Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Why Invading Venezuela Won’t Be a Walk in the Park

Neoconservative strategists aren’t talking about the day after…

José Niño Unfiltered | November 3, 2025

As American warships patrol Caribbean waters and F-35 fighters prowl Venezuelan airspace, hawkish voices in Washington paint an enticing picture: A swift military operation to topple Nicolás Maduro, similar to the easy interventions in Grenada (1983) and Panama (1989). It’s a dangerous fantasy that ignores three decades of failed Venezuelan policy and fundamentally misunderstands the catastrophic difference between those brief police actions and what a Venezuela invasion would entail.

The comparison is essentially that of a neighborhood skirmish to a regional war. Venezuela is roughly 2,650 times larger than Grenada and 12 times larger than Panama, with 243 times more people than Grenada and 12 times more than Panama. The appropriate historical parallels aren’t Grenada or Panama—they’re Iraq and Afghanistan, multi-trillion-dollar quagmires that killed thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of civilians while advancing no genuine U.S. interests.

What regime change boosters consistently ignore is what happens the day after Maduro falls. They focus obsessively on knocking out Venezuela’s conventional military—no walk in the park, but an attainable feat—while studiously avoiding the nightmare that follows: A multi-factional civil war among heavily armed irregular forces, refugee flows dwarfing the current crisis, and a protracted insurgency that could justify further U.S. intervention and spiral into a broader conflict that could attract irregular leftist forces from the region.

As far as historical analogues are concerned, Grenada was a tiny 344-square-kilometer volcanic island—smaller than many American cities. Despite hilly terrain, the entire country could be secured quickly because of its minuscule size. Panama at 75,420 square kilometers was larger but still a narrow isthmus focused around the Canal Zone, where U.S. forces already had extensive military presence and insider knowledge based on decades of American influence in Panama.

Venezuela covers 912,050 square kilometers—featuring the Andes mountains in the west, vast central plains (llanos), dense Amazon jungle in the south, and 2,800 kilometers of Caribbean coastline. This geographic complexity creates countless opportunities for asymmetric warfare, with mountainous terrain favoring defensive operations, urban centers ideal for guerrilla resistance, and jungle regions providing sanctuary for irregular forces.

Unlike Panama where U.S. forces had extensive familiarity from decades of base presence, or Grenada, where the entire operational theater was one small island, Venezuela’s diverse terrain would require controlling vast territories to prevent insurgent sanctuaries. U.S. military planners have no established presence, no intimate geographic knowledge, and would face the same challenges that gave American forces fits in Afghanistan’s mountains, Iraq’s urban centers, and Vietnam’s jungles.

Venezuela hosts one of the most complex networks of armed non-state actors in the Western Hemisphere. Start with the colectivos—far-left paramilitary groups numbering 8,000 individuals operating in 16 states and controlling approximately 10 percent of Venezuelan cities. These aren’t poorly armed street gangs; they possess AK-47s, submachine guns, fragmentation grenades, and tear gas—much of it supplied directly by the Venezuelan government.

Colombian guerrilla organizations have also established a significant presence on Venezuelan territory. The National Liberation Army (ELN) maintains operations in 13 Venezuelan states. According to a report by Colombian media outlet Connectas, the ELN has armed cells in roughly 10 percent of Venezuela’s more than 300 municipalities. The group controls territory in the Venezuelan states of Zulia, Táchira, Apure, and Amazonas—the four states bordering Colombia—and also operates in Barinas, Bolívar, and Delta Amacuro, with a presence of roughly 1,000 fighters in Venezuela and 6,000 members in total.

Segunda Marquetalia, dissidents of the Revolutionary Armed Forces (FARC) who rejected Colombia’s peace accords, operates with an estimated 1,000 members. Other FARC dissident factions add approximately 2,000 more fighters. These groups maintain Marxist-Leninist, anti-imperialist ideologies and view the United States as the primary threat to revolutionary movements. Combined, these irregular forces are in the tens of thousands with substantial weapons, territorial control, and operational experience.

It should be stressed that Venezuela’s official military doctrine has been explicitly designed around asymmetric warfare against a hypothetical U.S. invasion since the Chávez era. The strategy assumes initial conventional defeat followed by sustained guerrilla resistance—making occupation costly and politically unsustainable.

Nevertheless, Venezuela won’t just roll over without a conventional fight. Venezuela is the number one purchaser of Russian weaponry in Latin America. It boasts mobile Russian S-300VM and Buk-M2E air defense systems (described as “by far the most formidable in Latin America” by Military Watch Magazine) and KH-31 anti-ship missiles. Additionally, Venezuela boasts 24 Su-30MK2V Flanker fighters (approximately 21 operational) capable of carrying anti-ship missiles and critically, components of Russia’s C4ISR system—integrated digital warfare networks previously shared only with Belarus.

Most significantly, Russia signed a comprehensive 10-year strategic partnership with Venezuela in May 2025, ratified in October 2025, covering more than 350 bilateral agreements on security, defense, and technology. Russian cargo aircraft have recently been landing in Caracas with additional military supplies. In October 2025, Maduro requested Russian assistance enhancing air defenses, restoring Su-30 aircraft, and acquiring missiles. The Iranians have also cooperated with Venezuela on the development of drone technology and sanctions evasion assistance.

This great power backing has no parallel in Grenada (where Soviet/Cuban support was minimal during the invasion) or Panama (where Manuel Noriega’s late attempts to seek Cuban/Nicaraguan support proved futile against American forces.

The ultimate challenge for the United States comes the day after when Venezuelan forces, colectivos, militias, and allied guerrilla groups retreat to mountainous regions, jungles, and southern plains. From there, armed groups would be able to conduct asymmetric attacks on U.S. forces and any post-Maduro government, creating multiple overlapping resistance movements.

A 2019 U.S. Army analysis concluded Venezuela presents a “Black Swan” hot spot significantly more complex than the 1989 Panama operation, noting Venezuela has “115,000 troops, in addition to tanks and fighter jets” and “thirty million people, about 20 percent of whom still support the Maduro government,” with leaders having “been preparing for asymmetrical warfare for more than a decade.” In contrast, the study noted that “[Manuel] Noriega’s Panama had only fifteen thousand troops—of which, only 3,500 were soldiers.” The study highlighted that “there is no chance that countries in the region would participate in an effort to topple Maduro.”

It’s also worth noting that Cuba has deep penetration of Venezuela’s security apparatus through secret agreements signed in May 2008 that “gave Cuba vast access to the Venezuelan military and wide freedom to spy on and reform it,” according to the Havana Times. Approximately 5,600 Cuban personnel work in Venezuelan security sectors, including 500 active Cuban military advisors. Venezuela’s Bolivarian National Intelligence Service (SEBIN) has been described as “almost a branch of the G2—the Cuban secret service—in Venezuela.”

This integration helps explain Venezuelan military loyalty despite economic collapse and has proved key in protecting the South American nation from U.S. covert operations. The Cuban intelligence network provides early warning of dissent and mechanisms for neutralizing opposition forces and other fifth columnists. For U.S. planners, any intervention would effectively fight not just Venezuela’s military but Cuba’s sophisticated intelligence apparatus with decades of experience countering U.S. operations.

Before contemplating another Latin American adventure, Washington should review its track record. Historian John H. Coatsworth documented that from 1898-1994, the United States intervened to change Latin American governments at least 41 times across 100 years, averaging once every 28 months.

The results? The 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion failed catastrophically, strengthening Fidel Castro. The 1980s Contra War in Nicaragua killed approximately 30,000 Nicaraguans, yet Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, who lost the presidency in 1990, eventually returned to power in 2007. Ortega has currently ruled as an authoritarian president, exactly what the United States tried to prevent through the proxy war it facilitated during the Reagan era.

Beyond Latin America, the United States’ second invasion of Iraq cost over $2 trillion and killed 4,500 U.S. troops while creating conditions for the rise of ISIS and rival Shiite militias across the nation. The United States’ nation-building experiment in Afghanistan cost $2.3 trillion and killed 2,461 U.S. troops, only to see the Taliban return to power after 20 years.

Perhaps most striking is how overwhelmingly Venezuelans themselves reject foreign military intervention. September 2025 polling found 93 percent of Venezuelans oppose foreign military intervention, with only 5 percent supporting it. October 2025 polling showed this increased to 94 percent opposition.

This creates a paradox: Polling demonstrates 64 percent to 90 percent of Venezuelans wanting some form of democratic transition yet 93 percent to 94 percent reject foreign military intervention. When presented with peaceful alternatives, 63 percent have supported a negotiated settlement to remove Maduro, making negotiation by far the most popular option.

The Venezuelan opposition itself is deeply divided, with prominent figures like two-time presidential candidate Henrique Capriles—who remains in Venezuela—explicitly rejecting intervention. “Most people who want a military solution and a US invasion do not live in Venezuela. They don’t even understand the consequences of it,” Capriles said in an interview with the BBC. In an interview with The New York Times, he posed a pointed question: “Name one successful case in the last few years of a successful U.S. military intervention.”

As far as stateside is concerned, 62 percent of Americans also oppose invading Venezuela, with only 16 percent supporting such action, per YouGov polling.

Here’s what neoconservatives don’t discuss: Knocking out Venezuela’s conventional military is attainable. U.S. technological superiority would likely produce a relatively swift conventional victory. But then what?

A decapitation strike removing Maduro wouldn’t stabilize Venezuela—it would detonate it. Consider the armed actors positioned to fill the vacuum such as the colectivos with heavy weapons controlling urban neighborhoods; ELN fighters with decades of guerrilla experience; Segunda Marquetalia combatants; thousands of other FARC dissidents; and remnants of defeated military units retreating to mountains and jungles.

The result will likely be a multi-factional civil war. Various armed groups would compete over oil, gold, and minerals. Colectivos would defend urban territory. ELN and FARC dissidents would establish rural sanctuaries. Criminal organizations would exploit the ensuing chaos. The 20 percent of Venezuelans supporting Maduro ideologically would provide a substantial resistance base.

Such a conflict would trigger a massive refugee crisis. Venezuela has already had nearly 8 million people flee since 2015. Military intervention triggering civil war could produce millions more refugees, destabilizing Colombia, Brazil, Trinidad, Guyana, and the entire Caribbean basin. Moreover, many of these refugees would wash up on American shores—a prospect Secretary of State Marco Rubio and his cheap labor-addicted Republican cohorts in Florida would embrace with open arms.

Any U.S.-backed government would face prolonged insurgency, requiring sustained American military occupation, not the swift operation regime change boosters promise, but years or decades of counterinsurgency. Ironically, this could be dangerous even for María Corina Machado or whatever U.S. puppet is installed, as pro-regime forces remain heavily armed and motivated, while countless other militants will start carving out their own statelets nationwide. Not exactly an ideal climate for a prospective U.S. client regime to operate in.

Perhaps most underestimated would be backlash among Latin America’s radical Left. Since the end of the Cold War, leftist movements have been relatively pacified because the United States hasn’t taken direct, kinetic action in the regime. But when Marines enter the mix, this will galvanize nationalist sentiment throughout the region.

The ELN maintains strong ideological affinity with Venezuela’s state ideology of Chavismo and sees itself leading the struggle against American imperialism. Colombian guerrillas already recruit Venezuelans. U.S. intervention would dramatically accelerate recruitment. One could see foreign fighters form international brigades to fight American forces and the puppet government they try to prop up.

Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro already condemned U.S. strikes as “acts of tyranny.” Full-scale invasion would trigger denunciations across the region, breathe new life into dormant anti-American movements, and create a generation of Latin American leftists radicalized by direct confrontation with U.S. military power. External actors like Iran, Russia, and China—who all have their own set of grievances with the United States—would pounce on this chaotic environment to further inflame tensions and poke Uncle Sam in the eye.

Comparing Venezuela to Grenada or Panama is fundamentally misleading propaganda. Those were brief police actions against micro-states in political chaos with minimal armed opposition, limited territory, no great power backing, and some regional support.

After 30 years of escalating intervention—coups, sanctions, economic warfare—Maduro remains in power while Venezuela has deepened ties with Russia, China, and Iran. The humanitarian crisis has worsened. Multiple coup attempts strengthened authoritarian control.

The historical record is unambiguous: U.S. military interventions consistently fail to achieve stated objectives. Initial conventional victories give way to protracted insurgencies, state collapse, refugee crises, and strategic disasters costing trillions. Venezuela would be worse because of its size, geography, complex array of armed actors, ideological polarization, and strategic importance to U.S. adversaries such as Russia, China, and Iran, who are all itching to get back at the United States.

Neoconservative strategists are engaging in dangerous wishful thinking. They promise a swift operation followed by grateful Venezuelans welcoming democracy. Reality would be years of counterinsurgency, multi-factional civil war, massive refugee flows, regional destabilization, and a strategic quagmire.

Invading Venezuela won’t be a walk in the park. It would be a quagmire defining American foreign policy for a generation. After 30 years of failure, perhaps it’s time to try something radically different: Diplomacy, engagement, and respect for sovereignty. The alternative is catastrophe, something Donald Trump’s “America First” movement never voted for.

November 4, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Pressure against Venezuela as hybrid war against Russia and China

By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | October 31, 2025

A common vice found among geopolitically anti-imperialist analysts and journalists is the attempt to explain all international conflicts by the “single cause” of the imperialist quest for natural resources — almost always oil. This is how the Iraq War is classically explained, for example: “Big Oil” would have used the Bush administration to open markets, once closed, through bombing and territorial occupation.

This type of clearly materialist explanation stems from an evidently Marxian premise, insofar as it aims to treat all social, cultural, and political phenomena as epiphenomena before the preponderant and structural reality of economic transformations and interests.

Like a good part of the 19th-century pseudo-scientific efforts to reduce reality to a single principle (as was the case with Freudianism and Positivism), this economist materialism also does not hold up under the hammer of critical analysis.

Just as an example, in the Iraqi case, the generic materialist explanation does not withstand the empirical discovery that the major U.S. oil companies were, in fact, already on a path of dialogue with the counter-hegemonic countries of the Middle East and, precisely for that reason, tried unsuccessfully to pressure for non-intervention and the pacification of American-Iraqi relations.

Nonetheless, the “oil myth” persists in the study of the Middle East. So we are not surprised that it is appealed to once again to explain the U.S. pressure on Venezuela. The narrative says that Trump’s pressure on Maduro, and the threats to overthrow his government, are due to Trump’s interest in Venezuela’s 300 billion barrel reserves — the largest in the world.

The problem with this narrative, however, is that according to all indications, Maduro would have offered to close extremely advantageous partnerships with the U.S. for the exploitation of Venezuelan oil, given that the current level of extraction in Venezuela is minimal. From a material perspective, the deal would be quite interesting for the U.S. oil industry, as the country consumes a vast amount of oil and its reserves are “only” the ninth largest in the world.

Everything indicates, however, that Trump would have rejected the offer of a deal.

The U.S., apparently, wants something that is worth more than the largest oil reserve in the world.

This is where geopolitical science comes in.

Generally, geopolitics is confused with “geo-economics,” in the sense that many people believe they are seeing a “geopolitical analysis” when they see an attribution of economic causes to some international conflict. But geopolitics is, fundamentally, the science that studies the correlation between geography and power. In this sense, resources can enter into geopolitical analyses, but only as part of a general context.

And in the Venezuelan case, even the very important and abundant oil is of secondary importance in the conflict with the U.S.

More important than oil, for the U.S., is to guarantee hemispheric hegemony — especially in the Americas. It is about, as defined in an arrogant and classic manner, the U.S. “backyard,” a space in which the U.S. elite in the 19th century decided to no longer tolerate any European presence.

Let’s fast forward 200 years. How are the international relations of Ibero-American countries?

China is the main commercial partner for most countries in the region, several of which have joined the Belt & Road Initiative (Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, etc.). Some countries in the region (Brazil, Bolivia, Cuba) have also joined BRICS, which works towards the de-dollarization of international trade. Specifically Russia, in turn, has developed military ties — which consist of supplying equipment and conducting exercises — especially with Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua, with a military rapprochement also with Bolivia and, to a lesser extent, Peru and Brazil.

In a context where pressure on the U.S. in other regions of the world is growing, it is dangerous for U.S. hegemony to see the growth of Russian-Chinese influence in its “backyard.”

Venezuela is a significant and priority target there because it is precisely the country with the deepest strategic relations with Russia and China. Venezuela is one of the main sources of oil for China, while at the same time Caracas seems to play a relevant role in the multifaceted Russian strategy of “pushing” for multipolarity by strengthening countries around the world that try to challenge the hegemonic order.

To confirm this thesis, we would need to analyze U.S. relations with the rest of the continent to verify if there is any movement by the U.S. to try to pull countries in the region away from Russia and China.

And it seems very clear: the strategy of rapprochement with Brazil is based precisely on an effort to pull the country out of the “Chinese orbit.” The U.S. also pressured Mexico to remain outside the New Silk Road. The U.S. increased its presence in Ecuador and pressured Milei to abandon plans for a Chinese base in its territory. Examples abound to indicate that we are facing a broad continental offensive whose goal is to update the Monroe Doctrine for the 21st century.

It is not, therefore, about oil, but about hegemony.

October 31, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Sen. Rand Paul Slams Strikes on Boats in Caribbean as ‘Extrajudicial Killings’

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | October 27, 2025

Senator Rand Paul blasted President Donald Trump’s strikes on alleged drug traffickers as unconstitutional and illegal.

“A briefing is not enough to overcome the Constitution. The Constitution says that when you go to war, Congress has to vote on it. … The drug war, or the crime war, has typically been dealt with through law enforcement,” Paul said on Fox News Sunday. “And so far they have alleged that these people are drug dealers … and we’ve had no evidence presented. So at this point we would call them extrajudicial killings.”

So far, the Department of War has bombed ten boats it claims are smuggling narcotics into the US. Nine of the strikes have been on vessels in the Caribbean, against alleged cartels linked to Venezuela. The White House has not provided evidence that the ships were carrying drugs.

“So far, they have alleged that these people are drug dealers. No one said their name. No one said what evidence. No one said whether they’re armed. And we’ve had no evidence presented,” Paul said.

One survivor of a strike was released by Ecuador, finding he was not engaged in wrongdoing when the boat was attacked. One family member said a victim of a US strike was a fisherman, and not working for a cartel.

Trump has discussed expanding the strikes into Venezuela and has given the CIA approval to conduct lethal operations against cartels. Secretary of State Marco Rubio claims that Venezuelan President Maduro is the leader of a cartel designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

If Trump elects to expand the war, he told reporters that he will brief Congress on the plans. He went on to say he did not have to discuss the matter with the Legislator and has not sought a Declaration of War.

The Constitution explicitly grants Congress the authority to Declare War. However, the principle of preventing the President from unilaterally declaring war has been eroded over time. Congress has not declared war since World War 2 II. The last Authorization for Use of Military Force was passed in 2002 for the Iraq War.

Senator Paul has teamed up with Democratic Senator Tim Kaine to push a War Powers Resolution that would stop Trump from launching a war with Venezuela.

October 27, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

US to send world’s largest aircraft carrier to Latin America; Venezuela warns of dangerous prelude

Press TV – October 25, 2025

The United States has decided to deploy the USS Gerald R. Ford, the world’s largest aircraft carrier, and five accompanying destroyers to Latin America, prompting Venezuela to condemn the pending provocation as reckless and unlawful.

The move, which marks one of the most aggressive American naval buildups in the hemisphere in decades, was announced by a Pentagon spokesperson on Friday.

The official claimed that the expanded US regional interference aimed to “detect, monitor, and disrupt illicit actors and activities.”

The decision has raised fears of an imminent attempt to destabilize or even invade Venezuela under fabricated pretexts.

Analysts and international observers have also cautioned that the scale of the deployment far exceeds anti-narcotics operations.

The Gerald Ford strike group will join some 6,000 US sailors and Marines already stationed aboard eight warships in the region, bringing total American military personnel in the area to more than 10,000.

The escalation follows Donald Trump’s recent admission that he had authorized CIA operations inside Venezuela and was “mulling land attacks.”

The US president has repeatedly made baseless accusations that President Nicolás Maduro’s government was linked to criminal groups “invading” the US through drugs and immigration, allegations repeatedly dismissed by international agencies and even US intelligence assessments.

Since September, Washington has launched several strikes against civilian and fishing vessels in the Caribbean, alleging drug links without offering evidence.

According to United Nations officials and international law experts, these attacks violate both US and international law and constitute extrajudicial executions.

Venezuelan authorities have vowed to defend national sovereignty with full resolve.

“Interpret it however you want: the Armed Forces will not allow a government here that is subservient to the interests of the United States,” said Foreign Minister Vladimir Padrino.

Calling the US deployment “the most significant military threat in the last 100 years,” Padrino reaffirmed Caracas’s commitment to peace and reiterated that Venezuela would not tolerate any aggression.

October 25, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

China Slams Remarks by US Ambassador to Panama About Canal

Sputnik – 06.10.2025

BEIJING – The Chinese embassy in Panama on Monday criticized the remarks by US Ambassador to Panama Kevin Marino Cabrera about Beijing’s alleged meddling in matters concerning the Panama Canal.

On Sunday, Cabrera said in an interview with the Contrapeso newspaper that China had “malign” influence on the Panama Canal, accusing Beijing of cyberattacks and corruption and threatening visa cancellations for those who cooperate with Chinese enterprises.

“The statements of the US Ambassador about China have no factual basis and scientific justification, they are aimed at provoking conflict between China and other countries in the region. Depriving these countries of their diplomatic independence serves the geopolitical interests of the United States, causing more criticism and opposition,” the Chinese embassy said in a statement.

China adheres to the principle of “joint consultation, joint construction and joint use” in mutually beneficial cooperation with all countries, the statement read.

“The projects of Chinese companies in Panama and other Latin American countries make a significant contribution to social-economic development. High-quality Chinese goods at a low price are popular. The US ambassador’s statement casts doubt on the ability of countries in the region to think sensibly and ridicules the local population,” the embassy said.

Beijing urges Washington to put aside arrogance and bias and “focus on the matters that truly contribute to the development of the countries of the region and the well-being of their peoples,” the embassy added.

October 7, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , , | Leave a comment

US strikes another vessel off Venezuela, killing four

Al Mayadeen | October 3, 2025

The United States has escalated its military campaign in Latin America, carrying out yet another deadly strike off the coast of Venezuela under the false pretext of fighting narcotics trafficking.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced the latest strike in a post on X, celebrating the destruction of a small vessel that US officials claimed was carrying drugs. A video accompanying the post showed the boat erupting into flames, a scene observers say reveals Washington’s growing reliance on extrajudicial force and its willingness to kill without evidence, trial, or accountability.

“Four male narco-terrorists aboard the vessel were killed in the strike,” Hegseth wrote, asserting that it “was conducted in international waters just off the coast of Venezuela while the vessel was transporting substantial amounts of narcotics — headed to America to poison our people.” He vowed, “These strikes will continue until the attacks on the American people are over!!!!”

The latest strike brings the death toll to at least 21 people across four attacks in recent weeks, none of whom have been positively identified as traffickers. Washington has offered no independent proof linking the victims to drug networks, raising concerns that the US is unilaterally executing individuals in foreign waters under a fabricated pretext.

This new military doctrine stems from President Donald Trump’s declaration that the United States is now in “armed conflict” with drug cartels, reclassifying them as “terrorist organizations”, a move legal scholars have condemned as an attempt to bypass international law. A Pentagon notice sent to Congress, obtained by AFP, claimed: “The president determined these cartels are non-state armed groups, designated them as terrorist organizations, and determined that their actions constitute an armed attack against the United States.” The same document described alleged smugglers as “unlawful combatants”, stripping them of legal protection under the Geneva Conventions.

Rights groups have warned that such terminological manipulation echoes past US practices, from the “war on terror” to the invasions of Panama and Iraq, where legal gray zones were exploited to justify preemptive violence and regime change.

Political Theater and Extrajudicial Killings

The Trump administration has openly celebrated these operations as demonstrations of strength rather than law enforcement. Trump’s communications director, Steven Cheung, declared that traffickers had been “turned into stardust.” On Truth Social, Trump himself echoed the narrative, writing: “A boat loaded with enough drugs to kill 25 TO 50 THOUSAND PEOPLE was stopped, early this morning off the Coast of Venezuela, from entering American Territory.”

But independent analysts and international law experts argue that the campaign bears all the hallmarks of a covert regime change operation. The strikes come amid an unprecedented US military buildup near Venezuela, including the deployment of F-35 warplanes to Puerto Rico, marking the largest show of force in the Caribbean in more than three decades. Venezuela’s Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino condemned the presence of US jets near Venezuelan airspace as “a provocation” and “a threat to our national security.”

October 4, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

New war power bill gives Trump sweeping authority to attack dozens of nations: Report

The Cradle | September 23, 2025

Legislation has been drafted that would give US President Donald Trump unchecked power to wage war against drug cartels as well as any nation he says has harbored or aided them, the New York Times (NYT) reported on 23 September, citing people familiar with the matter.

If passed, the legislation would allow the US president to deem as “terrorists” any groups that have trafficked in drugs or financed drug-related enterprises. The president would then have the authorization to use military force against such groups and any governments allegedly harboring them.

The US military carried out attacks this month on three boats that Trump claims were smuggling drugs in the Caribbean Sea. The strikes killed 17 people and were widely criticized as illegal. Human Rights Watch (HRW) called the strikes “unlawful extrajudicial killings.”

NYT notes that the draft legislation appears to be modeled on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) that Congress granted former US president George W. Bush to launch the so-called “War on Terror” after the 9/11 attacks in 2001.

While theoretically passed to allow the US to target Al-Qaeda and its hosts in Afghanistan, the broad nature of the AUMF allowed the Bush, Obama, and first Trump administrations to invade Iraq and to target Islamic militant groups in Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen many times over a period stretching decades.

Neither the AUMF nor the new draft legislation being considered names a specific enemy. The president is therefore empowered to attack any group, anywhere, in an open-ended war.

NYT stated that this raises the question of whether Congress was giving Trump the “authority to wage a regime change war in Venezuela.”

In addition to striking the three boats, Trump has ordered additional US warplanes and naval ships to the Caribbean, while also accusing Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro of leading a drug cartel.

In July, Trump signed a still-secret order directing the Pentagon to begin using military force against certain Latin American criminal gangs and drug cartels, NYT added.

The Institute for Responsible Statecraft stated that the legislation could be used to justify US military intervention in at least 60 countries.

In comments given to NYT, Harvard Professor Jack Goldsmith called the draft legislation “insanely broad,” essentially “an open-ended war authorization against an untold number of countries, organizations, and persons that the president could deem within its scope.”

Earlier this year, the White House added a long list of Latin American drug cartels to the national “Foreign Terrorist Organizations” (FTO) list, giving the US the pretext to launch military action against many groups in dozens of different countries if the draft legislation is passed.

September 24, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Donald Trump corrects Victor Hugo: “Those who live are those who surrender”

By Lama El Horr – New Eastern Outlook – September 20, 2025

The torment that Washington and its satellites inflict on the peoples of the world is so outrageous that it reveals the disarray of the supremacist bloc, which seems to be playing its final card: The resuscitation of a wrecked Empire.

This playbook for restoring fallen hegemony consists of “negotiating” with Beijing through a means of coercion dear to Washington: blackmail. This is done by orchestrating, directly or through proxies, state terrorism of unbridled savagery in every corner of the world where the supremacy of the Euro-Atlantic oligarchy is threatened. In other words, in every corner of the world.

The ensuing funeral ceremonies, also orchestrated by the Axis of the Fallen Hegemon, aim to impose as an irreversible reality the losses of territory, fundamental rights, and power that these destructions and killings are supposed to inflict on the BRICS, the global South, and, of course, China.

“Give me the moon,” Trump asks Xi

Observing the conflagration of conflicts surrounding China, there is no doubt that Washington has raised its level of aggression a notch. The nature of the crises encircling Chinese territory indicates that the US administration has moved from “courteous” blackmail to “martial” blackmail.

“Courteous” blackmail is a traditional coercive tool used by Washington. It might look something like this: “China will be able to strengthen its cooperation with the European Union if it renounces buying Russian energy,” and aims, in this case, to kill two birds with one stone, i.e., to subjugate both Beijing and Moscow.

But this type of blackmail also manifests itself in more ambiguous ways: this is the case with Trump’s announcement of an agreement with Armenia, which has reportedly ceded the development and management of the Zangezur corridor to Washington for a period of 99 years. It goes without saying that such an agreement, if confirmed, can only arouse the fears of Beijing and Moscow and the categorical rejection of Tehran, since it leaves open the threat of an American presence in the South Caucasus. Admittedly, this may be a warning to Beijing and Moscow regarding their security collaboration with Iran: “If you strengthen Tehran’s defense capabilities against Israel, we will deploy troops between Armenia and Iran.” But it may also be that Washington has drawn a parallel with South America: “If China goes ahead with the bio-oceanic rail corridor project, which is supposed to link Brazil to the port of Chancay via Bolivia, there will be a NATO presence on Iran’s northwestern borders”—with all the security implications that such a deployment would entail for Iran, for the North-South corridor, and for the BRI network in Central Asia.

When this “polite” blackmail fails to achieve the set objective, Washington changes its modus operandi. Most recently, for example, Trump asked his satellites to outsource pressure against Beijing: “The G7/NATO/EU bloc must impose sanctions on China and India to force them to turn their backs on Russia.”

But the American modus operandi can also involve resorting to “martial” blackmail. This type of blackmail is more complex than the previous one. While it also involves coercion, it relies on brute force, and it is not always easy to discern the actors or their true level of involvement.

Suddenly, a succession of violent events occurs in more or less strategic areas, which seem to reshuffle the cards of the regional geopolitical chessboard. This is the case of the countless military assaults in West Asia—Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iran, and Qatar. It is also the case, in South and Southeast Asia, of the India/Pakistan or Cambodia/Thailand conflict; of the declaration of martial law by former President Yoon in South Korea; of the color revolutions in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Nepal; of the sporadic riots in Mongolia; of the war of attrition in Myanmar; or of the insurrection in Indonesia, a member of the BRICS, on the eve of the Tianjin summit.

From these upheavals, in which Washington’s involvement through regional and local channels has been widely demonstrated (see the work of Brian Berletic), Washington’s ulterior motives become apparent. Although the terms of this “martial” blackmail are never fully acknowledged, it is easy to guess its content:

  • If you ostracize the dollar in your trade with the BRICS and Africa, we will undermine the BRI infrastructure all around your borders;
  • Give us shares in your strategic companies, or we will escalate the trade war against Chinese technology and the maritime industry;
  • We demand the lion’s share of the New Polar Silk Road, or failing that, we will form a military alliance with Somaliland and Taiwan;
  • Stay away from South America and Venezuela, or we will provoke “incidents” on your borders, like in Qatar and Poland, to strengthen the defenses of the countries hosting our military bases.

And so on. These muscular blackmails—in this case, fictions, even if they are inspired by reality—are based on objectives so extreme that they are completely out of reach. They therefore resemble far-fetched threats. Yet, the Axis of the Fallen Hegemon continues to resort to these methods of intimidation, no doubt because they provide it with an excellent pretext to pursue its real objective, which is to intensify hostilities against China.

The objective, in fact, is not the resolution of crises, but their intensification, the Atlantic bloc being convinced that the spread of chaos is the only means within its reach to restore its supremacy. Moreover, the United States is all the less inclined to renounce subjugation by war, or “peace through strength,” as it demonstrates daily through its Israeli clone, its true ambition: to annihilate any desire for diplomacy – even if it means bombing the place where the negotiations are to be held.

For Washington, mourning must precede death

In the midst of these hostilities, it is important not to lose sight of the ultimate goal of the Empire in its death throes: to shift toward a fait accompli by decreeing the death of struggles that are still ongoing. The objective is therefore to push China—and, with it, the rest of the world—into confusing the destruction and killings caused by Atlanticist savagery with defeat.

Clearly, the imperialist bloc is going through a phase of such acute megalomania that it is incapable of making rational decisions. The slightest sign of life from its geopolitical adversaries is perceived as an existential threat. One need only look at the unspeakable abominations that torment the Palestinian people, and that torment us all, to realize how worrying it is to leave the fate of humanity in the crime-hungry hands of the Axis of the Fallen Hegemon.

Under these circumstances, it is up to China, the BRICS, and the Global South to restore what can be restored of human dignity, since “Those who live are those who struggle.”

Lama El Horr, PhD, is the Founding Editor of China Beyond the Wall. She is a geopolitical consultant and analyst specializing in Chinese foreign policy and geopolitics

Follow new articles on our Telegram channel

September 20, 2025 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , | Leave a comment

The Bay of Piglets | People and Power

Al Jazeera | April 29, 2021

Latin America has seen a remarkable number of revolutions and coups d’etat over the last century. However, whether military endeavours, covertly backed by foreign governments, or the result of purely domestic political pressure, they have not always been successful or achieved their aims.

Yet few can have failed quite so miserably as a woeful attempt in May 2020 to overthrow the Venezuelan government.

The plot of this often bizarre tale has many elements that will be familiar to students of the region’s history – not least a cast of political exiles, military renegades, US mercenaries and at least one very controversial president. But it also throws up many intriguing questions about who was behind it and what exactly they hoped to gain.

People & Power investigates an affair that many – with a sardonic nod to more infamous events elsewhere – have dubbed The Bay of Piglets.

September 7, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Militarism, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | Leave a comment

Colossal industrial-scale warfare in NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict

By Drago Bosnic | August 26, 2025

Heavy industry has always been the key element of modern warfare. Without the ability to outproduce the opponent, your chances of winning are slim to none. Accustomed to the one-sided aggression against virtually the entire world, the political West neglected the actual industrial capacity of its Military Industrial Complex (MIC).

Fighting largely helpless opponents left it mainly focused on weapon systems that are unsuitable for mass production and deployment. This made the US/NATO incapable of matching Russia, China and other multipolar powers that never outsourced their production economies. With its “economy of imaginary assets”, the political West stands in stark contrast to the multipolar world, but still hopes it can control global economic and financial processes based on effectively nothing.

Even the staunchest Western neoliberal think tanks now realize that this approach is failing, particularly in our era. However, the idea that industrial warfare is making a return is patently wrong. The simple truth is that it was always there. The NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict dispelled virtually all Western myths about warfare in this day and age. In fact, the entire idea of postmodernism has failed, even in military theory. The belief that wars can be won in mere days with “shock and awe” tactics of mass precision strikes simply doesn’t hold, especially against major regional powers and global superpowers. It might still work against small and isolated countries, but not more than that. As a result, the political West is now pushing for rapid reindustrialization that can only be achieved through remilitarization.

The reason for this is quite simple. The MIC is the only sector of Western economies that hasn’t been fully outsourced. However, the process itself is still taking too long. Back in June, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte admitted that Russia alone is outproducing the world’s most aggressive racketeering cartel by a factor of four in several key sectors (particularly artillery).

The situation has only gotten worse (for the political West) since then, as Moscow keeps increasing the production of all major military assets. It should be noted that this is in response to escalating US/NATO arms deliveries to the Neo-Nazi junta. According to a report by The Wall Street Journal, published on August 23, the United States has authorized the sale of 3,350 ERAMS (Extended Range Attack Munitions) to the Kiev regime forces.

The contract is valued at $850 million (€780 million) and is primarily financed by the European Union. First deliveries are expected within six weeks. The Trump administration delayed the decision until after the conclusion of high-profile talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin. ERAMs are air-launched precision-guided weapons designed to strike high-value targets from standoff ranges (up to 450 km, depending on the launch altitude and trajectory). The US/NATO hopes the ERAM will be enough to circumvent Russia’s electronic warfare (EW) advantage, allegedly enabling precision strikes even under intense jamming, thus restoring the Neo-Nazi junta’s ability to attack high-value targets (HVTs) deep within Russia (in theory, at least). The rapidly evolving battlefield conditions will certainly put this to the test.

ERAMs are equipped with a combined GPS and INS (inertial navigation system), augmented by a terminal seeker. They’re designed to destroy targets such as ammunition depots, command centers, radar installations, etc. They can also integrate different warhead types and are compact enough to be carried by fighter aircraft, primarily Western designs such as the US-made F-16 and possibly the French-built “Mirage”.

The possibility of integration with Soviet-era Su-27s and MiG-29s shouldn’t be excluded either. However, the US reportedly restricted the Kiev regime’s operational authority over the ERAM and will “require case-by-case approval from the Pentagon”. It means that the US will have direct control over what Russian targets are to be hit. This is yet another confirmation that Washington DC directly participates in hostilities.

Other NATO member states are also involved in similar projects through the so-called PURL (Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List) program. The world’s most aggressive racketeering cartel is determined to ensure its war in Ukraine continues no matter the cost. Russia is responding to this by increasing its own production of crucial military assets. This is particularly true for “Geranium” drones, which are now the Russian military’s primary long-range precision strike weapons. Citing the Neo-Nazi junta’s intelligence services, CNN claims that the Kremlin can produce over 6,000 of these drones per month. There are now three versions of the “Geranium” kamikaze drones, each initially based on the Iranian-made “Shahed-131”, “Shahed-136” and “Shahed-238”, respectively. The “Geranium-3” is powered by a turbojet engine.

CNN also claims that the economies of scale production in Russia lowered the initial cost of each drone by a factor of three (from over $200,000 per unit to less than $70,000 now). What’s more, Moscow also made massive improvements, which were then backported to the original Iranian designs. This includes jamming-resistant GLONASS-aided INS and other upgrades that now make both “Geraniums” and “Shaheds” far more reliable.

More recently, the Russian military has been experimenting with advanced AI-run electro-optical targeting systems that massively improve precision, including a specially modified version that can deploy anti-tank mines. Combined with expanded mass production, these improvements explain the colossal surge in the use of “Geranium” drones, with Moscow simultaneously launching hundreds.

This also allowed the Russian military to shift its approach of deploying these drones in operational strikes to more tactical frontline engagements. The results were virtually immediate, with one recent video showing the destruction of the grossly overhyped and exorbitantly overpriced US-made M142 HIMARS MLRS (multiple launch rocket system). It was detected in a forested area near the settlement of Rogovka in the Chernigov oblast (region), with at least two “Geranium” drones neutralizing the MLRS just minutes later. Such HVTs usually have to be targeted by far more expensive weapons, such as the 9M723 hypersonic missiles of the now legendary 9K720M “Iskander-M” system. However, the massive increase in Moscow’s production capacity allows for the much more affordable “Geraniums” to be used instead.

Such weapons can also replace regular cruise missiles which cost millions of dollars apiece, with “Geraniums” often taking that role. Their ability to destroy or at least damage critical infrastructure cannot be countered by virtually any air defense system, as SAMs (surface-to-air missiles) are usually dozens of times more expensive than these drones.

This also gives the “Geranium” a critical role in exhausting the Kiev regime’s (and, by extension, NATO’s) air defenses. Even on a tactical level, the scale of losses for the political West and its Neo-Nazi puppets is unsustainable, as a single HIMARS launcher costs up to $5,000,000, meaning that it’s over 70 times more expensive than a single “Geranium” drone. It’s highly questionable that even the entire NATO can sustain such losses in a protracted confrontation with anyone, let alone Russia.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

August 26, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Ukrainian Diplomats in Latin America Recruiting Mercenaries for 25th Air Assault Brigade

Sputnik – 18.07.2025

The Ukrainian Embassy in Peru, which also handles Kiev’s relations with Ecuador and Colombia, has been recruiting mercenaries with combat experience to join Ukraine’s 25th Air Assault Brigade via its website, Sputnik has found out.

The embassy’s website features a link to a portal that invites foreign fighters to join the 25th Brigade as infantrymen and drone operators. The brigade is active on the Dnepropetrovsk and Donetsk fronts.

The requirements include “high level of physical fitness and motivation, military experience and drone operation experience.” The posting says that recruitment is being conducted on an urgent basis.

In an interview with Sputnik in June, Russian Ambassador in Bogota Nikolai Tavdumadze said that Ukraine was recruiting mercenaries in Colombia through its embassies, in violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. In March, relatives of Colombian mercenaries protested outside the Foreign Ministry building in Bogota to demand clarity about the whereabouts of their loved ones.

The Russian Defense Ministry has repeatedly warned that Kiev uses foreign fighters as “cannon fodder” and that the Russian military will continue to strike mercenary troops across Ukraine. Colombians have been complaining about poor coordination in the Ukrainian armed forces, which makes survival in the high-intensity conflict in Ukraine much harder than in Afghanistan or the Middle East.

July 18, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Colombia must sever ties with NATO – president

RT | July 17, 2025

Colombia must cut ties with NATO as the leaders of the military bloc support “genocide” of Palestinians, President Gustavo Petro has declared.

Colombia, a traditional US ally in South America, became the first country in the region to obtain the status of NATO global partner in 2017. Petro, who took office in 2022 as Colombia’s first leftist president, severed diplomatic relations with Israel last year over what he describes as a genocide being carried out by the Israeli government against Palestinians.

”What do we do in NATO? If NATO’s top brass are for genocide, what are we doing there?” Petro said at a pro-Palestinian international conference in Bogota on Wednesday.

”Hasn’t the time come for another military alliance? Because how can we be with armies that drop bombs on children?” he added. “Those armies aren’t armies of freedom, they’re armies of darkness. We must have armies of light.”

Petro argued that NATO is a Cold War relic and asserted that nations like Colombia are treated as “half-members” within the US-led military bloc, granted symbolic partnerships but not full accession.

The two-day conference in Bogota hosted representatives from a dozen countries in the Global South. Attendees signed a joint declaration calling for economic sanctions and legal actions against Israel, including an arms embargo, restrictions on dual-use goods, port denials for vessels carrying cargo for Israeli forces, and support for international accountability for crimes allegedly committed in occupied territories.

Petro’s criticism reflects a break from Colombia’s historically warm relationship with Israel. The late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez once dubbed Colombia the “Israel of Latin America,” arguing it served a similar geopolitical role in the region.

Israel launched its military campaign in Gaza following a deadly raid led by the militant group Hamas in October 2023. The first independent study of casualties in Gaza, published last month, estimated the number of fatalities in the enclave at almost 84,000 by January 2025. Israel is currently pushing Palestinians to move to a “humanitarian city” that would purportedly be free of Hamas influence – which critics say is just a euphemism for a concentration camp.

July 17, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »