Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

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

Brazil’s Ambassador to the OAS Denounces US Military Action Against Venezuela as a Global Threat

teleSUR – January 6, 2026

During an address to the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States (OAS), Benoni Belli, Brazil’s ambassador to the organization, described the United States’ military action against Venezuela as “a very serious attack against Venezuela’s sovereignty and a threat to the entire international community.”

The Brazilian diplomat warned that the bombings of Venezuelan territory and the kidnapping of its president represent an unacceptable violation of international law. “The current situation is grave and evokes times we thought were behind us, which are once again devastating Latin America and the Caribbean,” Belli stated.

Belli rejected the logic that “the ends justify the means,” arguing that such reasoning lacks legitimacy and allows the strongest powers to impose their will on sovereign nations. “These acts open the possibility that the strongest will define what is just or unjust, disregarding national sovereignty,” he emphasized.

The ambassador’s statement highlights the geopolitical implications of a unilateral military intervention, and warned that it undermines multilateralism and fosters a global order based on the law of the strongest.

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

Real Counter to US Nabbing Maduro: Quit Buying American Arms

Sputnik – 06.01.2026

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

The Global Majority in Latin America, Africa, and Asia should hold the United States to account by stopping purchases of US weapons, including F-16s, F-35s, and halting collaboration with companies like Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, and Raytheon, former UN independent expert Alfred de Zayas told Sputnik.

“US businesses are vulnerable,” he explained.

De Zayas was shocked by “the brazenness” of the US kidnapping Nicolas Maduro, which comes “in total impunity, and I do not see the ‘good guys’—Canada, the UK, the Europeans—coming out in defense of Venezuela and international law,” the ex-UN expert stressed.

He condemned the abduction of Maduro as a US “assault on civilization” and “retrogression in the idea of international peace and security.”

De Zayas pointed to an array of precedents pertaining to the US “assault on international law,” including the fact that George H.W. Bush bombed Panama in 1989 and “had President Noriega arrested and subjected to a show trial.”

Also, Bill Clinton bombed Yugoslavia in 1999, destroying the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, while George W. Bush and the Coalition of the Willing invaded Iraq in 2003, which led to the death of about one million Iraqis.

Additionally, Barack Obama orchestrated the 2014 coup against Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, the expert recalled.

“No one was ever held accountable” for these actions, de Zayas concluded.

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

Why Didn’t Venezuela Shoot Maduro’s Kidnappers Out of the Sky? Expert Outlines Three Possibilities

Sputnik – 05.01.2026

Glowing MSM reports on the operation to capture Maduro attribute success to the US military’s super-duper high-tech weapons, advanced tactics and painstaking planning. But there are other, potentially far more plausible explanations, says Egor Lidovskoy, director of St. Petersburg’s Hugo Chavez Latin American Cultural Center.

Option #1

“The first option is incompetence on the part of government agencies” and those responsible for Maduro’s protection, specifically in the Defense Ministry Lidovskoy told Sputnik.

Option #2

Maduro’s betrayal is another possibility, perhaps if some officials agreed to collude with the US to give up the president in exchange for promises to profits from oil extraction if and when the Americans arrive in Venezuela.

“We don’t have any evidence that this or that member of Maduro’s government or team betrayed him. We don’t have such facts. Therefore, I think it’s wrong to make unfounded accusations in advance,” Lidovskoy said. Instead, for now, “we must closely monitor what is happening, and based on this, draw conclusions about whether such a conspiracy exists or not,” he suggested.

Option #3

The most provocative possibility is that the kidnapping “was a Trojan Horse operation,” which would remove questions about betrayal and incompetence and explain “many inconsistencies,” Lidovskoy says.

“The gist of this theory is that a US delegation accompanied by armed guards arrived at Maduro’s residence to discuss the parameters of a peace deal at a dinner, to conduct peace talks, to find common ground.”

This would explain the lack of incoming fire by Venezuelan air defenses on US helicopters.

“Once inside, the delegation’s armed guard (revealed to be special forces) shot all of Maduro’s guards – who were unprepared for this – and captured the president. And only when the signal came in that something had gone wrong and the president had been captured did the bombing of Venezuelan bases and key air defense points begin, providing a smokescreen for the US withdrawal,” Lidovskoy proposed.

US Coup Plot Lacks Key Ingredient

The 2026 plot against Maduro echoes the September 11, 1973 overthrow of Chilean president Salvador Allende in the sense that it’s “a continuation… of US imperialism using unilateral, deadly force against governments that challenge its hegemony in the hemisphere,” but lacks a critical component: betrayal by the military, Venezuelanalysis editor Ricardo Vaz told Sputnik.

“Allende and the Popular Unity were socialists, they prioritized sovereignty over natural resources (copper), and that was a direct challenge to US interests and influence. The same applies to Venezuela and the Bolivarian Revolution,” Vaz explained.

But unlike the Chilean case, where General Pinochet committed the crime of betraying Allende and the constitutional order, and murdering the president, the only “sin” in Venezuela’s case was its “desire to remove the shackles of US neocolonialism, using resources in a sovereign fashion to improve the lives of the majority, driving regional integration away from the US sphere of influence, and ultimately constructing socialism.”

“External pressure might lead to cracks and treason, but that is the primary issue: US imperialism,” Vaz stressed.

Leaders Believe in Bolivarian Revolution, Can’t Be Bought

Unlike past US-backed coups across the region, plotters in Venezuela have not found a base of support in the military to draw from to successfully overthrow the government and install a US puppet regime, renowned international law specialist and UN expert Alfred de Zayas told Sputnik.

“When the US tried to overthrow Hugo Chavez in 2002 and the coup d’etat failed after 48 hours (Chavez had been taken prisoner – but his popularity with the Army was such that the Army succeeded in liberating him), the Venezuelan people remained loyal to Chavez,” Zayas recalled. “I am convinced that the Venezuelan authorities would have remained loyal to Maduro if they had had the opportunity. That is why Maduro was immediately flown out of the country,” he added.

Speaking to Venezuelan government officials repeatedly, including in his capacity as a UN independent expert, and in the years since, Zayas said what stuck out to him about these conversations was their ideological commitment and loyalty “to the tenets of the Bolivarian Revolution,” and the US’s clear inability to easily “buy” them.

“I personally know of several high officials who were approached by CIA operatives with very attractive offers, and they refused to sell out,” Zayas said. What’s more, in his conversations with ordinary Venezuelans, the expert came away with the impression that “the masses hate the United States – the Yankees – and will not accept a US puppet,” seeing US sanctions pressure, not the Venezuelan government, as the source of their troubles.

January 5, 2026 Posted by | Deception, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

A Christmas Eve Strike on Colonialism: Algerian Parliament’s Unanimous Vote to Criminalize French Colonialism

By Simon Chege Ndiritu – New Eastern Outlook – January 5, 2026

Algeria has taken a legal step that may one day resolve many of the challenges experienced by formerly colonized peoples.

On December 24, 2025, the Algerian parliament passed a law declaring France’s colonization of the country between 1830 and 1962 illegal. The law lists France’s colonial-era atrocities against Algerians, including mass extrajudicial killings, torture and enforced disappearances, displacement and confinement, use of banned weapons, plunder of resources, and sexual violence, among others, and demands an apology and reparation. The unanimous adoption of anti-France law on the continent where association with Western Europeans gave credibility to elitist African politicians in previous decades signifies a profound shift. Both the timing and the law mark the erosion of social and legal engineering that justified colonial-era crimes, even by some independent African governments. Passing the law on Christmas Eve, when many Africans were celebrating an event spread alongside Western colonialism, sent an unmistakable message, while the legislation signified the defeat of France’s legal engineering in Algeria, which justified all aspects of colonialism and guided the Algerian government to reason in a similar way, as is the case in formerly colonized countries. This paper looks into how Algeria’s criminalization of France’s colonialism represents a crucial milestone in defeating vestiges of Western colonialism across Africa.

Defeating Colonial-Era Legal Engineering and Its Results

Algeria’s action opens a legislative front to complement other anti-colonial actions, including armed struggle and litigation. Its significance was revealed by how key European media panicked and launched into incoherent and self-indicting diversions. While other major news media, including The National Interest, Africa News, and Associated Press, foregrounded Algeria’s legislation, including its merits and implications, EU allied media, including France 24 and DW, downplayed the vote and emphasized the views of their pundits, who strangely agreed that the action was symbolic. They argued that laws passed in Algeria are internal, lacking effect outside the country, including in France, which means that all policies and laws passed in France to facilitate colonialism lacked legal bases in Algeria and other colonies. Therefore, laws made in France to authorize the invasion of Algeria, expropriation of its land, repression, forced labor, and nuclear tests were illegal, which confirms the Algerian parliament’s unanimous decision. Therefore, the media indicted France’s colonialism, including forms implemented by other European powers, before quoting an earlier statement by French President Emmanuel Macron, that Algeria’s actions hinder dialogue. Such views conceal a begrudging admission that Algeria has refused to interpret relations with France through colonial lenses, which erodes neocolonial control. Therefore, colonial-era wrongdoing, including crimes against humanity, dispossession, torture, and illegal nuclear tests, will no longer be interpreted through France’s rhetoric or be concealed through colonial legal engineering.

The key reason why Algeria’s Christmas Eve legislation unnerves European colonizers is that it signals that the former colony has overcome social and legal engineering implemented to sustain control, something that may spread to others. With time, other formerly colonized countries will no longer interpret colonial-era atrocities using colonizers’ legislative and judicial lenses that justified and sanitized racism, violence, and plunder. Such changes will leave colonizers exposed and liable. For instance, France and Great Britain provide a striking example. The legislative and judicial bodies they created served as a cover for crimes. The murder of colonized peoples was presented as “enforcing social order,” and the expropriation of land and resources as “economic development.”  Also, concentration camps for dispossessed people were framed as “reservations.” This legal perversion was passed to some post-colonial governments, which have continued to use it. However, Algeria’s move signals a shift from such engineering and entails relying on universal human rights to remodel legislatures and judiciaries, creating political systems that eradicate neocolonial control.

From armed struggle to justice

The struggle for independence did not conclude with official declarations following the armed struggles of the mid-20th century. Instead, many African countries, especially in francophone Africa, have continued facing neocolonialism and have responded, including through coups in the Sahel. The progression of the struggle from armed conflict through litigation now needs a boost through legislation to aid African victims who have continued demanding justice for colonial atrocities. The aforementioned legislation from Algiers may signal the beginning of a systematic review of colonial-era legal systems, which will expand freedoms for formerly colonized peoples. It indicates that the legal order left by European colonialists has lost legitimacy and was emphatically overthrown just before Christmas. This overthrow was a progression from previous actions, such as the Mau Mau freedom fighters of Kenya’s suing the British Government for its violations in Kenya during the 1950s. The legal suit forced the UK government to admit to violating the rights of Kenyan freedom fighters, in an out-of-court settlement in June 2013. Such a convoluted legal process occurred since the UK could not countenance being found guilty by the racist legal framework it created. However, a legal provision like the one passed in Algeria could have helped to catch the slippery colonizer.

Criminalizing colonialism may have many positive consequences for previously colonized people as they seek truth, justice, and reparations. It provides a legal framework for addressing remaining injustices and reclaiming land still held by colonialists, which is protected by colonial-era legal engineering. For instance, many Kenyans have not regained their land that was expropriated under colonial legal justification to date, primarily because the legal system in use perpetuates colonial dispossession. These victims have resorted to litigating their case in European courts, as they feel helpless since the existing laws protect current holders of land that was expropriated by the colonial government as late as the 1920s. This land should have been automatically given back to the African owners after independence in 1963. This unfortunate reality could be corrected if the legislature and judiciary were wrested back from colonial legal engineering to create laws that criminalize colonialism and illegal actions done during the colonial era.

