hemisphere. Its core objective is to reconsolidate Latin America as America’s “backyard” through exclusive cooperation, extract regional resources, and ultimately serve US economic interests and consolidate its global hegemony, Xu Yanran, an associate professor at the School of International Relations, Renmin University of China, told the Global Times.

At a press conference on Monday, when asked for response to the sphere of influence concept – the Monroe Doctrine, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian reiterated China’s stance to “oppose hegemony and power politics.”

What exactly is the Monroe Doctrine? What role has it played in shaping US-Latin America relations over the past 200 years? And what does the doctrine’s resurgence mean for the region and the world? To answer these questions, the Global Times has launched a two-part series to decode the doctrine – a scourge that has haunted Latin America for 200 years – and to expose the US’ long-standing interventionist schemes in various fields across the region. In the first installment, we examine the doctrine’s historical evolution, draw comparisons between the Trump and original versions, and explore its potential implications for both the region and the wider world.

Shadow over the Western Hemisphere

The Monroe Doctrine was articulated by President James Monroe in 1823 to oppose European interference in Latin America. In the early 1900s, former US president Theodore Roosevelt expanded the doctrine to justify military intervention across the region. As a result, US Marines were sent into Santo Domingo in 1904, Nicaragua in 1911, and Haiti in 1915, according to an article on the website of the US National Archives and Records Administration.

In addition to direct intervention, the US also undertook dollar diplomacy – supposedly replacing bullets for dollars – aimed at expanding US financial capital in Latin America and fostering regional dependency on the US. The imposition of Panamanian independence and the construction of the canal are prominent examples of this policy, as are the numerous armed interventions in Central America, according to a paper released in 2020 by International Organisations Research Journal published by the National Research University Higher School of Economics in Russia.

With these practices, the Monroe Doctrine, originally designed to prevent other major world powers from meddling in Latin America, evolved into a pretext for the US to turn the region into its so-called “backyard.”

More grievously, in the aftermath of World War II, the US leveraged the Central Intelligence Agency for decades to infiltrate and meddle in the political affairs of Latin American nations. This trapped some countries in prolonged political instability and social deprivation, gravely derailing their paths toward modernization, Sun Yanfeng, director of Latin American research at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, told the Global Times.

One notable example occurred in December 1989, when the US invaded Panama, overthrowing Manuel Antonio Noriega’s regime and seeking long-term control over the Panama Canal. Noriega surrendered to the US authorities on January 3, 1990, the same date of the forcible seizure of Maduro.

While the US continues to pursue its “America First” agenda under the banner of the Monroe Doctrine, people across Latin America have gradually awakened. Resistance against US aggression, intervention, economic colonization and ideological control has steadily grown in the region since the 1990s after a number of anti-US left-wing forces successively came to power in several Latin American countries. At the same time, more Latin American countries have sought to pursue autonomous diplomatic policies and actively expand cooperation with both regional partners and countries beyond the hemisphere, opening up new space for their own development, according to a paper published on the Journal of Latin American Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in April 2020.

It is against this backdrop that the Monroe Doctrine was widely described by experts and politicians as outdated. The US administration also appeared to acknowledge the shift. In November 2013 during a speech at the Organization of American States, former secretary of state John Kerry said that “the era of the Monroe Doctrine is over,” according to Fox News.

However, the Monroe Doctrine began to re-emerge at the forefront of the US policy agenda during Donald Trump’s first term, as Washington sought ways to address mounting domestic pressure and external challenges, according to another paper released in October 2025 by the Institute of Latin America Studies under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

During the Biden administration, policy directions and agenda priorities hinted at the emergence of a new Monroe Doctrine. Following the inauguration of Trump’s second term, this new version has surged back into prominence and entered a phase of full-scale implementation, the paper said.

‘Far more radical’

In the 2025 National Security Strategy, the Trump administration vowed to enforce a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine to restore American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere, according to a document released on the White House website.

The core goal of the shift is to secure US hegemony in the Western Hemisphere amid the country’s declining power and to build a US-led regional order that excludes non-regional players, Sun said.

To achieve its goal in the Western Hemisphere, the Trump administration has sought to remove Venezuela, a standard-bearer of the anti-US camp in the Western Hemisphere and “a thorn in the US side,” according to Sun.

On the other hand, this year coincides with both the US midterm elections and the country’s 250th anniversary. Plagued by domestic political struggles, the Trump administration is in urgent need of a high-profile political achievement to strengthen its position, Sun said.

Another reason behind the shift is the Trump administration’s perception of a growing “threat” as Latin American countries, especially major ones, are opening up their economies not only to the US but to a broader range of partners, and in some cases forming competitive ties with the US, according to Lü Xiang, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

Therefore, the US does not hesitate to employ coercive means, even overt military force, to expand its economic control over Latin America, and this is the core of the so-called Don-roe Doctrine, Lü said.

He noted that the Don-roe Doctrine is notably characterized by the primacy of “might makes right,” a guiding principle rooted in the era of colonialism.

“Compared with the original Monroe Doctrine, Trump’s version is far more radical. It has shifted from ‘defense’ to ‘offense,’ proactively interfering in the internal affairs of Latin American countries through hegemonic means and even directly violating the interests of sovereign states,” Xu explained to the Global Times.

Against global trends

According to Reuters, Trump claimed at a Saturday press conference that his administration would “run” Venezuela “until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition,” which experts contacted by the Global Times said is clearly illegal.

After the forcible seizure of Maduro, the Trump administration also took jabs at other Latin American leaders, including Gustavo Petro of Colombia and Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico, according to The New York Times.

While the Trump-version Monroe Doctrine may appear to be a strategic pivot in which the US is shifting the focus of its security strategy to the Western Hemisphere, the underlying intent of great-power competition is actually growing stronger.

Pan Deng, director of the Latin America and Caribbean Region Law Center of China University of Political Science and Law, told the Global Times that the Venezuela incident marks a major shift in US policy toward Latin America – moving away from relative neglect over the years and back onto a path of high-profile intervention and coercive pressure.

In fact, the two Trump administrations have launched a series of targeted operations to “take down Latin American countries one by one.” On the political front, the first Trump administration placed Cuba on the list of state sponsors of terrorism, and the subsequent sanctions inflicted a severe blow to Cuba’s economy.

Economic weapons have also been wielded frequently to repeatedly threaten to impose additional tariffs on Latin American countries. In terms of plundering regional resources, seizing strategic assets and even territorial expansion, the Trump administration has repeatedly made public threats to rename the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America” since returning back to the White House.

The US may have announced the end of the Monroe Doctrine, but the fact is, for the past more than 200 years, hegemonism and power politics, which is intrinsic in the Doctrine, is far from being abandoned, Lin Jian made the remarks at another press conference in August 2024, responding to protest in several Latin American countries against US interference in their internal affairs.

The US’s hegemonism and power politics runs counter to the unstoppable historical trend of Latin American countries staying independent and seeking strength through unity. Such approaches will win no support and be consigned to the dustbin of history, Lin noted.

Sun told the Global Times that while the US is once again attempting to extend its “long arm” into Latin America, the region is no longer what it once was. In recent years, Latin American countries have worked to strengthen unity and weather shared challenges. They have actively seized opportunities arising from the development of the Global South and expanded cooperation with countries in Asia and Africa.

During the seventh summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States in 2023, the bloc released the Declaration of Buenos Aires, sending a strong message in favor of regional cooperation and integration, and in opposition to foreign interference.

Li Haidong, a professor at the China Foreign Affairs University, also warned a probable spillover effect of the resurgence of Monroe Doctrine from Latin American to the other regions, which could trigger greater global instability and deliver a subversive blow to the international order and established rules.

However, at the same time, it may also generate a sense of urgency that pushes more countries to strengthen solidarity, coordination, and cooperation. This applies not only to Global South nations, but also to other countries that may similarly intensify efforts to uphold multilateralism, safeguard peace, and defend international law and rules, Li said.

January 6, 2026 Posted by | Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »