Venezuela « Aletho News

US Caribbean Build-Up ‘Too Small for Broader Offensive’ – Venezuelan MP

Sputnik – 23.11.2025

The US has deployed more assets to the Caribbean than are needed for drummed-up counter-narcotics operations, yet still nowhere near enough for an attack on Venezuela, says Venezuelan lawmaker Juan Romero, a member of parliament from the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV).

From a strictly military standpoint, the US operation is “far too small for a broader offensive,” Juan Romero told Sputnik.

Romero argued that Venezuela—unlike Grenada or Panama, which the US invaded in 1989—is a vast country with an extensive coastline, making any attempt to establish control extremely difficult.

He added that pinpoint strikes on targets inside Venezuela, similar to US and Israeli actions against Iran, would do nothing to solve the problem of holding the territory afterward.

In response to the US military buildup in the Caribbean, he said the Venezuelan government has activated a comprehensive territorial-defense system, claiming eight million combat-ready fighters in addition to 250,000 regular army troops.

“To invade Venezuela, the US would have to pull in soldiers from its African, European, and North American commands—not just Southern Command,” Romero said.

Romero also noted that the current operation—mixed in its results and involving the blowing up of several boats allegedly used to transport drugs—is extremely expensive, costing the US some $50 million a day.

The US has justified its military presence in the Caribbean as part of the fight against drug trafficking, without providing any proof.

Donald Trump continues to keep open the possibility of military action against Venezuela, saying he would “probably talk to” Maduro but emphasizing that he was “not ruling out anything.”

Meanwhile, airlines like Iberia, TAP, LATAM, Avianca, GOL, and Caribbean have suspended operations after the Federal Aviation Administration warned of “heightened military activity” in Venezuelan airspace.

Reports have suggested an imminent new phase of the US operations soon.

November 23, 2025 Posted by aletho | Militarism | Latin America, United States, Venezuela | Leave a comment

Otto Reich: The Jewish Regime Change Agent Who Spent 40 Years Destabilizing Latin America

By Jose Alberto Nino | The Occidental Observer | November 18, 2025

In the shadowy world of U.S. foreign policy toward Latin America, few names inspire as much controversy as Otto Reich, a Jewish-Cuban exile whose career reads like a manual for regime change, complete with illegal propaganda operations, coup connections, and an unwavering commitment to toppling governments that defy Washington.

The story begins in Havana, where Otto Juan Reich was born on October 16, 1945, to an Austrian Jewish father who had fled National Socialist Germany in 1938 and a Cuban Catholic mother. His father’s escape from Germany became the foundational narrative of Reich’s worldview, a tale of authoritarian evil that he would later project onto Latin America’s leftist movements. Raised as a Catholic despite his Jewish heritage, young Otto attended the elite, American-run Ruston Academy, where he absorbed both Cuban culture and American influence in equal measure.

During Reich’s youth, Cuba was under the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista, whose political repression was so severe that even Reich’s own family, as he told The New Yorker, was “pro-revolution, anti-Batista.” The lone exception was his father, whose experience fleeing one authoritarian regime had made him suspicious of revolutionary movements. When Fidel Castro seized power in 1959, that suspicion proved prophetic—or so Reich would claim for the rest of his life. Castro’s consolidation of power prompted Reich’s father to flee once more, this time taking his family to North Carolina in 1960, when Otto was just 15 years old, as the New York Times reported.

His father’s double exile—first from Germany, then from revolutionary Cuba—became the crucible that forged the younger Reich’s political identity. Where some might see tragedy, Reich saw opportunity. Where others might advocate reconciliation, Reich would pursue confrontation. The teenage refugee would grow into one of Washington’s most zealous operators against Latin American leftism, a man for whom the line between communism and democracy admitted no gray areas, no nuance, no possibility of coexistence.

From the Military to the Foreign Policy Blob

Reich’s trajectory toward influence was methodical. He earned a Bachelor’s degree in International Studies from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1966, then immediately joined the U.S. Army, serving three years as an officer in the 3rd Civil Affairs Detachment stationed in the Panama Canal Zone. This posting provided Reich with more than military experience; it offered a frontline view of U.S. power projection in Latin America, where American military presence wasn’t just about defense but about maintaining influence over an entire hemisphere.

After his military service, Reich completed a Master’s degree in Latin American Studies from Georgetown University in 1973, assembling the credentials that would make him indispensable to conservative policymakers seeking expertise on the region.

When Ronald Reagan swept into the White House in 1981, Reich found his moment. The Reagan administration needed operatives willing to prosecute an aggressive anti-communist agenda in Latin America, and Reich eagerly volunteered. From 1981 to 1983, he served as Assistant Administrator at the U.S. Agency for International Development, managing American economic assistance to Latin America and the Caribbean during a period of revolutionary upheaval. But this posting was merely preparation for Reich’s true calling.

The Architect of the Contra Propaganda Machine

In 1983, Reich established and began directing the Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America and the Caribbean, an anodyne name for what would become one of the most controversial operations in modern American foreign policy. The OPD’s official mission was to promote the Contra guerrillas fighting Nicaragua’s Sandinista government. Its actual function, as would later be revealed, was to conduct what the Comptroller General characterized in 1987 as “prohibited, covert propaganda” to bolster the Contra’s image among the American public.

Under Reich’s management, the OPD became a factory for disinformation. The office planted false stories in U.S. media outlets, including unsubstantiated claims about the Nicaraguan government’s involvement in drug trafficking. It published opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers attributed to fictitious Nicaraguan rebel leaders. It coordinated with paid consultants who wrote pro-Contra articles while concealing their government connections—a practice congressional investigators would later identify as “white propaganda.”

Reich had effectively turned his office into a domestic propaganda operation aimed at manipulating American public opinion to support a covert war. A House Foreign Affairs Committee report didn’t mince words, characterizing the OPD as “a domestic political and propaganda operation.” For three years, Reich oversaw this machinery of deception, becoming what journalist Ann Bardach would later call the “chief spinner” of the Iran-Contra effort.

The scandal that eventually engulfed the Reagan administration would shut down Reich’s operation in 1987. Yet remarkably, Reich himself was not personally accused of illegal activity. He had operated in that gray zone where government officials claim plausible deniability—close enough to the crime to be indispensable, distant enough to avoid prosecution. It was a skill he would refine over decades.

The Lobbyist Years

When Reich left government service in 1989, following a stint as U.S. Ambassador to Venezuela from 1986 to 1989, he didn’t abandon his mission. He simply changed his methodology. For 12 years, Reich worked as a corporate lobbyist, first as a partner in the Brock Group and later as president of his own firm, RMA International. But these weren’t ordinary lobbying gigs; Reich selected clients whose interests aligned perfectly with his ideological agenda.

He represented Bacardi rum company in a campaign to nullify Cuba’s trademark protection for “Havana Club,” an effort that succeeded with the enactment of the Helms-Burton Act in 1996, which further fortified the Cuban embargo. He worked on behalf of Lockheed Martin to sell F-16 fighter jets to Chile. Where others saw business opportunities, Reich saw another front in his endless campaign to maintain American primacy in Latin America.

Return to Power

When George W. Bush captured the White House in 2001, Reich saw an opportunity to return to government service. Bush nominated him for Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, but the appointment immediately sparked controversy. The Senate, wary of Reich’s Iran-Contra record and his advocacy for Orlando Bosch—a Cuban exile militant suspected of organizing the bombing of Cubana de Aviación Flight 455, which killed 73 people—refused to hold confirmation hearings.

Bush’s solution revealed the depths of Reich’s value to Republican hardliners: He simply bypassed the Senate through a recess appointment, allowing Reich to serve for one year without confirmation before being appointed as Special Envoy to Latin America. Democracy be damned; Reich’s expertise in destabilization was too valuable to sacrifice to Senate oversight.

The 2002 Venezuelan Coup

Reich’s tenure coincided with one of the most controversial episodes in recent Latin American history: the brief coup d’état in Venezuela on April 11, 2002, that temporarily removed President Hugo Chávez from power. During the coup, Reich communicated with coup leader Pedro Carmona Estanga and contacted ambassadors from other Latin American countries. Cuban sources would characterize Reich as the “mastermind of the April 2002 coup plot against Hugo Chávez,” though Reich has denied direct involvement in the coup planning.

The pattern was familiar: A left-leaning, democratically elected leader who defied Washington’s preferences; a sudden coup involving military and business elites; and Otto Reich in communication with the coup leaders. Whether Reich masterminded the operation or simply provided encouragement and diplomatic cover, his presence at the center of events spoke volumes about his role in Bush administration policy.

The Ideological Entrepreneur

After leaving government service in 2004, Reich established Otto Reich Associates, a Washington consulting firm providing international government relations advice. But he remained far more than a mere consultant. Reich positioned himself as an ideological entrepreneur, shaping policy from outside government through media appearances, congressional testimony, and advisory roles to Republican presidential candidates, including John McCain in 2008 and Jeb Bush in 2016.

During Donald Trump’s first term, Reich played a significant behind-the-scenes role in shaping Latin American policy. In August 2018, he was credited with recommending Mauricio Claver-Carone to National Security Advisor John Bolton for the position of top official for Latin America policy at the National Security Council. Bolton later acknowledged: “I wouldn’t have known [Claver-Carone’s] name if Otto hadn’t recommended him. I trusted Otto’s judgment.”

Reich praised the appointment of Cuban-American hawks to key Trump administration positions, stating: “We have people who understand the cause, and not just the symptoms, of the problems in Latin America—not all the problems—and that is Cuba.” He argued that “the United States has been a fire brigade in Latin America for the last 60 years and we have ignored, to a large degree, the arsonist,” referring to Cuba’s role in supporting leftist movements throughout the region.

The Unending Campaign to Preserve U.S. Hegemony

Reich’s crusade against Latin American leftism never wavered, never softened. He characterized Venezuela as a “branch” and “subsidiary” of Cuba, accusing President Chávez of “having put a lot of his country’s money at the service of Fidel Castro” and “giving away” petroleum to the Caribbean island. This close alliance, Reich claimed, fueled what he called the “disgusting and gloomy process of Cubanization” unfolding in the petroleum-rich nation.

Then-Vice President José Vicente Rangel defended Venezuela’s sovereignty in July 2005, claiming that Reich “permanently attacks the Venezuelan government, because all of the petroleum business that [the US] has with Venezuela frustrates him.” Rangel rhetorically asked Reich to clarify “exactly which process of Cubanization is he talking about,” arguing that “the true Cubanization of Venezuela occurred years ago with the infiltration of anti-Castro Cubans into Venezuela’s police bodies.”

In a February 2015 panel discussion at the University of Miami titled “Venezuela: A Deepening Political and Economic Quagmire?”, Reich compared the Venezuelan government to National Socialist Germany, stating that officials there could claim they were “simply obeying the laws of the land” just as German officials did, warning “we have to be careful what the laws of the land are.” The comparison was as hyperbolic as it was revealing—for Reich, every leftist government in Latin America was potentially the next Third Reich.

By January 2024, Reich’s criticism had intensified following the Biden administration’s temporary sanctions relief on Venezuela. In an interview with PanAm Post, Reich declared that Biden’s policy toward Venezuela “has been a failure since the beginning of his administration” and characterized it as “not just a failure but a humiliation.” He warned that “not only the ideological pressure groups of the left but now also the commercial groups, the American oil companies that are doing business with Maduro, are going to put pressure on the Biden government not to restore the sanctions.”

Expanding the Enemy List

For Reich, the list of adversaries extended far beyond Cuba and Venezuela. He grouped Nicaragua and Bolivia together with Venezuela and Cuba as what he called “21st Century Socialist States,” arguing they represented a coordinated Cuban-Venezuelan effort to undermine democracy throughout Latin America. In March 2014 testimony before Congress titled “U.S. Disengagement from Latin America,” Reich warned that these governments constituted “organized crime states” where “top politicians and high-ranking military officers have been implicated in drug trafficking, support of terrorism and other illicit activities.”

Reich’s recent writings reveal an expansion of his ideological enemies to include Middle Eastern actors. In a November 2023 article for the Jewish Policy Center, Reich argued that “for more than one year, Iran secretly provided the weapons and training that Hamas needed for planning the October 7th attack against Israel.” He specifically accused Cuba of being “a key Iran-Hamas ally” in diplomatic efforts supporting the Palestinian militant organization.

Reich documented three high-level meetings that he claimed demonstrated Cuba’s complicity in the attack: a February 5, 2023 visit by Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian to meet with Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel; a February 25, 2023 Hamas delegation visit to Jorge León Cruz, the Cuban Ambassador in Lebanon, where Cruz recognized “the legitimate right of the Palestinians to defend their land,” stating that Palestinians “are fighting for a just cause”; and a June 15, 2023 meeting between Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi and Díaz-Canel in Havana.

Reich asserted that these meetings, coupled with Cuba’s “long history of both antisemitism and support of extremist terrorist organizations in the Middle East,” proved that Cuba operated “terrorist training camps in secret locations” and allowed Hezbollah to establish “an operational base in Cuba, designed to support terrorist attacks throughout Latin America.”

Regime Change Villain

Throughout his career, Reich’s targets have consistently accused him of the very interference he claims to oppose. The Cuban government has consistently accused Reich of supporting terrorism and interfering in Cuban affairs. In 2002, Cuba’s Foreign Relations Ministry categorically denied Reich’s claims that four Cuban airplanes landed at Venezuela’s airport during the 2002 coup attempt, calling Reich’s assertion “an absolute lie.” The ministry stated that “if it had been necessary to land a Cuban civilian airplane to collect Cuban diplomatic personnel who were besieged by Mr. Reich’s friends, or for any other humanitarian and peaceful objective, we would have done it and we would have no reason to hide it.”

During a diplomatic visit to South America in July 2002, Reich drew criticism for instructing the Argentine government to commit to an austerity program demanded by the International Monetary Fund–one of the most notable vehicles of Judeo-American power. His aggressive approach to diplomacy was so abrasive that Senator Lincoln Chafee, a Republican member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, reported getting first-hand experience of Latin American hostility toward Reich during travels in the region. The term “hemispheric security mechanism” that Reich promoted stirred “unpleasant interventionist memories” throughout Latin America, according to a report by Toby Eglund.

Venezuelan officials have been particularly vocal about Reich’s skullduggery, even in the Obama era. In March 2013, Venezuela’s then-interim president Nicolás Maduro accused “factors in the Pentagon and the CIA” of conspiring against Venezuela, specifically naming Reich and Roger Noriega, who directly succeeded Reich as Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs. Maduro stated: “We want to say to President Barack Obama, stop this madness,” claiming to have “testimonies and direct, first-hand information” about U.S. plots. Both Reich and Noriega rejected the claims of orchestrating a plot to assassinate Maduro’s rival Henrique Capriles as “untrue, outrageous and defamatory.”

In September 2013, Maduro cancelled his planned trip to speak at the United Nations, citing “serious provocations that could threaten his life.” He specifically accused “the clan, the mafia of Roger Noriega and Otto Reich” of conspiring against him, stating that “the US government knows exactly that these people were behind a dangerous activity being plotted in New York.”

A Legacy of Fire-Starting

In January 2018 testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Reich called President Obama’s rapprochement with Cuba “a foreign policy failure.” He argued that it “consisted of a series of unrequited unilateral concessions to the Castro regime that had negative consequences for US national security, foreign policy interests and traditional values, and which brought increased repression to the Cuban people while filling the coffers of the Cuban military, the Communist Party, and the Castro family.”

Reich emphasized that “unlike previous, successful American initiatives, Obama’s rapprochement with the Castro dictatorship identified the US with a nation’s oppressor instead of the oppressed.” This framing revealed his consistent position: U.S. policy should align with opposition movements rather than incumbent leftist governments—in other words, perpetual regime change over diplomatic engagement.

In March 2023, following the International Criminal Court’s issuance of arrest warrants for Russian President Vladimir Putin for war crimes in Ukraine, Reich called for scrutiny of Cuba’s support for Russia’s “criminal and illegal war.” He stated that “the Cuban government has been actively using its diplomatic and propaganda services to support the illegal and criminal invasion of Ukraine by Putin’s Russia,” while “Cuban strongman Raúl Castro, his hand-picked president Miguel Diaz-Canel, and the rest of the ruling class, are profiting from Putin’s criminal war of aggression by receiving deliveries of Russian contraband oil, and wheat stolen from Ukraine.”

As of 2025, Reich continues his work through Otto Reich Associates and serves on the Advisory Board of United Against Nuclear Iran, an organization dedicated to preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

As Washington’s confrontation with Venezuela intensifies, observers should recognize that this escalation did not materialize out of nowhere. They are the predictable outcome of decades of work by regime change specialists such as Otto Reich, figures who helped design a long-term interventionist blueprint for Latin America. Today, that blueprint is being dutifully executed by hawks like Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a close ally of Reich and a committed interventionist in his own right.

Just as Reich’s kinfolk in Israel labor tirelessly to secure regional supremacy for the Jewish state, Reich has devoted his career to making the Western Hemisphere safe for world Jewry by safeguarding Washington’s full-spectrum dominance in Latin America.

In this transnational criminal enterprise, the roles are clearly defined. And Reich’s role is to ensure that Empire Judaica’s strategic footholds in Latin America remain firmly intact.

November 19, 2025 Posted by aletho | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Supremacism, Social Darwinism, Timeless or most popular | Latin America, United States, Venezuela, Zionism | Leave a comment

The Monroe Doctrine Under Siege: America’s new war in the backyard

By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – November 18, 2025

Washington’s new militarized campaign against Venezuela, framed as a drug war, is in reality a risky attempt to blunt China’s rising influence in Latin America—and it may only accelerate the region’s shift away from the United States.

Trump vowed to end America’s endless wars. Yet he is now starting another and doing it in Latin America, the very ground where US power is already slipping. The administration’s militarised “drug war” against Venezuela is less about cartels than about toppling Maduro to blunt China’s rise in the hemisphere. But it’s a gamble that exposes Washington’s deeper weakness: the US no longer has an economic playbook to compete with Beijing’s money, markets, and infrastructure. And Latin America knows it.

America’s Worry

It’s not about drugs. Washington has a long history of using the “war on narcotics” as cover for covert operations, and in Venezuela today, the real source of alarm is China. Beijing has become Caracas’s most dependable lifeline, underwriting more than US$60 billion in loans, running oil-for-credit schemes, building joint ventures, infrastructure, and even a satellite ground station, all coming together to cement a long-term strategic presence. In 2024 alone, bilateral trade hit US$6.4 billion, with China importing US$1.6 billion in Venezuelan oil and minerals and exporting US$4.8 billion in manufactured goods.

Venezuela is far from an outlier. Across Latin America, Sino-regional trade surged to US$518 billion, with direct investment totaling US$14.7 billion, creating a sprawling parallel economic architecture of ports, refineries, mines, 5G networks, and credit lines that regional governments now treat as indispensable. Even though the US still dominates the region in cumulative FDI—over US$1 trillion—China is rapidly eroding American influence, winning leverage not through ideology or coercion, but through markets, capital, and sustained economic engagement.

For Washington, this is not commerce; it is geopolitical encroachment that directly pushes against the so-called Monroe Doctrine, turning the US “backyard” into a zone where Washington’s influence is not decisive anymore. The Monroe Doctrine, declared by President James Monroe in 1823, held that the Americas were under US influence and off-limits to outside, i.e., European, interference. Over time, it became the foundation of Washington’s dominance in the Western Hemisphere. Today, China’s deep economic and strategic footprint in Latin America is quietly—but surely—undermining that century-old principle, challenging US control in its own backyard.

Yet instead of matching Beijing’s patient economic game, the US is increasingly relying on force—missiles, warships, and military threats—to reassert influence in its own hemisphere. In Venezuela, that approach is especially dangerous: every escalation risks doing exactly what Washington fears most, driving Latin America further into China’s orbit and underscoring the stark reality that America no longer wins with markets.

The zero-sum American Mindset

That China is the real target is not irrelevant. China’s successes are seen, in a zero-sum manner, as Washington’s loses. It was always known, although it gets little mention in the ongoing US official discourse about Venezuela. Perhaps the US does not wish to complicate its ongoing trade talks with China to ‘end’ the trade war that Washington has lost. However, elements of the current US administration had already made clear, even before capturing power in the latest presidential elections, that China cannot be allowed to expand its presence in the region.

In 2024, The Economist spotlighted China’s “dramatically” growing footprint across Latin America—a shift that seems to have triggered alarm bells in Washington. The US Secretary of State (and National Security Advisor) Rubio had warned, even before assuming his current positions, that America “can’t afford to let the Chinese Communist Party expand its influence and absorb Latin America … into its private political-economic bloc.” Yet, he lamented, many regional leaders have merely shrugged. Now, Rubio appears determined to turn up the pressure—and he’s starting with Venezuela.

Beijing’s inroads stretch far beyond Caracas. Earlier this year, left‑leaning Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva joined a Latin American summit in Beijing, signaling his willingness to coordinate on key geopolitical issues, including backing China’s position on Ukraine. At the same time, China quietly opened its first major deep‑water, “smart” port in Latin America: the $3.5 billion Chancay megaport in Peru, operated by COSCO and equipped with unmanned cranes, 5G networks, and driverless trucks. Xi Jinping praised the port as a “new land-sea corridor” linking Latin America and Asia. According to Chinese state media, Chancay can cut shipping times between Peru and China by nearly 12 days while reducing logistics costs by 20%. Diplomatically too, Beijing is undeterred. When pressed on US interventionism, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian retorted in September that Latin America is “no one’s backyard,” an explicit rebuke to American regional dominance. Accordingly, in November, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning condemned Washington’s “excessive force” against boats in the Caribbean and insisted that “cooperation between China and Venezuela is the cooperation between two sovereign states, which does not target any third party.”

The Possibility of Backfire

America’s strategy therefore can—and will—backfire. It will only make regional states more open towards Beijing and more apprehensive towards the US (interventionism and unpredictability). At the 2025 China–CELAC Forum, Gustavo Petro, President of Colombia, called for a “dialogue of civilizations” and said China and Latin America should forge a new model of cooperation—not one imposed by external powers. This sentiment exists across Latin American states, including, for instance, Brazil.

What Washington must understand is that China’s patient, capital-driven strategy, combining trade, investment, infrastructure, and diplomacy, has created a durable foothold that the US cannot simply displace with missiles or threats, although it can introduce temporary disruptions only through a military approach. Still, every escalation in Venezuela risks cementing the very outcome Washington fears: a hemisphere where American influence is conditional and secondary. If the US hopes to reclaim strategic authority, it must first confront the uncomfortable truth that power in the 21st century is won with markets, credit lines, and long-term partnerships, not just force. Until it does, the Monroe Doctrine will remain a relic, and Latin America a proving ground for China’s quiet but decisive ascendancy.

Salman Rafi Sheikh, research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs

November 18, 2025 Posted by aletho | Economics | China, Latin America, United States, Venezuela | Leave a comment

Americans Say ‘No’ to US Military Aggression Against Venezuela

By Adam Dick | Peace and Prosperity Blog | November 14, 2025

Since September, the presidential administration of Donald Trump has been directing the United States military to blow up boats and kill their occupants in the Caribbean and Pacific, claiming to be thus countering Venezuela government supported “narco-terrorism.” At the same time, it has been building up a large US military force off the Venezuela shore. And the Trump administration has made clear that these actions go hand in hand with seeking to achieve its goal of removing Venezuela President Nicolás Maduro from office.

It looks like the US government is pursuing a regime change effort against the South America nation. But, the American people do not seem to be happy with this situation. According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted November 7 – 12, Americans are rejecting both the ongoing US military action against the boats and the threatened US military action to overthrow Maduro.

In a Friday Reuters article discussing the poll results, Jason Lange and Matt Spetalnick detailed that only 29 percent of polled Americans answered that the US government should “kill suspected drug traffickers abroad without judicial process” — what is occurring with the US military’s serial blowing up of boats and killing of their occupants. Even fewer polled Americans — 21 percent — answered that the US government should “use military force to remove Venezuela’s president.” Substantially more polled Americans — 51 percent and 47 percent respectively — declared their opposition to the ongoing US military campaign to blow up boats and the potential use of US military force to remove Maduro from office.

November 14, 2025 Posted by aletho | Militarism, War Crimes | Latin America, United States, Venezuela | Leave a comment

Trump’s and the Pentagon’s Illegal Killings in the Caribbean

By Jacob G. Hornberger | The Future of Freedom Foundation | November 13, 2025

In federal criminal cases, U.S. District Judges issue the following types of instruction to jurors:

“The indictment is not evidence of any kind. It is simply the formal method of accusing a person of a crime. It has no bearing on the defendant’s guilt or innocence, and you must not consider it in your deliberations except as an accusation. You must not assume the defendant is guilty just because he or she has been indicted. The defendant begins this trial with a clean slate.The burden is entirely on the government to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

In other words, an indictment carries absolutely no evidentiary weight whatsoever. It is simply an accusation. It is not proof. It is not evidence. The jury is prohibited from considering it when deciding guilt or innocence.

This principle applies to any person accused of violating federal criminal statutes.

President Trump and the Pentagon have now attacked and killed more than 70 people on the high seas in the Caribbean and the Pacific Ocean near South America. They justify these killings by claiming that the victims are engaged in a violations of U.S. federal drug laws.

But the fact is that Trump’s and the Pentagon’s claims are nothing more than informal accusations. In fact, their informal accusations don’t even amount to a formal accusation set forth in a grand-jury indictment. That’s because a grand jury cannot issue an indictment unless it sees evidence that establishes that there is “probable cause” that the accused committed the crime. With Trump’s and the Pentagon’s informal accusation, no such burden of proof is required.

Therefore, if a jury is prohibited from using an indictment to convict a person who the feds are accusing of having violated U.S. drug laws, it stands to reason that U.S. officials are prohibited from killing people based simply on their informal accusation that the person has violated the law.

In fact, with the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, our American ancestors expressly prohibited the federal government from depriving any person of life without due process of law. It has been long established that due process in a criminal case means, at a minimum, two things: (1) being formally notified of the specific charges that the defendant is accused of violating; that’s what a grand-jury indictment is for; and (2) a trial where the government is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt with relevant and competent evidence that the person actually did commit the crime. The accused, if he elects, can have a jury, not the judge, decide whether or not he is guilty.

There have always been some Americans who hate these provisions. They prefer how things are done in nations run by totalitarian regimes, where the government wields the omnipotent power to kill or punish anyone it suspects of having committed a crime — without having to go through the difficulty and expense of formally accusing people and according them a trial.

Nonetheless, like it or not, that is our system of government, and it remains so unless and until the Constitution is amended to end it.

What about the fact that it is the military that is carrying out these killings? No matter the exalted position that the national-security establishment has come to play in America’s federal governmental system, it doesn’t alter the constitutional principles at all. All it means is that the military is operating in the role of a policeman who is enforcing a federal criminal statute.

For example, suppose that Trump’s military troops that are occupying various U.S. cities begin enforcing federal drug laws by arresting people and then turning them over to the DEA for incarceration and prosecution. The military would simply be operating in a police capacity, not in a war situation.

It’s no different with those killings in the Caribbean. The military, which, by the way, is legally prohibited from enforcing drug laws inside the United States, is simply operating in a police capacity when it is enforcing U.S. drug laws on the high seas. It is essentially standing in the stead of the Drug Enforcement Administration.

What about Trump’s and the Pentagon’s claim that the U.S. is at war and, therefore, it’s okay for soldiers to kill the enemy in war. Clearly that claim is a ruse designed to justify their extra-judicial killings. The concept of war involves conflicts between nation-states, not enforcement of criminal statutes. There is no war between the United States and Venezuela, Columbia, Mexico, or any other Latin American country.

After all, if Trump’s and the Pentagon’s ruse was valid, it would entitle them to use the military to kill drug-war suspects here inside the United States under the claim that enemy drug forces have invaded and occupied the United States and are waging “war” against the United States. In fact, their ruse would enable them to use the military to kill anyone they wanted who they claimed had violated any federal criminal statute.

What about Trump’s and the Pentagon’s claim that the victims are also being accused of violating federal terrorism statutes and, therefore, that it is okay to summarily kill them? Again, it’s just another ruse to justify the extra-judicial killing of people who are accused of violating U.S. criminal laws. After all, terrorism itself is a federal criminal offense. That’s why there are criminal prosecutions for terrorism in federal district court. Trump and the Pentagon are bound by the same principles in federal criminal cases involving terrorism as they are with cases involving alleged federal drug offenses. They are required to secure federal criminal indictments and accord the people with trials, where they bear the burden of proving that the defendants really are guilty of terrorism (or drug offenses) before they can kill them or punish them.

One more point worth noting: The troops carrying out these killings are obviously loyally and blindly obeying orders to commit an illegal act. That’s because, as I have long pointed out, their loyalty is to their commander-in-chief, notwithstanding the oath they take to support and defend the Constitution.

Trump, the Pentagon, and the troops are clearly engaging in illegal conduct with their extra-judicial, unconstitutional drug-war killings. The problem is that given their omnipotent power within America’s federal governmental system, neither the Congress nor the Supreme Court or anyone else will — or can — do anything to stop them.

November 13, 2025 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties | Human rights, United States, Venezuela | Leave a comment

US Officers Cannot Explain Why So Much Military Needed for Strikes in Caribbean – Reports

Sputnik – 11.11.2025

WASHINGTON – US senior Special Operations officers in a briefing last month did not provide a comprehensive explanation why the Trump administration needed a massive military presence in the Caribbean for strikes on a few small boats allegedly used by drug cartels, CNN reported on Tuesday, citing sources with the knowledge.

At the moment, there is no public information from the Pentagon on what the military is using to conduct the strikes, but the sources told CNN that MQ-9 Reaper drones are used for US attacks on alleged drug boats, as well as AC-130J gunships and fighter jets.

The sources told CNN that the Pentagon officials also could not provide an exact amount of taxpayers’ dollars spent on the counternarcotics campaign. However, administration officials have stated that each strike costs up to hundreds of thousands of dollars, the report said.

A significant part of all deployed US naval assets worldwide have been located in US Southern Command since last month, and even more US military assets are about to be placed in the Caribbean, the report added.

Earlier this week, US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said that the United States conducted strikes on two drug trafficking vessel in the Eastern Pacific, killing six people.

To date, the US military has conducted 19 strikes, destroyed 20 boats, and killed 76 people as part of a counternarcotics campaign, CNN reported.

In late October, the Trump administration held a briefing in the US Congress to lay out its legal justification for the strikes on Venezuelan ships. However, only Republicans were invited to the briefing, causing negative responses and vast criticism among Democrats.

United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres believes that US attacks in the Caribbean contradict international law, and so does UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk.

November 11, 2025 Posted by aletho | Militarism | Human rights, United States, Venezuela | Leave a comment

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 aletho | Militarism | Latin America, United States, Venezuela | Leave a comment

US military buildup in Caribbean aimed at regime change in Cuba: FP

Al Mayadeen | November 4, 2025

With the largest US military concentration in the Caribbean since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, a new Foreign Policy (FP) report warns that Washington’s announced campaign against narcotics trafficking in the region masks a far broader strategic objective.

The removal of Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro and, by extension, pressure on Cuba by cutting off Venezuelan oil supplies.

The report says roughly 10 naval vessels and some 10,000 troops, including a carrier strike group led by the USS Gerald R. Ford and elements of the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, are now positioned in the region, a posture that raises the prospect of direct military action against Venezuelan government targets and carries grave implications for Havana.

It is worth mentioning that the White House has framed recent operations as an intensification of counter-narcotics efforts, with senior US officials labelling traffickers as foreign terrorists and authorizing strikes on vessels alleged to be part of the trade.

Foreign Policy argues, the campaign’s political logic extends beyond drugs; the removal of Maduro would, in this account, enable a US policy aimed at severing Caracas’s lifeline to Havana and thereby accelerating a long-standing Republican objective of overthrowing the Cuban state.

“We are going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country, OK? We are going to kill them,” the report quotes President Donald Trump as saying, adding that “The land is going to be next.”

US posture and military options

Foreign Policy highlights the presence of elite US units offshore and suggests a range of possible options available to Washington.

From intensified covert activity and targeted raids to airstrikes intended to coerce elements of the Venezuelan military. The report deems a full-scale invasion unlikely, arguing that occupation and nation-building contradict current political messaging, but it emphasizes that options short of occupation, targeted strikes, special operations, or efforts to catalyze a military coup would still produce extensive human and regional costs.

Venezuelan forces, the report stresses, have adapted doctrines to contest conventional assault by dispersing and employing asymmetric strategies, measures supported by Cuban advisers and reinforced by the presence of seasoned Colombian guerrilla units operating inside Venezuela. Those forces, FP reports, may constitute a counterbalance to US plots for regime change.

The Cuban dimension: Vulnerability and resilience

Cuba has long been Caracas’s closest regional partner, receiving subsidised oil in exchange for medical and technical personnel. Foreign Policy traces that relationship back to 1998.

At its peak, Cuba received more than 100,000 barrels per day; by 2024 shipments had declined to figures as low as 32,000 bpd and even less this year, the report claims.

The article argues, however, that while the loss of Venezuelan oil would damage an already stressed Cuban economy, political collapse is not inevitable. The Cuban government, the report notes, has withstood decades of pressure and possesses internal security mechanisms that have neutralized US-backed organizations and “regime-change” programmes in the past.

As Foreign Policy cautions, economic collapse may deepen civilian suffering without producing the political opening Washington’s hawks imagine.

Regional reaction and legal concerns

Foreign Policy records significant international unease. Human rights bodies and major NGOs have criticised US strikes and tactics as legally problematic, and several Latin American leaders, including Mexico’s Claudia Sheinbaum and Colombia’s Gustavo Petro, have protested the escalation.

The report warns that aggressive US military action will accelerate a political and strategic shift in the region toward alternative partners, notably China, and will undermine Washington’s cooperation with governments it needs for drug interdiction and other security tasks.

The report paints a scenario in which US policymakers, driven by a combination of electoral politics and long-standing ideological goals, central among them Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s avowed ambition to rollback Cuba’s revolution, misread both the durability of the Maduro regime and the resilience of Cuba’s political order.

Cutting off Venezuelan oil, Foreign Policy argues, is unlikely to precipitate the rapid collapse of Cuba.

November 4, 2025 Posted by aletho | Militarism | Cuba, United States, Venezuela | Leave a comment

Nobel Peace Prize winner calls for military attack on her own country

RT | November 2, 2025

The US military buildup off Venezuela’s coast could help bring about regime change, opposition figure Maria Corina Machado has said. The Nobel Peace Prize laureate this year signaled she would welcome US strikes on the country if they help remove President Nicolas Maduro.

Washington has accused Maduro of having ties to drug cartels, calling him a “narcoterrorist.” Earlier this year, US President Donald Trump deployed a naval armada to the western Caribbean, and since September, US forces have struck alleged drug-smuggling vessels off Venezuela’s coast.

Media reports say Washington is expanding its naval presence, with analysts suggesting that the mission could extend beyond counter-narcotics. Trump denied planning direct strikes inside Venezuela, but reportedly reviewed a list of potential targets.

Asked on Bloomberg’s ‘The Mishal Husain Show’ if she backs US military action, Machado said, “I believe the escalation that’s taking place is the only way to force Maduro to understand that it’s time to go.”

She claimed that Maduro “illegally” seized power in last year’s election, from which she was barred. Machado also claimed that opposition candidate Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia won the election. Ousting Maduro, she said, would not be “regime change in the conventional way,” since he is “not the legitimate president” but “the head of a narcoterrorist structure.”

“This is not regime change, this is enforcing the will of the Venezuelan people,” she stressed.

Maduro has accused Machado of channeling US funds to “fascist” anti-government groups, calling her a front for Washington’s interference in Venezuelan affairs. Machado has had close contacts with the US government for decades. In 2005, then-President George W. Bush received her at the Oval Office.

Asked if US military force is the only way to remove Maduro, Machado said the threat alone could be sufficient: “It was absolutely indispensable to have a credible threat.” She added that the Venezuelan opposition is “ready to take over government,” backed by the military and police, claiming that “more than 80% of them are joining and will be part of this orderly transition as soon as it starts.”

Maduro has denied US drug-trafficking accusations, accusing Trump of “fabricating a new war.” Caracas called the US operations a violation of sovereignty and a coup attempt, reportedly seeking help from Russia, China, and Iran to strengthen its defenses.

Russia, which ratified a strategic partnership treaty with Venezuela on Monday, has condemned the US campaign.

November 2, 2025 Posted by aletho | Militarism | United States, Venezuela | 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 aletho | Militarism | China, Latin America, Russia, United States, Venezuela | Leave a comment

US planning war with Venezuela to undermine Russia and China’s presence in South America – US mercenary

By Lucas Leiroz | October 30, 2025

Tensions in South America continue to escalate. Washington is promoting a naval siege of Venezuela, sending several military vessels—including aircraft-carriers and nuclear-capable submarines—to the Caribbean Sea. Furthermore, bombings of Venezuelan boats arbitrarily classified as belonging to drug traffickers have become frequent, resulting in the death of several Venezuelan citizens whose identities are still unknown.

There are many concerns about the future of this escalation. Some experts believe there will be an all-out war in South America, with US troops invading Venezuela in amphibious and aerial assaults, leading to a large-scale armed conflict. Other analysts believe that US President Donald Trump is simply bluffing and that no war will occur—or that there will be only a moderate conflict, with small-scale bombings.

Information from sources familiar with American military affairs seems to indicate an actual American willingness to attack the South American country. Jordan Goudreau, a well-known American mercenary and founder of Silvercorp PMC, recently stated that the US is interested in overthrowing the Venezuelan government to undermine “Moscow and Beijing’s influence” in the Americas.

Goudreau disagrees with analysts who emphasize the economic issue. According to him, the US has little interest in capturing Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, with the real reason for the conflict being purely geostrategic in nature. The American mercenary asserts that the US does not want to allow its main geopolitical rivals, Russia and China, to have a strong partner country in the Americas, as this would give them an advantage in a hypothetical conflict scenario with Washington.

In this sense, for Goudreau, Washington will simply attempt to overthrow the government to gain political and territorial control of Venezuela, preventing it from continuing to engage in partnerships with Russia and China. He stated that there will be no improvement in the country if the Western-backed opposition takes power. He made it clear that the well-being of Venezuelans is not a concern for Washington, whose focus is on neutralizing Venezuela’s geostrategic potential for powers like Russia and China.

It is important to remember that Goudreau became globally known for his involvement in a previous regime change attempt in Venezuela. He revealed that in 2020 he signed a contract between his PMC and the Venezuelan opposition to launch a military operation against President Nicolás Maduro. At the time, American, Colombian, and Venezuelan expatriate mercenaries orchestrated the so-called “Operation Gideon,” launching an amphibious assault on the Macuto Bay region. The operation was a failure, with several mercenaries being killed or arrested by Venezuelan authorities, and the entire plan behind the assault—including the direct involvement of American authorities under the first Trump administration—became public.

Furthermore, Goudreau is also a prominent public figure on American military affairs in South America, particularly in Colombia—a country that, despite its current stance of solidarity with Venezuela, is historically aligned with the US and home to several American bases and PMCs. Goudreau is a military instructor in Colombia and leads a private security project for schools in the Cartagena region. This demonstrates his familiarity with American military affairs in South America. He certainly has access to strategically valuable information about Washington’s decision-making process in that region.

There’s another issue that few analysts are commenting on: the “compensatory” factor in Trump’s foreign policy. The American president was elected on a pacifist platform, promising to end the conflicts in which the US was involved, especially in Ukraine and the Middle East. Obviously, peace in Ukraine won’t be achieved so easily, as it involves factors that go far beyond the American president’s political will. However, he has been able to act as a mediator in other arenas, such as the Middle East, where Trump brokered an agreement between Hamas and Israel.

As well known, the military-industrial complex is one of the main lobbying groups in the US and exerts profound influence on Washington’s domestic and foreign policy. It is therefore normal that, given the de-escalation in some regions, domestic lobbyists are pressuring Trump to launch a new military campaign. Furthermore, Trump also claims a kind of US “right” to control political processes on the American continent, as a way to compensate for his policy of reducing the US’ global presence. Therefore, it is possible that Trump is artificially inflaming the crisis in Venezuela to “compensate” for his less aggressive stance in other regions.

However, starting a conflict in Venezuela could be a nightmare for the US. Venezuela’s geography makes it extremely difficult for military operations. The country is situated between the Caribbean and the Amazon rainforest. Ground operations would be nearly impossible in much of the Venezuelan territory. The US would have to rely almost exclusively on bombings from ships and fighter jets, as well as moderate amphibious raids. This could cause profound damage to Venezuela, but it would not be enough to neutralize local military—which include not only the armed forces and the Bolivarian Guard, but also a popular militia of millions of armed civilians.

Furthermore, Russia and China would not stop cooperating with Venezuela in all the sectors in which they already cooperate, including economic, technological, and military. Moscow and Beijing would obviously not intervene directly in the war, but they would not stop supporting Caracas—which is why the plan to neutralize Russian-Chinese “influence” would fail.

The best the US can do is de-escalate while there is still time and acknowledge that sovereign countries in the Americas have the right to cooperate with any power they choose.

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Associations, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

October 30, 2025 Posted by aletho | Militarism, Russophobia, Sinophobia | United States, Venezuela | 1 Comment

The Russian Regret

By Israel Shamir • Unz Review • October 29, 2025

The Russians are disappointed with Trump’s policy towards Russia. They have long given up hoping to partner with the US in building a just world order, and they are now giving up the hope that they might be treated fairly. The last person in Russia (if not in the world) still hoping to get along with Mr Trump is President Putin.

One can understand him. There is a great need for geopolitical and geo-economic cooperation between the US and Russia, both in resolving the Ukrainian crisis (taking into account Russia’s interests) and in interacting throughout the Arctic, Caribbean, Africa and all the other global ‘hot spots’. That would be international cooperation, not American Hegemony, as many US politicians prefer. The US should step away from the abyss of nuclear war, while this is still possible. Last week, the Russians carried out nuclear exercises, of a magnitude never done previously. The exercises involved Russia’s full nuclear triad—land-based, sea-based, and airborne assets, according to the statement reported by Russia’s state RIA news agency on Telegram. During the exercise, a Yars intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) was launched from the Plesetsk Cosmodrome and Tu-95MS strategic bombers conducted air-launched cruise missile strikes, the Kremlin said. A strategic submarine cruiser launched a ballistic missile from the Barents Sea. And then there was the launch of Burevestnik, a brand-new cruise missile with nuclear reactor onboard, that can fly anywhere for as long as it takes. The Pentagon has revealed that they are worried about these new developments, and have asked the Russians to show them how they make their new devices, the Burevestnik and Poseidon. It is good that President Putin prefers peace, not war.

However, President Putin is not a free agent. There is a strong demand in Russian politics for a nuclear response to Western provocations, not stopping at the Western border of the Ukraine, but going all the way west. For the present, Putin prevails, but it’s likely to change if the US continues its drift toward war and sanctions. And the US invasion of Venezuela is likely to be met with force. The Russian soldiers of Wagner PDC are supposedly already there.

Such sentiments were recently expressed by Sergey Karaganov (a prominent political scientist and honorary representative of The Council on Foreign and Defence Policy) on TVC television, quoted by a PolitNavigator correspondent:

“Europeans – we are dealing with insane morons, excuse me, these are unpleasant words. Well, brutalised morons. They really are morons – the current generation of degenerate European elites, who have also ceased to fear God… and have lost their fear of death.

This is an animal instinct that needs to be restored; they have nothing else left, because they have no intellectual function, no sense of homeland, no sense of gender or love. Of course, I am exaggerating; there are wonderful people there. But that’s how it is [those who are in the governing circle] — they are the scum of humanity.

There is no leader there yet, figuratively speaking, no ‘Hitler’. But, in principle, they are moving towards this. And they are driving their peoples to slaughter. We must stop this movement – in order to save ourselves and these peoples, by the way. Maybe something will come of them someday, although they are degrading very quickly.

They are now being targeted for a massive confrontation with Russia. By the way, we underestimate this, because total propaganda is turning masses of Europeans into potential cannon fodder.

So, we must save them, and at the same time save the world. This is our historical task, but we must realise this historical task. Moreover, we have no other option. Either we destroy ourselves, then destroy the world, or we win and save humanity.

The program’s host Dmitry Kulikov noted that historically, ‘we act best when we understand that we have no other option.’ This feeling permeates Russian political circles. They more and more often repeat Putin’s words from 2018: We shall go to heaven, and they will just croak.

This is indeed regretful, for Putin and Trump have in common real enemies, namely the leaders of Britain, France, Germany, the European Union and the ultra-liberal stateless intelligentsia. Can it be that a grown man, a US President, falls for flattery of the cheapest kind delivered by the likes of Keith Starmer, Macron, Friedrich Merz et al? Doesn’t he understand that they despise him? What do they want? Do Fritz (German Chancellor Friedrich Merz) and Ursula have good memories of the free Russian soup the Germans were fed by the Russian soldiers in 1945, and perhaps they dream of tasting it again? Does Starmer hope to distract his voters so that they might forget his support for Gaza Genocide and Israeli football hooligans? Does Macron think it better to send Frenchmen to die in the Ukraine so they won’t join the Yellow Vests? Does Swedish Ulf Kristersson think that it’s better to keep up the venerable tradition of hosting the Russian occupation force at least once in a century? Which of these plans fit into Trump’s vision?

We may ask – why would President Trump lift a finger to help Vladimir Zelensky, the man who supported the Democratic Party candidate during the US presidential election and played a role in launching the impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump?

In case Trump forgot, the Russian envoy Dmitriev reminded the American public (in his interview with journalist Lara Logan) that Zelensky campaigned in support of Kamala Harris, who represented the Democratic Party in the 2024 election and was Trump’s main rival. ‘Let’s not forget that,’ he added. Dmitriev then noted that Zelensky was one of the factors that influenced the initiation of the first impeachment process against the then US president.

The investigation that preceded the impeachment of US President Donald Trump began on 24 September 2019 at the initiative of US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The impeachment was sparked by a statement by an anonymous informant (probably Zelensky himself) who claimed that in July 2019, Trump pressured Vladimir Zelensky for personal political gain. According to the anonymous report, Trump demanded that Kiev investigate the activities of Hunter Biden, the son of former Vice President Joe Biden, in exchange for providing Ukraine with financial and military aid.

After these allegations surfaced, the White House was forced to publish a memorandum containing a transcript of the telephone conversation between Trump and Zelensky. The document showed that Trump did indeed ask the Ukrainian president to ‘look into’ the matter concerning the Biden family. At the same time, a week before the aforementioned conversation, Trump had ordered the suspension of military aid to Ukraine. Representatives of the Democratic Party viewed this decision as a possible attempt to put pressure on Kiev in order to achieve an investigation that would be beneficial to Trump. The president himself was forced to publicly deny these allegations.

On 31 October 2019, the US House of Representatives approved a resolution to formally begin impeachment proceedings. On the 18th of December, the final debates took place, during which two articles of impeachment against Trump were put to a vote: abuse of power and obstruction of a congressional investigation. Both articles were approved, resulting in the president’s impeachment, making him the third head of state in US history to be subject to such a decision by the House of Representatives.

On 15 January 2020, a vote was held to send the indictment to the Senate, where the articles of impeachment were sent the following day. After reviewing the case, on 5 February 2020, the Senate acquitted Donald Trump on both counts. And now Trump wants to help the man who saddled him with that mess?

Not only that, but Trump’s policy of arming Europe and providing military aid to Ukraine is against US interests. Forcing Europe’s NATO members to increase defence spending to two per cent and then to five per cent will, in the near future, turn the EU into a military monster comparable to the Third Reich. A militarily strong EU would immediately break its economic dependence on the United States, both in terms of oil and gas and technology. And then it would begin to impose its own agenda on other countries, including America itself. Trump’s course towards the militarisation of Europe is suicidal for the future of the United States; it is feeding the crocodile that the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition seemed to have destroyed forever in 1945.

One might understand Trump’s decisions if building up a Ukrainian statelet were a winning move for the West. But it is not. It’s like feeding money to a slot machine in one of the casinos belonging to Trump’s benefactor, Sheldon Adelson. You give it money, and it gives you jolly music, noise, colourful figures move across the screen; then – nothing. Drop more money, you surely will win the next round, says the croupier. A wise man would not throw good money after bad, but a gambler would, down to his last penny. NATO’s Ukrainian morass is like a Kyiv Casino – they tell you that you are about to win big, you just have to invest another hundred billion! Billions have gone down this drain with nothing to show for it except more Miami palaces for Mr Zelensky and his friends.

The Trump’s renovation of the east wing of the White House is not just a random project – the so-called ‘Trump Ballroom’ is just a cover story for the construction of a secret bomb shelter and presidential bunker. But how long would he be able to sit there under a rain of Oreshnik and other fabulous Russian missiles? They will reach the deepest bunker and burn it out.

No, the only salvation for America is an honest alliance with Russia and the transformation of the Ukraine from Europe’s military springboard into a ‘bridge of cooperation’ between the West and the East. Thank God it is still possible.

NATO expansion has never benefited Europe. It was always a way to keep US troops on the job throughout the Cold War. NATO was deliberately expanded to keep up pressure on Russia. It always put Europe at risk, and there was never any corresponding benefit for the average European. Now, with the US about to drastically reduce its troops in Europe, the nations of Europe are on the brink of running NATO by themselves. Does Europe really want to recreate the Cold War and become a testing ground for Russia’s new cruise missiles? Are they really ready to face such an implacable enemy on their doorstep? Does Europe really want to make an enemy of a European country sitting on most of Europe’s natural resources, including its natural gas, oil, coal, palladium, aluminium and iron ore? How could this enmity benefit the average European family?

And President Trump will be remembered for Gaza Genocide that was not stopped by his 3000 years peace (lasted just two days!), for submission to the European clowns and to Bibi Netanyahu; now for leading the US into final Armageddon.

October 29, 2025 Posted by aletho | Militarism, Russophobia | European Union, France, Germany, NATO, Russia, UK, Ukraine, United States, Venezuela | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries Next Entries »

Israel’s diamond industry is dying. That’s a billion-dollar problem for the IDF.

Aletho News Videos

or go to

Aletho News Archives – Video-Images

From the Archives

Mossad behind Italian ‘blackmail’ spying scandal

The Cradle | November 1, 2024

An Italian private intelligence firm that allegedly hacked government databases to collect information on thousands of prominent people, including politicians, entrepreneurs, and celebrities, is accused of working for Israeli intelligence and the Vatican, media reported on 30 October.

Police wiretaps leaked to Italian media show that Equalize, which employs former members of Italian intelligence, is accused of breaching the servers of government ministries and the police between 2019 and 2024 to collect information.

Yedioth Ahronoth reported that Equalize allegedly collected numerous classified files that contain sensitive information about prominent Italians to sell to clients – including major companies and law firms seeking information to gain an advantage over competitors, win court cases, or for blackmail and extortion.

Prime Minister Meloni described the alleged scheme as “unacceptable” and “a threat to democracy.” … continue

Blog Roll

Subscribe to Aletho News

Enter your email address to receive new posts by email.

Email Address:

Join 2,407 other subscribers
Visits Since December 2009
- 7,258,601 hits
Looking for something?

Search for:
Archives
Archives
Calendar

December 2025

M T W T F S S

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

29 30 31

« Nov
Categories

Aletho News Civil Liberties Corruption Deception Economics Environmentalism Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism Fake News False Flag Terrorism Full Spectrum Dominance Illegal Occupation Mainstream Media, Warmongering Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity Militarism Progressive Hypocrite Russophobia Science and Pseudo-Science Solidarity and Activism Subjugation - Torture Supremacism, Social Darwinism Timeless or most popular Video War Crimes Wars for Israel
Tags
9/11 Afghanistan Africa al-Qaeda Australia BBC Benjamin Netanyahu Brazil Canada CDC Central Intelligence Agency China CIA CNN Covid-19 COVID-19 Vaccine Donald Trump Egypt European Union Facebook FBI FDA France Gaza Germany Google Hamas Hebron Hezbollah Hillary Clinton Human rights Hungary India Iran Iraq ISIS Israel Israeli settlement Japan Jerusalem Joe Biden Korea Latin America Lebanon Libya Middle East National Security Agency NATO New York Times North Korea NSA Obama Pakistan Palestine Poland Qatar Russia Sanctions against Iran Saudi Arabia Syria The Guardian Turkey Twitter UAE UK Ukraine United Nations United States USA Venezuela Washington Post West Bank WHO Yemen Zionism

December 2025
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30	31

Aletho News
If Americans Knew
No Tricks Zone
Contact:

atheonews (at) gmail.com
Disclaimer

This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.

This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.

Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.

Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.

The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.

The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.

Fair Use

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

DMCA Contact

This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.

If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.

We will respond and take necessary action immediately.

If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.

All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.

	Bill Francis on Victoria Moves to Force Online…
	papasha408 on The Empire of Lies: How the BB…
	loongtip on US Weighs Port Restrictions on…
	Bill Francis on Chris Minns Defends NSW “Hate…
	Sheree Sheree on I was canceled by three newspa…
	Richard Ong on Czech–Slovak alignment signals…
	John Edward Kendrick on Colonel Jacques Baud & Nat…
	eddieb on Villains of Judea: Ronald Laud…
	rezjiekc on Substack Imposes Digital ID Ch…
	loongtip on US strikes three vessels in Ea…
	eddieb on An Avoidable Disaster
	Steve Jones on For Israel, The Terrorist Atta…

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

By Lucas Leiroz | October 30, 2025

Featured Video

From the Archives

The Cradle | November 1, 2024

Blog Roll

Subscribe to Aletho News

Visits Since December 2009

Looking for something?

Archives

Calendar

Categories

Tags

Recent Comments

Contact:

Disclaimer

Site info