Other Africans can learn from Algeria’s Lead.

Algeria’s action represents the continuation of the pursuit of justice by Africans and a warning to European colonialists that their conceding minimal freedoms to Africans is not the end. In places where armed struggles of the mid-20th century achieved only limited freedom, such as in the Sahel, instability persisted and culminated in recent coups through which France lost influence. In others, legal struggle continues, as seen in the case of Kenya. Additionally, others like Algeria have escalated and reversed colonial legal engineering, an aspect that will likely be used in other countries until Africans achieve their fullest extent of freedoms. The recent acceleration in decolonization of Francophone Africa should not mislead the British, Dutch, or Portuguese into thinking that their neocolonialism will continue in perpetuity. Instead, the next efforts towards defeating the remaining vestiges of colonialism might be directed towards deconstructing and reversing the legal and political engineering that gives them neocolonial control to date. Rights movements across Africa might soon start championing the criminalization of colonialism in other countries to reverse colonial-era legal and political engineering for a free Africa.

Simon Chege Ndiritu, is a political observer and research analyst from Africa

January 5, 2026 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

US ‘creating enemies’ by humiliating rivals – analyst

RT | January 5, 2026

The US administration is making enemies around the world by taking harsh steps such as seizing the leaders of sovereign nations, American journalist and political analyst Bradley Blankenship has told RT.

The comments come a day after Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro was kidnapped along with his wife, Cilia Flores, during a US raid on Caracas. Washington accuses the Venezuelan leader of narco-trafficking and weapons offences, allegations he has denied.

“When you humiliate a sovereign head of state live on television, you create the conditions for the population to resist you,” Blankenship told RT on Monday. “That is what we are seeing in Caracas. When you drag a sovereign leader through New York in an open white van, you only create enemies. That is what the United States is doing.”

He said such actions risk galvanizing resistance inside Venezuela and beyond. “This is how you lose,” Blankenship said. “You do not break people’s will. You harden it.”

Blankenship, the founder of the Northern Kentucky Truth and Accountability Project, argued that Washington’s seizure of Maduro has elevated him into a powerful political symbol rather than weakening his movement.

“Maduro’s role is more symbolic than instrumental,” Blankenship said, describing him as a continuation of the Chavista political project rather than a revolutionary figure on the scale of Simon Bolivar, Fidel Castro or Che Guevara. “But he is definitely a symbol for Venezuelans as someone who resisted American imperialism,” he added.

According to Blankenship, Washington’s approach is already having wider repercussions. By carrying out the operation against Venezuela, the US has threatened multiple countries, such as Colombia, Mexico, Greenland, Cuba and Canada, as well as others across several continents.

“This is how you create enemies,” he said. “Not only abroad, but at home as well.”

Blankenship also pointed to signs of internal dissent within the US security apparatus, noting that details of the Venezuela operation were leaked to major American newspapers before it took place. “The fact that it leaked shows internal dissent,” he said, adding that similar divisions have emerged during previous US military actions.

Video

January 5, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Video, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Maduro’s story is the latest chapter in Latin America’s struggle against empire

Through centuries, the region has seen leaders who stood for independence, but also traitors willing to sell out to colonial powers

By Nadezhda Romanenko | RT | January 5, 2026

Latin America’s history is not simply a chronicle of poverty or instability, as it is so often portrayed in Western discourse. It is, more fundamentally, a record of resistance – resistance to colonial domination, to foreign exploitation, and to local elites willing to trade their nations’ futures for personal power and external approval.

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, kidnapped by US forces and about to be put on trial on nebulous and transparently politically-motivated charges, joins a very particular lineup of Latin American leaders. Across different centuries, ideologies, and political systems, the region has produced leaders who, despite their flaws, shared one defining trait: they placed national sovereignty and popular interests above obedience to empire.

From the very beginning, the first Latin American heroes emerged in open defiance of colonial rule. Figures such as Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla and José María Morelos in Mexico did not merely seek independence as an abstract ideal; they tied it to social justice – abolishing slavery, dismantling racial hierarchies, returning land to Indigenous communities. Simón Bolívar (in whose honor the country of Bolivia is named) and José de San Martín, a national hero in Argentina, Chile and Peru, carried this struggle across an entire continent, breaking the grip of Spanish imperial power and imagining a united Latin America strong enough to resist future domination. Their unfinished dream still haunts the region.

Yet independence from Spain did not mean freedom from imperial pressure. By the late 19th century, the US had openly declared Latin America its “sphere of influence,” treating it not as a collection of sovereign nations but as a strategic backyard. From that point forward, the central political question facing Latin American leaders became starkly clear: resist external domination, or accommodate it.

Those who resisted often paid a heavy price. Augusto César Sandino’s guerrilla war forced US troops out of Nicaragua – only for him to be murdered by US-backed strongman Anastasio Somoza, whose family would rule the country for decades. Salvador Allende attempted a democratic and peaceful path to socialism in Chile, nationalizing strategic industries and asserting economic independence, only to be overthrown in a violent coup backed from abroad. Fidel Castro and Ernesto “Che” Guevara turned Cuba into a symbol – admired by some, despised by others – of what open defiance of US hegemony looked like in practice: economic strangulation, sabotage, isolation, and permanent hostility.

Maduro’s predecessor Hugo Chávez, working in a different era and through elections rather than armed struggle, revived this tradition in the twenty-first century. By reclaiming control over Venezuela’s oil wealth, expanding social programs, and pushing for Latin American integration independent of Washington, he directly challenged the neoliberal order imposed across the region in the 1990s. Whatever one thinks of the outcomes, the principle was unmistakable: national resources should serve the nation, not foreign shareholders.

Opposed to these figures stands a darker gallery – leaders whose rule depended on surrendering sovereignty piece by piece. Anastasio Somoza, Fulgencio Batista in Cuba, the Duvaliers in Haiti, Manuel Estrada Cabrera and Jorge Ubico in Guatemala, and others like them governed through repression at home and obedience abroad. Their countries became laboratories for foreign corporations, especially US interests, while their populations endured poverty, terror, and extreme inequality. The infamous “banana republic” was not an accident of geography; it was the logical result of policies that subordinated national development to external profit.

Even when repression softened and elections replaced open dictatorship, collaboration persisted. Neoliberal reformers such as Fernando Belaúnde Terry and Alberto Fujimori in Peru dismantled state control over strategic sectors, privatized national assets, and aligned their countries ever more tightly with US-led economic models. The promised prosperity rarely arrived. What did arrive were weakened institutions, social devastation, and, in Fujimori’s case, mass human rights abuses carried out under the banner of “stability” and “security.”

In very recent history, the figure of Juan Guaidó in Venezuela illustrates a modern version of the same pattern: political legitimacy sought not from the population, but from foreign capitals. By openly inviting external pressure and intervention against his own country, he embodied a long-standing elite fantasy – that power can be imported, even if sovereignty is the price.

Latin America’s lesson is brutally consistent. Imperial powers may change their rhetoric, but their logic remains the same. They reward obedience temporarily, discard collaborators when convenient, and punish defiance relentlessly. Meanwhile, those leaders who insist on autonomy – whether priests, revolutionaries, presidents, or guerrilla fighters – are demonized, sanctioned, overthrown, or killed.

To defend sovereignty in Latin America has never meant perfection. It has meant choosing dignity over dependency, development over plunder, and popular legitimacy over foreign approval. That is why these figures endure in popular memory – as symbols of a region that has never stopped fighting to belong to itself.

January 5, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

US Strikes Leave Venezuelans Without Homes, Money to Pay for Funerals – Victim

Sputnik – 05.01.2026

CARACAS – A Venezuelan family living in a Caracas suburb has told Sputnik that they have been left homeless and without means of subsistence after US airstrikes.

“We have nowhere to live. We need to bury my aunt, but we also have no money for that — we are a poor family,” the 62-year-old man said.

The US attack partially destroyed the family’s home in the coastal state of La Guaira, north of Caracas, killing the 80-year-old woman.

Another Venezuelan, from the city of Catia La Mar near Caracas, told Sputnik that his elderly neighbor had been killed by a rocket fragment. The attack also destroyed the apartment building that was home to 17 families. He said Venezuelans were struggling to get over the shock caused by US strikes.

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

Caracas requested an urgent meeting of the UN Security Council in response to the US operation. The Venezuelan Supreme Court appointed Vice President Delcy Rodriguez as the acting head of state.

The Russian Foreign Ministry expressed solidarity with the Venezuelan people, called for the release of Maduro and his wife, as well as for the prevention of further escalation. China called for the immediate release of the Maduros, emphasizing that US actions violated international law.

January 5, 2026 Posted by | War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Israeli police shoot dead Palestinian from Bedouin village in Negev

MEMO | January 4, 2026

Israeli police shot dead a Palestinian from the Bedouin village of Al-Tarabin in the Negev early Sunday, local media reported.

Al-Tarabin is an unrecognized Palestinian Bedouin village located in the Negev Desert in southern Israel.

According to the daily Yedioth Ahronoth, a special police unit and soldiers from the “National Guard” raided the village to arrest Mohammed Hussein Tarabin for his alleged involvement in acts of vandalism against property in nearby Israeli settlements.

The National Guard is a security force formed by far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and is viewed by the Israeli opposition as a militia under his direct authority.

The newspaper quoted Tarabin’s family as saying that police shot their son “without cause.”

“He is an ordinary man with seven children. There was no need to kill him,” the family said.

“For them (the police), this is a great achievement to please Ben-Gvir, who dances on Arab blood. The situation is dangerous, the behavior of the police is unacceptable, and they must leave the area or they will bear responsibility for anything that happens.”

Ben-Gvir, for his part, said on the US social media company X that he supported the police’s conduct in Al-Tarabin village, claiming that “Mohammed Tarabin” was a “dangerous criminal.”

The Negev Bedouin Leadership condemned the killing and called for Ben-Gvir’s dismissal.

It called for an investigation into the circumstances of the killing and bringing those responsible to justice.

Tens of thousands of Bedouins live in dozens of unrecognized villages in the Negev, with Israeli authorities denying them access to water, electricity, infrastructure, schools and medical clinics.

January 4, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Trump Says Venezuelan Vice President Will Pay Higher Price Than Maduro if She Disobeys US

Sputnik – 04.01.2026

US President Donald Trump warned on Sunday that Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodriguez might have to pay an even higher price than Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro if she did not make the “right” decisions.

Trump said on Saturday that the US would not send troops to Venezuela if Rodriguez did what Washington wanted from her. The US leader claimed that Rodriguez was willing to cooperate with the US.

“If she doesn’t do what’s right, she is going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro,” Trump said in a telephone interview with the Atlantic magazine.

Trump also said that the US “absolutely” needed Greenland as the Danish island is allegedly surrounded by Chinese and Russian ships.

“We do need Greenland, absolutely,” Trump said.

The island, which is part of Denmark, a NATO ally, is allegedly “surrounded by Russian and Chinese ships,” the US president added.

January 4, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

USA seizes Maduro, but nothing is guaranteed regarding Venezuela’s future

By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 4, 2026

Following an operation that began at 2:00 AM Caracas time, U.S. special forces undertook the seizure of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores and extracted them from the country. The operation lasted only 30 minutes and involved little more than a handful of helicopters, operating very close to the ground.

The U.S. government and its supporters reacted with euphoria to the operation’s “great feat.” Donald Trump stated that only the USA could do something like this.

Nevertheless, so far, the event resembles more of a propaganda fireworks display than a great military feat. And this is because the extraction appears to have taken place, by all indications, without any opposition from the Venezuelan state.

For months – since tensions between the USA and Venezuela intensified – there has been speculation about the existence of secret negotiations between Maduro and Trump. Newspapers like the New York Times, in fact, reported that Maduro had offered “everything” to Trump, but that he had refused the various offers.

Several other negotiations are said to have occurred, including an offer for Maduro’s exit, but with the maintenance of the Bolivarian system in power and with U.S. co-participation in the exploitation of Venezuelan oil alongside PDVSA. Supposedly, the USA would have refused these offers.

It is also important to point out that at least since November 2025, the Brazilian and Colombian governments have been trying to convince Nicolás Maduro to resign. The important Brazilian businessman and lobbyist Joesley Batista, who is an ally of both Lula and, today, of Trump, is said to have traveled to Caracas to negotiate an exit for Maduro. Supposedly, without success.

And yet, the fact remains: any portable anti-aircraft system, like a MANPAD, could have shot down any of the Apaches used in the operation. But none were used. In fact, there is no evidence of the use of Venezuelan defensive systems during the operation. The official narrative says they were all simply “deactivated.” This might perhaps explain the inaction of the BUKs, but not the absence of use of other systems.

Furthermore, we have not seen signs similar to those in Syria, with the mass desertion of military personnel. Padrino López and Diosdado Cabello, respectively Ministers of Defense and Interior, have full control over the Armed Forces and the Bolivarian National Guard. The streets are, by all indications, calm. There are no celebrations by oppositionists, nor any movement by the opposition in general.

Perhaps Maduro’s removal was, in fact, negotiated. But not necessarily with Maduro himself. It is impossible, however, to point decisively to someone responsible for this. In a purely technical sense, naturally, the primary responsibilities would fall on Venezuelan counterintelligence and Maduro’s personal security apparatus – but, in this case, it may have simply been a matter of failure, more than betrayal.

Now, it is premature to properly speak of a “regime change” in Venezuela.

In his statements to the press immediately after the operation, Donald Trump stated that the USA would conduct a “political transition” in Venezuela; but there is, truly, no U.S. presence in Venezuela at this moment. Whoever expects a takeover by María Corina Machado is mistaken: Trump has already ruled her out, considering her inept due to her lack of popularity with the Venezuelan people. On the contrary, he seems satisfied with dealing with Delcy Rodríguez, who has already assumed Venezuelan leadership, supported by consensus by Chavista governors, ministers, and generals.

Trump claims that Rodríguez would be willing to collaborate completely with the USA and, in practice, “hand over” Venezuelan oil. But all public statements from Venezuela so far go in the direction of condemning the seizure, demanding Maduro’s return, and emphasizing that Venezuela will resist Trump’s ambitions. In other words, there exists a problematic gap between Trump’s declarations and what is really happening in Venezuela.

Naturally, the possibility is not excluded, for example, of a potential “backroom deal,” allowing the USA to operate in the Venezuelan oil sector, with Chavismo maintained in power in Caracas. Maduro’s fate in a negotiation of this type remains open. Everything is possible, from the death penalty to exile, including a prison sentence with eventual release.

The main political actor in Venezuela, however, is the armed forces, not the PSUV, nor even Maduro. And regardless of the arrangement reached and Venezuela’s near political future, this is unlikely to change.

What is evident, however, is that we have here a significant change in the international panorama. The USA treated the operation as a “police action” – Maduro is being indicted for crimes ranging from drug trafficking to possession of machine guns (!) in violation of U.S. firearms legislation (!!), treating Venezuelan territory, in practice, as if it were U.S. territory.

The mutual recognition between countries as sovereign states and, therefore, legitimate belligerents in case of conflict, implying obedience to certain rules of engagement, constitutes a significant achievement of civilizations. The criminalization of foreign sovereigns opens the door to savagery and to unlimited conflicts devoid of rules of civility.

But beyond this dimension of a return to the same mentality of the piracy era, it becomes quite clear that appeals to International Law and the UN are, today, of little effectiveness.

The world is being redrawn into spheres of influence, and only military might and the willingness to use it seem to be effective barriers against foreign interventions.

January 4, 2026 Posted by | War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »