Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

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

Sputnik – 04.01.2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US facing second Vietnam in Venezuela – expert

RT | January 4, 2026

Any prolonged US effort to control Venezuela would likely face fierce resistance similar to what Washington encountered during the Vietnam or Iraq wars, Daniel Shaw, a professor of Latin American Studies at City University of New York, has told RT.

In an interview aired on Sunday, the scholar suggested that Venezuelans would not accept foreign rule following the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro during an unprecedented US raid on Caracas.

“This is going to spill open into a type of Vietnamese resistance or Iraqi resistance,” Shaw said.

Shaw said that on top of Maduro’s “anti-imperialist leadership,” Venezuela’s policies had been shaped by nearly three decades of what he described as political training in “chavismo,” referring to the socialist policies of late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

“The Venezuelan people … are never going to allow for the US to take them over,” he said.

Asked about the most feasible scenario if the US remains in charge for an extended period, Shaw framed the potential confrontation as a “David versus Goliath” struggle, adding that protests and demonstrations were likely and raised the prospect of “pockets of guerrilla resistance over time,” while acknowledging Venezuela was militarily outmatched.

He also acknowledged that international condemnation and declarations of solidarity – including from Russia and several regional powers – would be unlikely on their own to alter the situation. “If there’s no resistance from within the US military, it would be very difficult to imagine that the Venezuelan people could defeat what looks like a US colonial occupation,” he added.

US President Donald Trump has said Washington would temporarily “run” Venezuela following Maduro’s kidnapping, prompting backlash from Caracas. Washington has so far refrained from a large-scale invasion of the country, but maintains a significant military presence in the Caribbean.

The US wars in Vietnam and Iraq became cautionary tales against open-ended foreign interventions after dragging on for years, killing thousands of US troops, consuming trillions of dollars, and ending without a clear outcome. … Video interview

January 4, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , | Leave a comment

U.S. Ambassador To Israel, Mike Huckabee, Boasts That Regime Change In Venezuela Is Good For Israel.

The Dissident | January 3, 2026

On a recent appearance on Newsmax, the American Christian Zionist ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, boasted that Trump’s recent kidnapping of Venezuela’s president, Nicolas Maduro, was good for Israel.

In the interview, Huckabee boasted, “A lot of people may not make the connection as to why this matters to us in the Middle East, what they don’t know is that Hezbollah is very active in Venezuela, there has been a 20-year partnership between Iran and Venezuela… the ties are deep.”

Huckabee boasted that Trump’s regime change operation “Is going to make life for us much safer in the Middle East.”

Israel’s support for American wars in the Middle East is well known, but its support for war in Venezuela is often less discussed.

But just as Israel wants to take out states in the Middle East that were too sympathetic to Palestinians, they have also wanted to take out Venezuela due to the country’s support for Palestinians and Palestinian resistance under Hugo Chavez and his successor, Nicolas Maduro.

As Middle East Eye noted in 2019, “Israel wants to see Maduro overthrown in Venezuela”.

The outlet noted that, “the US-Israeli support for overthrowing Maduro is part of a larger agenda to cement an anti-Palestinian campaign in Latin America at the expense of the Venezuelan people.”

The outlet noted that this was because “Solidarity with the Palestinian struggle for self-determination was at its height during the Chavez years up until today, with the leadership making outspoken criticism of Israel’s flagrant violations of international law. Venezuela severed diplomatic ties with Israel in 2009 over its military campaign in Gaza.”

A recent article in the outlet Israel Hayom, an Israeli newspaper funded by Zionist mega donor Miriam Addison- who Trump recently boasted “gave my campaign $250 million”- explained why Israel wants regime change in Venezuela, writing, “Since Hugo Chávez’s rise to power, Venezuela has become one of the most hostile countries to Israel and Zionism in Latin America” adding that Chavez, “severed diplomatic relations with Israel during Operation Cast Lead in 2009, accused Israel of ‘genocide against the Palestinian people’ and compared its policies to Nazi conduct”.

The outlet added that Maduro, “continued the anti-Israeli line with even more intensity. Thus, Venezuela, which previously maintained warm relations with Israel and even purchased security technologies from it, became a center of hostile propaganda toward Zionism”.

For this reason, Israel long cultivated a close relationship with Maria Corina Machado the U.S. asset in Venezuela who was used as a tool to advance Trump’s recent kidnapping of Maduro, and who hoped to be installed by the U.S. and Israel, only to be snubbed by Trump who said after the operation that she, “doesn’t have the support” to be installed as the leader of Venezuela.

Israel’s ruling Likud party, as far back as 2020, signed a cooperation agreement with Machado’s Vente Venezuela party, which promised to “bring the people of Israel closer to the people of Venezuela while advancing, together, the Western values to which both parties subscribe: freedom, liberty, and a market economy.”

In the aforementioned article in Israel Hayom, Machado promised that Venezuela will be “Israel’s closest ally in Latin America” if Maduro is removed and even heavily implied that Israel was directly taking part in the regime change operation, saying, “We rely on Israel’s support in dismantling Maduro’s crime regime”.

When asked by Israel Hayom how “Israel can support freedom movements in Venezuela without being accused of interference,” Machado signalled that Israel was already interfering in Venezuela and taking part in the regime change operation, saying, “Defending freedom, individual liberties, and democracy isn’t interference … Israel understands this”.

While oil is the most obvious motivation behind the kidnapping of Maduro, getting rid of one of the” hostile countries to Israel and Zionism in Latin America” and returning Venezuela to when it “maintained warm relations with Israel and even purchased security technologies from it” has undoubtedly played a role as well.

January 3, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Three Reasons Iran Condemns US Attack on Venezuela as a Global Threat

teleSUR | January 3, 2026

Iran condemns U.S. attack on Venezuela as a flagrant breach of international law and a dangerous escalation that threatens the foundations of the global order. On January 3, 2026, the Islamic Republic of Iran issued a forceful statement in response to Washington’s large-scale military operation on Venezuelan soil—an assault that, according to the White House, resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores.

From Tehran’s perspective, this is not merely a regional crisis. It is a systemic rupture with implications that extend far beyond Latin America. The Iranian Foreign Ministry framed the offensive as a textbook case of unilateral aggression, echoing historical patterns of imperial intervention that have long destabilized the Global South. In doing so, Iran positioned itself not only as a regional power but as a principled voice defending the sanctity of state sovereignty against military hegemony.

The gravity of Iran’s condemnation lies not just in its rhetoric but in its legal grounding. Tehran explicitly cited Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. According to Iran, the U.S. strikes—reportedly targeting civilian infrastructure alongside military installations—constitute an “unequivocal act of aggression” that must be met with immediate international censure and legal accountability.

Iran Condemns US Attack on Venezuela as Illegal Under International Law

The Iranian Foreign Ministry’s statement, released on Saturday, January 3, 2026, pulled no punches. “This criminal, cowardly, and terrorist act by the United States violates every principle of international coexistence,” the document declared—words that closely mirror those used by Venezuelan Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello in Caracas hours earlier.

Iran emphasized the illegality of targeting civilian infrastructure, including electrical grids and residential zones, actions it described as potential war crimes under the Geneva Conventions. Tehran rejected any justification based on regime change or alleged humanitarian concerns, stressing that only the UN Security Council holds the legitimate authority to authorize the use of force—and even then, only as a last resort.

The International Court of Justice has repeatedly affirmed that unilateral military interventions, regardless of motive, violate the core tenets of the UN Charter. Iran’s stance aligns with this jurisprudence, positioning the U.S. operation not as an isolated incident but as part of a broader erosion of multilateralism. “When powerful states bypass the Security Council,” the statement warned, “they don’t restore order—they incite chaos.”

Crucially, Iran also underscored Venezuela’s inherent right to self-defense and resistance against foreign occupation—a principle enshrined in both international law and the historical consciousness of post-colonial states. By doing so, Tehran reinforced its long-standing advocacy for the Global South’s right to political autonomy, free from external coercion.

Iran Joins Global South Coalition Against U.S. Military Aggression

While Western media have focused on the tactical details of the U.S. operation, Iran’s diplomatic response underscores a deeper geopolitical realignment. Tehran’s condemnation places it firmly within a growing coalition of nations—including Russia, China, Cuba, and Colombia—that view the attack as a direct threat to regional peace and global legal norms.

Iran and Venezuela have cultivated close strategic ties for over two decades, particularly through their shared membership in the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and their mutual opposition to U.S.-led sanctions regimes. In this context, Iran’s statement is both principled and pragmatic: it defends a key ally while reinforcing its own narrative as a champion of anti-imperialist sovereignty.

As a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement, Iran has consistently opposed unilateral military interventions—from Iraq to Libya to Syria. The current crisis in Venezuela is seen through that same lens: not as a domestic political issue, but as a test of whether international law applies equally to all nations, or only to the weak.

Notably, Iran called on all UN member states to fulfill their “legal and moral duty” by demanding an immediate ceasefire, the withdrawal of U.S. forces, and accountability for those responsible for planning and executing the operation. It also urged the Security Council to invoke Chapter VII—not to authorize further force, but to sanction the aggressor and protect the sovereignty of the victim.

This stance resonates across Latin America, where leaders like Gustavo Petro of Colombia and Miguel Díaz-Canel of Cuba have echoed Iran’s concerns. Even within traditionally neutral countries like Uruguay, political figures from the ruling Frente Amplio—such as Rafael Michelini—have echoed Tehran’s alarm, warning that “the prairie of Latin America has been set on fire.”

Geopolitical Context: Iran’s Message to the World

Iran’s condemnation of the U.S. attack on Venezuela carries layered implications. At a time when Tehran faces its own threats of military action—particularly from Israel and hardliners in Washington—its vocal defense of Caracas serves as both a warning and a mirror. By highlighting the illegality of unilateral force, Iran seeks to reinforce norms that could one day protect its own sovereignty.

Moreover, the timing is significant. With Venezuela’s vast oil reserves and strategic location, the U.S. incursion risks triggering a wider confrontation involving Russia, China, and other non-Western powers. Iran’s intervention in the diplomatic arena aims to prevent escalation while strengthening South-South solidarity.

In essence, Iran is not just defending Venezuela—it is defending a vision of international order based on equality, mutual respect, and adherence to law, rather than power projection and regime change. In an era of resurgent great-power rivalry, that message carries weight far beyond the Middle East or Latin America.

Conclusion: A Sovereignty Line in the Sand

Iran condemns U.S. attack on Venezuela not out of blind allegiance, but as a matter of principle rooted in decades of anti-imperialist foreign policy. In a world where unilateralism increasingly masquerades as “strategic necessity,” Tehran’s statement is a stark reminder that sovereignty remains the bedrock of international peace.

Whether the UN will act—or whether the Global South can mount a coordinated response—remains uncertain. But one thing is clear: Iran has drawn a line in the sand, and it stands not alone, but alongside a growing bloc of nations determined to uphold the Charter that Washington now appears to have discarded.

January 3, 2026 Posted by | War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Trump tells India to stop purchasing Iran oil, buy Venezuelan instead

Press TV – February 1, 2026

US President Donald Trump has told India to stop purchasing oil from Iran and instead supply its energy demands by buying crude from Venezuela.

“India is coming in, and they’re going to be buying Venezuelan oil as opposed to buying it from Iran. So, we’ve already made that deal, the concept of the deal,” Trump told reporters on board Air Force One on Saturday.

Earlier, Trump had threatened to slap fresh tariffs on India if New Delhi did not halt its purchase of oil from US adversaries.

However, New Delhi had resisted the threat, reminding the US president that Washington had no authority to determine the trading relations of other nations.

Trump is openly saying that he has taken full control of Venezuela’s oil industry following the US forces’ kidnapping of the South American country’s president, Nicolas Maduro.

Under the pretext of leading a cartel of drug and gun traffickers, Maduro was abducted from the presidential palace in Caracas last month and transferred to a prison facility in New York pending trial.

In the meantime, Trump has announced that the United States is controlling the proceeds of Venezuela’s oil sales. The Latin American country is among the top oil producers with the biggest proven reserves in the world.

“This Oil will be sold at its market price, and that money will be controlled by me, as President of the United States of America, to ensure it is used to benefit the people of Venezuela and the United States,” Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social earlier last month.

Legal experts say Trump’s claim to Venezuela’s oil reserves is unlawful. There is expert consensus that Venezuela’s oil proceeds belong solely to its people.

January 1, 2026 Posted by | Economics | , , , | Leave a comment

Venezuela under siege: Why US escalation could destabilize an entire region

By Leila Nezirevic | Al Mayadeen | December 28, 2025

Washington’s confrontation with Venezuela has entered a dangerous new phase. What began years ago as sanctions aimed at pressuring President Nicolás Maduro’s government has now escalated into naval interdictions, oil tanker seizures, and open discussion of military action — a shift that risks destabilizing not only Venezuela but much of Latin America.

In recent weeks, the United States has intensified its campaign by intercepting Venezuelan oil shipments at sea, effectively enforcing what officials describe as a “blockade” of sanctioned vessels. Caracas has denounced the move as piracy and a violation of international law, while Washington frames it as a legitimate enforcement of sanctions and a counter-narcotics operation.

Yet behind the legal arguments and political messaging lies a deeper strategic shift, one that signals a return to a more coercive US posture in Latin America, with potentially profound consequences.

To understand the implications of this escalation, alngside current regional developments and historical precedents, this article draws on an in-depth interview with veteran journalist and leading Latin America expert Richard Lapper.

A sharp escalation at sea

The most visible sign of Washington’s new approach has been its actions in international waters. US naval forces have seized and disabled Venezuelan oil tankers accused of violating sanctions, while additional vessels remain under surveillance. These measures go beyond financial penalties and diplomatic pressure, marking one of the most forceful uses of maritime power against Venezuela in decades.

Caracas has condemned the seizures as an illegal blockade and accused Washington of weaponizing sanctions to strangle its economy. Venezuelan officials argue that the actions violate international maritime law and set a dangerous precedent for global trade.

Legal experts remain divided. While the US claims it is acting within the scope of sanctions enforcement, critics argue that interdicting vessels in international waters — especially without multilateral backing — risks undermining established norms of freedom of navigation.

Richard Lapper, also an author of several books, including Lula!: The Man, The Myth and a Dream of Latin America, is blunt in his assessment. “This is a breach of international law,” he says. “But I don’t think that really matters for the Trump administration. This is about exerting power.”

The return of the Monroe Doctrine

According to Lapper, Washington’s Venezuela policy reflects a broader reassertion of hemispheric dominance reminiscent of the Monroe Doctrine — the 19th-century principle that Latin America falls within the United States’ exclusive sphere of influence.

For decades, US policy toward the region oscillated between overt intervention and softer approaches centred on democracy promotion and economic reform. That balance now appears to be tilting decisively toward coercion.

“This is a fairly clear restatement of a traditional US approach,” Lapper explains. “It says: this is our region, and we are going to exert our power.”

He points to recent US involvement in Honduras as emblematic of this shift. Washington strongly backed political actors aligned with its interests, even when they carried significant legal and ethical baggage. In doing so, the US signalled that strategic loyalty now outweighs democratic credentials.

From sanctions to military pressure

For years, sanctions were Washington’s primary tool against Venezuela. Initially justified as a way to pressure the Maduro government toward democratic reforms, the measures expanded to target the country’s oil industry — the backbone of its economy.

While sanctions inflicted economic pain, they failed to dislodge Maduro. Instead, Venezuela’s political system hardened, opposition forces fragmented, and millions of citizens left the country.

Now, sanctions are being reinforced by overt military pressure.

Trump has publicly refused to rule out armed conflict with Venezuela. While a full-scale invasion remains unlikely, Lapper, warns that limited military escalation is a real possibility.

“I don’t think war in the sense of large ground troop deployments is likely,” he says. “But significant military escalation — including drone strikes or targeted attacks on government assets — could happen.”

Such an approach would mirror recent conflicts elsewhere, where technologically advanced militaries sought to degrade adversaries without committing troops on the ground.

Yet Venezuela is not a small or easily controlled state. It is geographically vast, with difficult terrain and powerful non-state actors operating in rural areas.

“Venezuela is a big country,” Lapper cautions. “It would be very difficult for any external power to secure control of the entire territory.”

Drugs, terror labels, and political framing

Washington has justified some of its actions by framing Venezuela as a major hub for drug trafficking, alleging links between senior officials and organized crime networks such as the so-called “Cartel of the Suns.”

There is little dispute that narcotics pass through Venezuela en route to North America. The question is whether this justifies the current escalation — or whether it serves as political cover.

“You have to take the drug stuff with a pinch of salt,” Lapper says. “A lot of drugs do go through Venezuela, but to what extent Maduro himself is at the centre of this is highly contested.”

He notes the inconsistency of US drug policy, pointing to cases where Washington has quietly abandoned its tough stance when political interests demanded it.

“It’s a convenient wrapper for the policy,” Lapper argues. “But the real objective is regional domination.”

A changing political landscape in Latin America

The escalation against Venezuela is unfolding amid a broader political realignment across Latin America. After the so-called “pink tide” of left-wing governments in the early 2000s, the region has swung sharply to the right.

Conservative and far-right leaders now dominate in countries such as Argentina, El Salvador, and Chile, while left-wing governments face mounting pressure elsewhere.

“These are the leaders setting the regional mood,” Lapper says, pointing to figures like Argentina’s Javier Milei and El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele. “Not the Lulas and Chavezes of the past.”

This shift has two implications. First, it reduces regional resistance to US pressure on Venezuela. Second, it creates an environment in which hardline security approaches are politically fashionable.

Ironically, however, overt US intervention can still backfire. In Brazil, for instance, perceived external interference has boosted nationalist sentiment and temporarily strengthened President Lula’s standing.

Venezuela’s economic collapse: Sanctions 

One of the central debates surrounding Venezuela concerns responsibility for its economic collapse. Washington argues that sanctions are a response to authoritarianism and corruption. Caracas insists that sanctions themselves are the root cause of suffering.

“Sanctions make things worse, Venezuela was producing three million barrels a day in the late 1990s,” Lapper notes. “Now it produces around a million. It used to be a major force in OPEC. It isn’t anymore.”

However, he also pointed out that even without sanctions, Venezuela would face deep structural challenges. With sanctions, those challenges have become existential.

Humanitarian fallout and migration pressures

The human cost of Venezuela’s crisis is staggering. Roughly one-fifth of the population has left the country, creating one of the largest displacement crises in modern history.

Escalating sanctions and blockades are likely to worsen this trend.

Within Venezuela, reduced oil revenues mean fewer imports, higher inflation, and deeper reliance on informal and illicit economic activities. Outside the country, neighbouring states struggle to absorb waves of migrants.

Brazil, which shares a long land border with Venezuela, has a direct interest in preventing further destabilisation. It has attempted to mediate politically, but with little success.

“Brazil wants stability,” Lapper says. “But its soft diplomacy hasn’t been effective.”

As conditions deteriorate, migration pressures are likely to intensify — not only toward neighbouring countries, but eventually toward the United States itself.

International allies and a shrinking safety net

Venezuela is not entirely isolated. Cuba remains its most important security ally, receiving subsidized oil in exchange for intelligence and political support.

Russia and China provide diplomatic backing, but neither appears eager to dramatically escalate its involvement.

“I don’t see Russia or China rushing to Venezuela’s aid,” Lapper says.

If US pressure cuts off oil supplies to Cuba, the effects could be destabilizing across the Caribbean. Cuba is already facing severe economic strain, with blackouts and protests becoming more frequent.

The risk, analysts warn, is a cascading crisis affecting multiple states simultaneously.

Lessons from past US interventions

History offers sobering lessons. US military interventions in Latin America have had mixed results at best. While short operations in Panama and Grenada succeeded tactically, longer engagements — such as Haiti — produced prolonged instability.

Elsewhere, particularly in the Middle East, US interventions over the past three decades have often exacerbated conflict rather than resolving it.

“The US does not have the staying power,” Lapper says. “There isn’t domestic support for long, messy interventions.”

That reality limits Washington’s options.

Sanctions alone have failed. Full-scale invasion is politically untenable. High-tech, limited strikes remain a temptation — but one fraught with risk.

What lies ahead for Venezuela?

Looking toward 2026, Lapper sees no easy resolution.

“I don’t see the end of the Maduro regime at the moment,” he says. “Escalation would have to be quite significant for that to happen.”

The most likely scenario, he argues, is continued stalemate: a current government clinging to power, an economy under siege, and a population increasingly forced to flee.

“There’s a lot of explosive material piled up in Venezuela,” Lapper observes. “But right now, there’s nothing to blow it up.”

Whether Washington’s escalating pressure will eventually trigger change — or simply deepen chaos — remains an open and deeply consequential question.

December 28, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

US Navy effectively becomes a tool of modern piracy

By Drago Bosnic | December 24, 2025 

The political West has been conducting an unprovoked aggression against the entire world for at least half a millennium at this point. Whether through direct attacks and occupation or various forms of colonialism (that lasts to this day), the world’s most aggressive power pole has been a threat to every other country on this unfortunate planet. Although certainly not the only one, the primary tool of Western power projection have been navies, which is hardly surprising given the political West’s thalassocratic nature. Through naval supremacy, Western (primarily Anglo) powers have spread their colonial empires to virtually every corner of the world, exterminating the native populations along the way and settling in their lands.

Entire continents (such as North America and Australia) were secured through brutal genocide of the locals who now live in small, scattered communities (so-called “reservations/reserves”). The genocidal campaign continued throughout the Atlantic and Pacific, where numerous islands and maritime trade routes remain in Western hands to this very day. Controlling these areas is key to maintaining its stranglehold over global trade, as seen during the latest US attacks on inbound and outbound Venezuelan shipping. However, the Pentagon seems to be expanding this aggression to other countries trading with Caracas, including China, which is a major importer of Venezuelan commodities (particularly crude oil).

Namely, the US Navy and Coast Guard hijacked the “Centuries”, an oil tanker carrying up to two million barrels of Venezuelan crude to China. According to military sources, American forces, operating MH-60T helicopters and reportedly including a Maritime Security Response Team, led the raid. The oil belongs to the Chinese Satau Tijana Oil Trading company. In December alone, this is the third such incident where US naval assets effectively engaged in piracy, as these civilian ships were hijacked in international waters. The Chinese Foreign Ministry condemned the illegal raid, slamming it as a “serious violation of international maritime law and an illegal interference in legitimate global trade”.

This is an attempt to continue the policy of economic strangulation of Venezuela after the sanctions failed to produce the desired result (a color revolution that would bring a pro-American puppet regime to power). It comes less than a week after US President Donald Trump formally ordered the “total and complete blockade” of Venezuela, claiming that its government is now designated as a “foreign terrorist organization” (FTO). In his signature manner of communicating through the unchecked use of superlatives, Trump also bragged that the US Navy “completely surrounded” Venezuela with “the largest armada ever assembled in the history of South America”. Considering Caracas’ already difficult position, this is effectively a declaration of war.

Namely, Venezuela has a highly complex geographical and geopolitical position that makes lands routes largely unusable. Its coastline is the main lifeline that enables trade with the rest of the world, so Washington DC’s decision to engage in piracy against Caracas is a clear indicator that it doesn’t want to allow any sovereign nations to exist in the Western Hemisphere (especially now that the new US National Security Strategy and the restructuring of the Pentagon’s commands is putting an emphasis on the resurgent Monroe Doctrine). Venezuela is probably the most fiercely independent Latin American country, making it the No. 1 target for warmongers and war criminals in the monstrous American oligarchy.

What’s more, considering the fact that these pirates, thugs and goons in suits are terrified of China and its unprecedented development, they wouldn’t want to miss an opportunity to hurt Beijing’s interests. The Chinese economy, the world’s largest and most powerful since 2014, needs a constant supply of critical resources (particularly natural gas and oil). The US is unable to prevent Russia and other multipolar powers from trading with China, so it’s focused on disrupting this with other, more vulnerable countries, such as Venezuela. This is precisely why Beijing perceives the US, its vassals and satellite states as the primary threat to Chinese shipping and maritime trade (and naval security interests in general).

Obviously, the most glaring example of this is China’s breakaway island province of Taiwan, where a US puppet government is escalating tensions and jeopardizing Beijing’s basic national security interests. However, the Asian giant certainly understands that this is only one segment of the Western so-called “China containment” strategy that seeks to limit its ability to conduct unimpeded trade with the world. This is why China keeps building an ever stronger navy that can respond to such challenges. Namely, the US-led political West will undoubtedly continue to conduct its unprovoked aggression against the entire world unless prevented through the use of the only language it understands – force and violence.

It should be noted that this isn’t some spontaneous reaction to Beijing’s growth. And it’s certainly not limited only to the Trump administration. Namely, starting in the early 2010s, Barack Obama launched the so-called “Pivot to Asia” initiative to build up US/NATO presence in the Asia-Pacific. This continued during Trump’s first term, as well as the troubled Biden administration. In practice, this means that the warmongering American oligarchy pulls the strings regardless of who’s president. The Pentagon has increasingly stressed the need to launch “distant blockade operations”, the strategic goal of which is to cut off Chinese trade. This would give the US-led political West significant leverage over Beijing.

The same goes for Russia, whose shipping has been under attack for years, particularly when the Neo-Nazi junta is not doing so great on the battlefield in NATO-occupied Ukraine. Although the political West is attributing these attacks to the Kiev regime, it’s difficult to imagine the latter could conduct such operations thousands of kilometers away without ample Western support (if not direct orders and participation). This form of piracy gives the US, its vassals and satellite states perfect “plausible deniability”, meaning they can disrupt Moscow’s and Beijing’s economic interests without the need to engage Russian and Chinese militaries directly. This is precisely how piracy was used geopolitically until the early 18th century.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

December 24, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

US war hawk senator calls for seizure of Russian oil tankers

RT | December 22, 2025

US Senator Lindsey Graham has urged Washington to ramp up restrictions against Russia, including sanctioning China over its energy imports from Moscow and seizing tankers carrying Russian oil.

Last month, US President Donald Trump proposed a roadmap to resolve the Ukraine conflict, which Kiev and its European backers have rejected as favoring Russia, while stalling settlement efforts with counterproposals and accusing Moscow of delaying peace.

In an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, Graham, a longtime Russia hawk, echoed that stance, claiming that Moscow has “rebuffed all our efforts” to end the conflict and would not sign a peace deal “until we increase pressure.”

“If [Russian President Vladimir Putin] says no this time… sign my bill that has 85 co-sponsors and puts tariffs on countries like China, who buy cheap Russian oil,” Graham said, referring to a bill he authored that would authorize tariffs of up to 500% on imports from countries that continue to buy Russian energy products. “Seize ships that are carrying sanctioned Russian oil like you’re doing in Venezuela. If Putin says no, we need to dramatically change the game,” the Republican added.

Moscow has criticized Western sanctions, warning that they violate international law and harm global economic stability. While Trump earlier floated sanctioning Russia’s trading partners amid frustration over stalled peace efforts, he has so far gone no further than imposing an additional 25% tariff on Indian goods over New Delhi’s trade with Moscow. India denounced the move as unjustified.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has cautioned against additional secondary sanctions or tariffs on major buyers of Russian oil, citing the risk of global energy price spikes. Even the EU, despite expanding its Russia sanctions to 19 packages, has avoided penalizing third-country partners.

December 22, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

The Geopolitical Imperative Behind US Policy Toward Venezuela

By Leanna Yavelskaya | Ron Paul Institute | December 21, 2025

In the intensifying great-power competition of the 21st century, Venezuela has emerged as a pivotal battleground in the Western Hemisphere—a proxy arena where the United States confronts the encroaching ambitions of China and Russia to preserve its historic regional dominance.

Conventional explanations for Washington’s unrelenting pressure on Caracas, citing resource acquisition or counternarcotics imperatives, crumble under scrutiny amid America’s strategic primacy, energy independence, and the broader architecture of multipolar rivalry.

US policy toward Venezuela is fundamentally a defensive maneuver in the superpower contest, aimed at denying Beijing and Moscow a strategic foothold in America’s backyard. Venezuela’s vast oil reserves—the world’s largest—might superficially suggest energy motives, yet the United States, now the globe’s top petroleum producer and exporter, no longer depends on Venezuelan heavy crudes. Sanctions have deliberately slashed imports, while any genuine resource priority would favor diplomatic normalization over confrontation. Historical US behavior reinforces this: when energy security truly matters, Washington opts for pragmatic deals, not escalation. The current standoff, therefore, serves deeper geopolitical ends—blocking rival powers from entrenching influence proximate to US shores.

The counternarcotics rationale fares no better. Venezuela transits cocaine but plays minimal role in the fentanyl epidemic ravaging America. Washington’s dollar hegemony and financial levers could dismantle trafficking networks without military brinkmanship, yet global drug flows persist due to strategic tolerances. Venezuela’s marginal position in this trade renders anti-drug rhetoric an inadequate justification for the extraordinary measures deployed, including naval blockades and tanker seizures.

The core driver is Venezuela’s alignment with US adversaries, transforming it into a potential forward base for China and Russia in the Americas. Beijing has poured billions in loans-for-oil, infrastructure projects, and discounted crude purchases—securing long-term resource access while propping up the regime against Western isolation, even as recent US escalations test this lifeline. Moscow has supplied arms, intelligence, and diplomatic shielding, positioning Venezuela as a counterweight to US hegemony, much as it leverages proxies elsewhere. These partnerships challenge enduring American doctrines: the Monroe legacy rejecting extra-hemispheric powers in the Americas, and Cold War precedents like the Cuban Missile Crisis, where Soviet encroachment provoked crisis.

No US administration—Democratic or Republican—has tolerated a peer rival gaining decisive leverage in Latin America. The Trump administration’s 2025 campaign, with carrier groups, strikes on vessels, and a declared blockade of sanctioned tankers, underscores this zero-tolerance posture amid Maduro’s disputed reelection and pleas for Russian and Chinese aid. Venezuela embodies the frontline of eroding US unipolarity: proximity magnifies threats, just as China dominates the Indo-Pacific or Russia its near abroad.

This is no mere bilateral dispute over democracy or drugs—it is a superpower clash over spheres of influence in a fragmenting world order. Caracas’s geopolitical pivot toward Beijing and Moscow directly contests Washington’s hemispheric primacy. The United States will not permit rival superpowers to consolidate enduring control on its doorstep, a contest that will shape power balances in the Americas and beyond for decades. As great-power rivalry intensifies, Venezuela’s fate signals whether the US can stanch encroachment in its traditional domain or cede ground in the new multipolar era.

Leanna Yavelskaya is a freelance civilian journalist who focuses on geopolitical analysis, with particular emphasis on Eastern Europe.

December 22, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia, Sinophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

Venezuela’s Drug-running Hobbyists

By Adam Dick | Peace and Prosperity Blog | December 22, 2025

The absurdities keep piling up to justify increasing United States aggression against Venezuela in the name of fighting the war on drugs.

An organization that the US government’s own intelligence reporting says is not a drug cartel controlled by the Venezuela government has been relentlessly propagandized as directed by Venezuela’s president to send fentanyl and cocaine to America despite those substances actually primarily coming from other countries.

Plus, the US military has been since early September blowing up small boats and killing all the occupants, claiming the boats are transporting drugs as part of Venezuela’s “narco-terrorism” threat. No proof is ever offered about the boats and their crews. And the destructive force employed eliminates any evidence. “Just trust us” seems to be the motto of the enormous US military force pursuing a macabre hunt at sea.

Saturday, after US military forces boarded and seized a second oil tanker that had left Venezuela, came a new ridiculous drug war rooted argument for the continuing ramping up of aggression. Why was the tanker seized? US Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem provided this explanation at Twitter: The seizure was part of the US government’s fight against the “illicit movement of sanctioned oil that is used to fund narco terrorism in the region.”

Got that? Noem is saying that these Venezuelan narco-terrorists, the combating of whom has become a primary focus of the massive US military, cannot even make ends meet through their drug enterprise. Instead, the drug running is all just a hobby funded by other activities typically pursued by ordinary businesses such as using tankers to transport oil.

We are supposed to be afraid of these guys? Drug cartels are known for members being able to buy fancy homes and cars with the proceeds of their drug activities. By contrast, the Venezuelan drug threat that supposedly calls for the US military to go all out in threatening the nation of Venezuela apparently can’t even operate in the black. Oil shipping is a needed activity for members to pay their rent and stop repo men from towing away their Kia Fortes.

Its involvement in shipping oil, Noem indicates, funds the purportedly uniquely menacing Venezuela drug cartel’s hobby of participating in the global illicit drug trade. Enough already with the drug war propaganda that keeps ascending further into goofiness. Withdraw the US military force deployed to threaten Venezuela and call it a day.

December 22, 2025 Posted by | Deception, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

How Policies From The Bi-Parisian Foreign Policy Establishment Led To Trump’s Venezuela War

Trump’s Escalation In Venezuela Is Just A Continuation Of A Longstanding Regime Change Campaign

The Dissident | December 18, 2025

Trump is currently escalating a regime change war with Venezuela to overthrow its president, Nicolas Maduro. He has sent what Julian Assange described as “the largest U.S. pre-invasion buildup since the Iraq war” to the Caribbean and and has killed 95 people in strikes on boats in the Caribbean, under the false pretext of fighting drug traffickers, but with the real intention- as Trump’s chief of staff, Susie Wiles, admitted– of “blowing boats up until Maduro cries uncle”.

The Trump administration has also authorized covert CIA action to overthrow Maduro and announced a “complete blockade of all sanctioned oil tankers going in and out of Venezuela”, which amounts to siege warfare on the people of Venezuela, given the fact, as Economists Jeffery Sachs and Mark Weisbrot have noted, that “nearly all of the foreign exchange that is needed to import medicine, food, medical equipment, spare parts and equipment needed for electricity generation, water systems, or transportation, is received by the Venezuelan economy through the government’s revenue from the export of oil”.

While this has been widely reported, what has been mostly ignored is the fact that Trump’s policy is nothing new and is only an escalation of a bipartisan regime change policy in Venezuela that has been ongoing since 1999.

In this article, I will document the longstanding regime change campaign from the U.S. foreign policy establishment that led to Trump’s current escalation.

The Bush Administration’s Regime Change Campaign Against Hugo Chavez.

The regime change campaign in Venezuela did not start with the current Venezuelan president, Nicolas Maduro, but with his predecessor, Hugo Chavez, who was elected president of the country in 1999, and whom the Bush administration repeatedly tried to overthrow.

According to leaked documents, the U.S. gave $15 million to USAID and instructions to carry out a program to undermine Hugo Chavez when he first got elected, which included “penetrating Chavez’s Political Base”, “dividing Chavismo”, and “isolating Chavez internationally”.

This ramped up in 2002, when the International Republican Institute (IRI), a subsidiary of the CIA cutout NED, was given $300,000 from the Bush administration to train opposition politicians to carry out a coup against Chavez.

As Mother Jones reported, “In April 2002, a group of military officers launched a coup against Chavez, and leaders of several parties trained by IRI joined the junta. When news of the coup emerged, democracy-promotion groups in Venezuela were holding a meeting to discuss ways of working together to avoid political violence; IRI representatives didn’t attend, saying that they were drafting a statement on Chavez’s overthrow. On April 12, the institute’s Venezuela office released a statement praising the ‘bravery’ of the junta and +commending the patriotism of the Venezuelan military.”

The coup was briefly carried out against Chávez after members of the U.S.-backed Junta began firing snipers on pro-Chávez protestors and then manipulated the footage to make it look like Chávez’s forces were firing on opposition protestors.

As CounterPunch documented:

On April 11th, 2002, the Venezuelan opposition activated snipers who fired on a largely pro-Chávez crowd that had gathered near Miraflores Palace to defend the president from the threat of an approaching and aggressive opposition march. Film footage from the ensuing gun battle was inserted into a pre-fabricated media strategy which sought to convince the Venezuelan population that government supporters were responsible for the deaths, and that they had acted directly on the orders of Chávez himself

That the opposition planned to slaughter innocents is clear from the fact that the public statement by members of the high military command, which cited a specific number of casualties and urged Chávez to resign, had been filmed long before the deaths had even taken place. That the role of the media was paramount is clear from the revelation that this pre-filmed statement was recorded at the house of opposition journalist and host of 24 Hours, Napoleón Bravo.

According to CNN journalist Otto Neustadtl, the opposition planned the false flag massacre before carrying it out, saying, “On the night of the 10th (of April 2002, one day before the coup), they phoned me and told me Otto, a video of Chavez is coming tomorrow, the 11th, the demonstrators will be diverted to Miraflores (presidential house) there will be some dead, and there will be a statement from a group of 20 military high command, asking the president to resign. In the morning of the 11th (of April 2002), they told me everything goes as planned, a video is coming, some dead are coming, and the military will speak out. I was there with the military that was giving the statement against President Chavez. I was there at least two hours before the first death occurred. In that rehearsal, they talked about the dead when the first death had not occurred”.

Strangely, as journalist William Van Wagenen has documented, false flag sniper massacres were again carried out during several future U.S. regime change operations.

The coup against Chavez was soon reversed when his supporters took to the streets and demanded he be reinstated as president.

After the coup was reversed, the Guardian reported that the Bush administration knew of and supported the coup in advance, noting that the Bush administration official Elliot Abrams, “gave a nod to the attempted Venezuelan coup” and added that, “officials at the Organisation of American States and other diplomatic sources, … assert that the US administration was not only aware the coup was about to take place, but had sanctioned it, presuming it to be destined for success.”

The Guardian reported that the Bush administration “immediately endorsed the new government under businessman Pedro Carmona”, adding “visits by Venezuelans plotting a coup, including Carmona himself, began, say sources, ‘several months ago’, and continued until weeks before the putsch last weekend. The visitors were received at the White House by the man President George Bush tasked to be his key policy-maker for Latin America, Otto Reich”.

After the 2002 coup, the Bush administration tried to force a referendum against Hugo Chavez in 2004 through its paid assets on the ground.

The referendum was pushed for by the U.S. asset María Corina Machado, and her NGO, Sumate, which was, “financed by the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the US Agency for International Development (USAID), and Development Alternatives, Inc. (DAI), all three of which are known across Latin America for their attempts to destabilize progressive governments under the guise of ‘democracy promotion’.”

In a recent profile on Machado, CNN noted, she “gained widespread attention in 2004 after participating in a failed effort to recall Venezuela’s then-President Hugo Chávez”.

The regime change attempt again failed, with Hugo Chavez winning by 59 percent, but the U.S.-funded opposition apparently faked exit polls to make it look like Chavez lost the referendum.

The U.S. Carter Centre, which monitored the referendum, noted at the time that, “the opposition cited the exit poll contradicting the official results and expressed their deep skepticism” and “the opposition rejected the results, primarily because opposition’s exit polls carried out throughout voting day suggested the Yes vote (to remove Chavez) would prevail” but noted that, “the machines were extremely accurate. Only one-tenth of 1 percent variation between the paper receipts and the electronic results was found, and this could be explained by voters taking the paper receipts or putting them in the wrong ballot box,” and concluding that, “the Carter Center has found no evidence of fraud”.

Obama Administration Continues Regime Change Against Maduro

After Hugo Chavez died in 2013, his successor, Nicolas Maduro, was elected, and the Obama administration continued the regime change attempt through a paid propaganda campaign to swing the Venezuelan national assembly to the opposition, funding violent riots and putting crushing sanctions on the country.

Leaked documents reported on by Jacobin magazine show that the Obama administration gave $300,000 to the National Democratic Institute, the democratic wing of the CIA cutout NED, in order to, “mobilize a voter database that identified and targeted swing voters through social media” in the run-up to the 2015 national assembly elections.

Jacobin noted that, “indeed, in December 2015, the opposition won a majority in the Venezuelan National Assembly for the first time since Chávez came to power in 1999” and noted, “the NDI claims credit for the opposition’s success, writing that this strategy ‘ultimately played an important role in their resounding victory in the 2015 election’ and that a ‘determining factor in the success of the coalition in the parliamentary elections of 2015 was a two-year effort prior to the elections”.

Under the Obama administration, the U.S. asset María Corina Machado and her U.S.-funded Sumate helped stir up riots in the country that lasted for years.

As journalist Michelle Ellner reported, “Machado was also one of the political architects of La Salida, the 2014 opposition campaign that called for escalated protests, including guarimba tactics. Those weren’t ‘peaceful protests’ as the foreign press claimed; they were organized barricades meant to paralyze the country and force the government’s fall. Streets were blocked with burning trash and barbed wire, buses carrying workers were torched, and people suspected of being Chavista were beaten or killed. Even ambulances and doctors were attacked. Some Cuban medical brigades were nearly burned alive. Public buildings, food trucks, and schools were destroyed. Entire neighborhoods were held hostage by fear while opposition leaders like Machado cheered from the sidelines and called it ‘resistance.’

In 2015, Obama absurdly labeled Venezuela a “threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States” and placed crushing sanctions on Venezuela, which eventually killed at least tens of thousands of people, if not hundreds of thousands.

Trump’s First Term Sanctions and Coup Attempts.

The sanctions on Venezuela increased under the Trump administration, killing at least tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Venezuelans.

Economist Mark Weisbrot noted in the LA Times that:

In Venezuela, the first year of sanctions under the first Trump administration took tens of thousands of lives. Then things got even worse, as the U.S. cut off the country from the international financial system and oil exports, froze billions of dollars of assets and imposed “secondary sanctions” on countries that tried to do business with Venezuela.

Venezuela experienced the worst depression, without a war, in world history. This was from 2012 to 2020, with the economy contracting by 71% — more than three times the severity of the Great Depression in the U.S. in the 1930s. Most of this was found to be the result of the sanctions.

Weisbrot and Jeffrey Sachs revealed that the sanctions killed 40,000 people from 2017 to 2019, and in 2020, the UN expert Alfred de Zayas found that the sanctions had killed 100,000 people since 2015.

Also in 2020, the UN documented that, “the economic blockade of Venezuela and the freezing of Central Bank assets have exacerbated pre-existing economic and humanitarian situation by preventing the earning of revenues and the use of resources to develop and maintain infrastructure and for social support programs, which has a devastating effect on the whole population of Venezuela, especially those in extreme poverty, women, children, medical workers, people with disabilities or life-threatening or chronic diseases, and the indigenous population”.

Along with Trump’s continuation of Obama’s starvation sanctions on Venezuela, he also attempted multiple coup attempts in the country.

The Trump administration recognized Juan Guaido- an unelected U.S. asset in Venezuela- as the official president of the country and sent him $52 million through USAID to set up a fake “interim government” intended to force Maduro from power.

Trump also appointed the aforementioned Elliott Abrams- one of the architects of the 2002 coup- as the Special Representative for Venezuela, and Abrams attempted to funnel weapons to the opposition in Venezuela disguised as humanitarian aid, a repeat of a strategy he enacted in Nicaragua under the Reagan administration.

In 2020, the Trump administration ran another failed coup against Maduro, this time by training defectors from the Venezuelan military in Colombia for a coup attempt.

Describing the Trump administration’s regime change policy during his first term, U.S. Senator Cris Murphy admitted, “First, we thought that getting Guaidó to declare himself president would be enough to topple the regime. Then we thought putting aid on the border would be enough. Then we tried to sort of construct a kind of coup in April of last year, and it blew up in our face when all the generals that were supposed to break with Maduro decided to stick with him in the end”.

Biden’s Attempt To Kidnap Maduro.

A recent AP investigation found that in 2024, a U.S. DHS agent named Edwin Lopez, with “permission from his superiors” in the Biden administration, attempted to bribe Maduro’s pilot, Bitner Villegas, to kidnap Maduro and bring him to the U.S.

Reportedly, Lopez told Villegas that, “in exchange for secretly ferrying Maduro into America’s hands, the pilot would become very rich”.

Lopez apparently offered Villegas a “$50 million reward” to kidnap Maduro and bring him into U.S. custody.

When Villegas responded to the proposal, saying, “We Venezuelans are cut from a different cloth, the last thing we are is traitors,” Lopez made thinly veiled threats against his children, with the AP reporting that, “Lopez tried one last time, mentioning Villegas’ three children by name and a better future he said awaited them in the U.S.” saying that Villegas added, “The window for a decision is closing, soon it will be too late”.

While Trump is carrying out a serious escalation of the regime change policy, it is worth remembering that it is an escalation of a longstanding regime change policy that has continued through the Bush, Obama, first Trump, and Biden administrations.

December 19, 2025 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »