1176
Latin American Publications!
125 readers
18 users here now
A community for Latin American publications.
NOTE: All the publications in this feed are Latin American in origin; that does not mean they only report on Latin American news.
founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
1177
5
Venezuelan, International Popular Movements Condemn US Bombings, Maduro Kidnapping
(venezuelanalysis.com)
1178
4
Trump Says “something will have to be done about Mexico” After Attacking Venezuela, Kidnapping President Maduro
(mexicosolidarity.com)
This article originally appeared in the January 3, 2026 edition of La Jornada, Mexico’s premier left wing daily newspaper.
Mexico City. In the context of the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by the United States, US President Donald Trump made new statements about Mexico, asserting that “something will have to be done” in the face of the power of the drug cartels.
US President Donald Trump dismissed on Saturday that the kidnapping of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and his wife was a message directed at Mexico, but called for “something to be done” against the cartels in the neighboring country.
During an interview with Fox News, journalists asked Trump if the operation against Maduro should also be interpreted as a message directed at Mexico and President Claudia Sheinbaum, referring to previous statements by Vice President JD Vance, who indicated that “the message is quite clear: drug trafficking must be stopped.”
Asked whether the operation, which officially resulted in no American deaths, was also a message to Mexico, through which most of the drugs enter the United States, Trump replied: “That was not the intention.”
“We are very good friends with her,” added President Claudia Sheinbaum.
“She’s a good woman, but the cartels control Mexico. She doesn’t control Mexico.”
Trump responded that he did not intend to send a direct message to the Mexican government and affirmed that he maintains a friendly relationship with the President. However, he immediately asserted that in Mexico, “the cartels run the country,” not its President.
“We are very friendly with her, she is a good woman, but the cartels run Mexico. She doesn’t run Mexico, the cartels run Mexico,” declared the president, who added that Sheinbaum “is very afraid of the cartels.”
The US president also asserted that he has repeatedly raised with the Mexican president the possibility of the United States taking direct action against criminal groups, a proposal that—according to Trump—has been rejected by the Mexican government.
“I’ve asked her many times, ‘Would you like us to eliminate the cartels?’ And she says, ‘No, no, no, Mr. President, please,’” he stated.
“So we have to do something, because in my opinion the real number of deaths [from drug use] is 300,000 a year,” Trump asserted.
Mexico accuses the United States of attracting this flow of drugs because it is the largest consumer market in the world, in addition to allowing the illegal passage of a large number of weapons for organized crime.
-
Venezuela Thanks Mexico for Firm Condemnation of US Attack
January 3, 2026January 3, 2026
Foreign Minister Yván Gil reiterated the call for respect for international law and the demand “to stop these criminal attacks.”
-
Trump Says “something will have to be done about Mexico” After Attacking Venezuela, Kidnapping President Maduro
January 3, 2026January 3, 2026
The US President and international criminal claimed that President Sheinbaum does not control Mexico.
-
Mexico Condemns US Aggression Against Venezuela
January 3, 2026
Mexico strongly condemns and rejects the military actions carried out unilaterally in recent hours by armed forces of the United States of America.
The post Trump Says “something will have to be done about Mexico” After Attacking Venezuela, Kidnapping President Maduro appeared first on Mexico Solidarity Media.
From Mexico Solidarity Media via This RSS Feed.
1179
The Government of Mexico strongly condemns and rejects the military actions carried out unilaterally in recent hours by armed forces of the United States of America against targets in the territory of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, in clear violation of Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations (UN).
Based on its foreign policy principles and its pacifist vocation, Mexico makes an urgent call to respect international law, as well as the principles and purposes of the UN Charter, and to cease any act of aggression against the Venezuelan government and people.
Latin America and the Caribbean is a zone of peace, built on the basis of mutual respect, the peaceful settlement of disputes and the prohibition of the use and threat of force, so any military action seriously jeopardizes regional stability.
Mexico emphatically reiterates that dialogue and negotiation are the only legitimate and effective ways to resolve existing differences, and therefore reaffirms its willingness to support any effort to facilitate dialogue, mediation or accompaniment that contributes to preserving regional peace and avoiding confrontation.
It also urges the United Nations to act immediately to help de-escalate tensions, facilitate dialogue and create conditions that allow for a peaceful, sustainable solution in accordance with international law.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, through the Mexican Embassy in Venezuela, will maintain constant communication with Mexican citizens residing in that country to assist them in any way necessary. These individuals are advised to remain attentive to information released in the coming hours and to contact the following emergency telephone numbers and channels:
Embassy of Mexico in Venezuela
Rio de Janeiro Avenue, intersection with Trinidad Street,
Rio de Janeiro City Center Building, Penthouse Level,
Las Mercedes Urbanization, Caracas, Venezuela
Emergency phone number: +58 412-2524675
Local dialing: 0412-252-4675
Email: embvenezuela@sre.gob.mx
X: @EmbamexVen
-
Venezuela Thanks Mexico for Firm Condemnation of US Attack
January 3, 2026January 3, 2026
Foreign Minister Yván Gil reiterated the call for respect for international law and the demand “to stop these criminal attacks.”
-
Trump Says “something will have to be done about Mexico” After Attacking Venezuela, Kidnapping President Maduro
January 3, 2026January 3, 2026
The US President and international criminal claimed that President Sheinbaum does not control Mexico.
-
Mexico Condemns US Aggression Against Venezuela
January 3, 2026
Mexico strongly condemns and rejects the military actions carried out unilaterally in recent hours by armed forces of the United States of America.
The post Mexico Condemns US Aggression Against Venezuela appeared first on Mexico Solidarity Media.
From Mexico Solidarity Media via This RSS Feed.
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
The Kremlin’s call adds geopolitical dimension to ongoing events.
On Saturday, the Russian Foreign Affairs Ministry urged the United States to release Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores, who were seized by U.S. forces during an attack on the South American country in the early morning hours.
RELATED:
The World Condemns Imperialist Assault Against Caracas
“In view of the confirmed reports about Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his spouse being in the United States, we strongly urge the U.S. leadership to reconsider their position and release the legitimately elected president of a sovereign country and his spouse. We highlight the need to create conditions for resolving any existing issues between the United States and Venezuela through dialogue,” the Russian diplomacy said.
This statement constitutes the first official confirmation by a foreign government regarding the whereabouts of the Venezuelan president, whose location had remained unknown since Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodriguez denounced the U.S. military aggression against Caracas and the states of Aragua, Miranda and La Guaira.
On Jan. 3, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also held a telephone conversation with Rodriguez in which he expressed Moscow’s “firm solidarity” with the Venezuelan people in the face of the aggression.
He affirmed that Russia would continue to support the course of the Bolivarian government, aimed at protecting national interests and sovereignty. Both officials agreed on the imperative need to avoid further military escalation and to find a solution to the crisis through political dialogue.
They also expressed their mutual willingness to continue strengthening the comprehensive strategic partnership between Russia and Venezuela, a link that encompasses military, energy, economic and diplomatic cooperation. Over the last decade, these multidimensional ties have allowed Venezuela to have a counterweight to Western sanctions and the isolation imposed by Washington.
The Kremlin’s diplomatic intervention adds a larger geopolitical dimension to the hemispheric crisis. Russia maintains close strategic relations with Venezuela, including arms sales, cooperation in the oil sector and financial support, making Moscow a relevant actor in any escalation involving the Bolivarian government.
The Russian emphasis on Maduro’s electoral legitimacy represents a direct challenge to the narrative of the U.S. government, which has systematically attempted to minimize the validity of Venezuelan electoral processes and accuses Bolivarian officials of links to international criminal organizations.
Moscow’s stance consolidates its role as a counterweight to U.S. influence in Latin America, a region Washington has historically considered within its sphere of influence according to the Monroe Doctrine.
Currently, the Kremlin’s call for dialogue openly contrasts with the military path taken by the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump.
Madelein Garcia, teleSUR correspondent, reports from La Carlota military base, one of the places that was hit by U.S. missiles in the attack they carried out against the nation in the early hours of January 3. pic.twitter.com/bwagA4PaTe
— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) January 3, 2026
teleSUR/ JF
Sources: RT – teleSUR
From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.
1185
1186
1187
Personalities from around the world warn of a dangerous precedent for peace.
Caracas woke up on January 3, 2026 to the sound of explosions and the reality of a new U.S. war in Latin America: a surprise military operation that ended with the capture and removal of President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores from Venezuelan territory.
RELATED:
Colombia Condemns U.S. Strikes on Venezuela
Under the name “Operation Southern Spear,” Washington has crossed the line from sanctions and covert pressure to open aggression, triggering a wave of international condemnation and fears of a return to old-style gunboat diplomacy in the Caribbean.
Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, have been indicted in the Southern District of New York. Nicolas Maduro has been charged with Narco-Terrorism Conspiracy, Cocaine Importation Conspiracy, Possession of Machineguns and Destructive Devices, and Conspiracy to Possess…
— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) January 3, 2026
A New Phase of US Aggression
In the early hours of January 3, U.S. special operations forces struck multiple civilian and military targets in and around Caracas before seizing President Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores and flying them out of the country.
President Donald Trump later boasted that the United States had “successfully carried out a large-scale strike against Venezuela and its leader” and that the captured Venezuelan president would face charges on U.S. soil.
Far from a neutral “law enforcement action,” the assault violates core principles of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
The operation deepens a long-running regime-change strategy that previously relied on unilateral sanctions, attempts at covert destabilization, and economic blockade to try to force the Bolivarian government from power.
Venezuelan Attorney General Tarek William Saab:
“As Attorney General I demand not only proof of life of our Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and Head of State, Nicolás Maduro Moros, and of his wife, our sister and first combatant, Cilia Flores, but beyond that proof, I… pic.twitter.com/bqXVPi40ma
— Camila (@camilapress) January 3, 2026
Oil, Extraction, and a “Stolen Wealth” Doctrine
Trump’s own public comments leave little doubt about the material stakes of the attack. In remarks after the strikes, he signaled that the United States would be “very strongly involved” in Venezuela’s oil sector and that “we have the greatest oil companies in the world” ready to step in.
For years, Venezuelan officials and many in the Global South have warned that Washington’s real objective is to regain control over the world’s largest proven oil reserves and roll back decades of resource sovereignty.
The emerging U.S. narrative frames Venezuelan crude as “stolen” from American consumers and corporations, flipping reality on its head to present Latin American resources as U.S. property by right.
Key elements of this extractive offensive include:
- Reversing sovereignty: U.S. officials and aligned voices have floated plans to hand back strategic assets and contracts to multinationals like ExxonMobil and Chevron, effectively erasing Venezuela’s 1976 oil nationalization and the sovereign reforms deepened under Chávez in 2007.
- Economic siege: The escalation of U.S. sanctions and tanker blockades through 2024–2025 acted as a de facto siege, strangling public revenues and creating the “crisis” later cited as justification for direct military action.
- Colonial continuity: The kidnapping of a sitting head of state marks a return to open colonial extraction, where force replaces negotiation and international law is bent to protect corporate access to strategic minerals, gas, and crude.
#Breaking: The United States just launched a full scale attack on Venezuela from Air and Sea, report of hundreds of Toma Hawk Cruise Missiles striking dozens of targets in downtown Caracas. pic.twitter.com/IM0FYiCUVb
— ICOF (@ICOF__) January 3, 2026
Venezuelan Government: “State-Sponsored Kidnapping”
Inside Venezuela, authorities describe the events of January 3 as a “state-sponsored kidnapping” and a terrorist attack against a sovereign nation. Official statements place the defense of national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and popular participation at the center of the response.
- Vice President Delcy Rodríguez has become the most visible official voice, demanding transparency about the fate of the presidential couple. “We do not know the whereabouts of President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores. We demand that the government of President Donald Trump provide an immediate proof of life for the President and the First Lady.”
- Rodríguez has emphasized that, despite the scale of the attack, the population remains organized: “Venezuela is in a state of calm, digesting what it means to face a military invasion that has violated our peace and murdered humble inhabitants.”
Minister of Interior, Justice, and Peace Diosdado Cabello has focused on internal security and the need for unity across social sectors.
- “The country was the object of a terrorist attack directed against its people, the motherland, and the electrical infrastructure… What they attempted with bombs and missiles, they achieved only partially. They expected a cowardly response; but the cowards are in the past.”
- Calling for a “civic-military-police” front, he warned: “I call for a perfect national union. No external government should think they can come here and appoint our leaders.”
Foreign Minister Yván Gil has taken the fight to international forums, filing complaints at the United Nations and denouncing the assault as a clear breach of the Charter. He described the operation as the work of “a rogue state, fueling unmasked hostility in the Global South to impose its devious schemes,” and an act of terrorism that threatens Latin America’s stability.
From the National Assembly, Nicolás Maduro Guerra has placed the crisis in a longer anti-colonial tradition, invoking the legacy of Simón Bolívar. “No one will violate the historical legacy of our father the Liberator [Simón Bolívar]. The people must activate themselves to defend our natural resources.”
Venezuela’s Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello spoke from the streets of Caracas hours after the US attacks, calling upon international organizations to reject the US attacks on Venezuela or “finally public reveal their complicity in the face of the invasion and attack, in the… pic.twitter.com/gUy75nUm32
— Peoples Dispatch (@peoplesdispatch) January 3, 2026
BRICS+ and the Multipolar Front
The attack has drawn a sharp line in global politics. While Washington courts a familiar “coalition of the willing,” core BRICS+ members have condemned the strikes as criminal and destabilizing.
Russia: “Cowboy Behavior” and Armed Aggression
Moscow has issued some of the strongest statements. The Russian Foreign Ministry has formally labeled the strikes “an act of armed aggression” and rejected U.S. legal justifications as “unfounded.” At the UN, Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia described the operation as “cowboy behavior and the greatest extortion known in modern history,” warning that it reflects a push to impose U.S. order on the world and plunder Venezuela’s riches.
China: “Hegemonic Behavior” and Violated Sovereignty
Beijing, usually cautious in tone, has expressed “deep shock” at the use of force against a sitting president and a sovereign nation. Through its Foreign Ministry, China declared: “China firmly opposes such hegemonic behavior by the U.S., which seriously violates international law, violates Venezuela’s sovereignty, and threatens peace and security in Latin America.” Chinese authorities emphasized their support for Venezuela’s “sovereignty and national dignity” and signaled they will not recognize any government installed through external force.
Global reaction builds after the U.S. operation in Venezuela:
Lula: Bombings on Venezuelan territory + capture of its president cross an “unacceptable line.”
Russia: Condemns the strikes as “armed aggression,” calling the justifications groundless.
China:… pic.twitter.com/LEiJIlQOFV
— Defence Chronicle India
(@TheDCIndia) January 3, 2026
Latin America: Defending the “Zone of Peace”
Across Latin America, leaders have framed the kidnapping and bombardment as a “dangerous precedent” that tears at the foundations of regional order. Many invoke the notion of Latin America and the Caribbean as a “Zone of Peace” and warn that the assault risks turning the continent into another permanent war theatre.
- Brazil – President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva called the bombings and capture “an unacceptable line” crossed, describing them as a grave affront to Venezuelan sovereignty and “an extremely dangerous precedent for the entire international community.”
- Colombia – President Gustavo Petro rejected the aggression “against the sovereignty of Venezuela and of Latin America,” reiterating previous warnings that such an intervention could turn the region into “another Syria.”
- Mexico – President Claudia Sheinbaum reaffirmed Mexico’s doctrine of non-intervention with a clear “No to interventionism,” demanding an immediate halt to military actions.
- Cuba – President Miguel Díaz‑Canel denounced the operation as “State terrorism” and “unmasked hostility,” urging the international community “to react against this criminal attack and the brutal assault on a zone of peace.”
Other allied governments, including Iran and Belarus, have framed the attack as extortion designed to restore a unipolar order through force.
Tehran’s Foreign Ministry argued that “the United States has turned into the biggest threat to international peace and security,” while Minsk denounced the strikes as “armed aggression” and a direct threat to global stability.
Colombia’s president issues the first international response to the strikes in Venezuela:
“Caracas is under attack right now. The world must be alerted. Venezuela is being hit by missile strikes. The OAS and the UN must convene immediately.” pic.twitter.com/6VICCSTZ7p
— ConsciousInk (@ink_conscious) January 3, 2026
Europe and the Global Left
In Europe, official reactions have been mixed, oscillating between cautious language and explicit criticism, while left-wing parties and movements speak in far more direct terms.
- Spain’s Foreign Ministry called for “de-escalation and moderation,” insisting that all actions must respect international law and the UN Charter.
- UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer distanced London from the operation, stating: “I want to be absolutely clear: we did not participate. Everyone must respect international law.”
- Prominent figures of the European left, including Jeremy Corbyn and Irene Montero, warned through Progressive International that “this is a prelude to invasion” and “condemn[ed] in the strongest terms the military escalation against Venezuela.”
Grassroots organizations, trade unions, and internationalist networks across the Global North have joined protests, casting the events as part of a broader pattern of U.S. militarism, from the Middle East to Latin America.
Social Movements: “Venezuela Is a Hope”
Outside government halls, social movements and popular platforms have rapidly mobilized, describing the assault as a “colonial war” and calling for global solidarity with Venezuela.
- ALBA Movimientos, a continental network of movements, denounced the attack as a “criminal act of war” aimed at “the plundering of Venezuela’s strategic resources, especially oil and gold, through a colonial policy of military intervention and regime change,” stressing its direct violation of the UN Charter.
- La Vía Campesina, which represents over 200 million peasants worldwide, declared that “Venezuela is not a threat; it is a hope,” and condemned systematic threats of U.S. intervention while defending the Venezuelan people’s right to determine their own destiny.
- The Cabinet of the Progressive International described the kidnapping of a head of state as “an act of imperial lawlessness with few precedents in history,” warning that the emerging “Trump corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine is “the single greatest threat to peace and prosperity that the Americas confront today.”
Venezuelans denounce aggression and warn of military escalation, took to streets of Caracas to express outrage at attack perpetrated against them describing as a direct aggression with geopolitical and economic aims. "They’re not just coming for us, they’re coming for our oil". https://t.co/YUmnEW0hv0 pic.twitter.com/O49ScwfGeI
— Gohonzon protected self radicalised non conformist (@UIconoclas52199) January 3, 2026
Legal and Human Rights Alarm
Legal organizations and human rights groups are framing the crisis as a test case for the future of international law. The central issues include the extraterritorial seizure of a sitting president, the bombardment of civilian areas, and the open rejection of UN procedures by a permanent Security Council member.
- The International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) “unreservedly condemns the United States’ completely illegal and illegitimate aggression” and urges “all relevant legal and popular action to hold U.S. officials and military responsible for this blatant violation of the U.N. Charter.”
- From inside the U.S., CODEPINK demanded an immediate end to hostilities and the safe return of Maduro: “Last night, the United States government bombed civilian and military sites across Venezuela and illegally kidnapped Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. These are blatant and illegal acts of war by the Trump Administration.”
Anti-war coalitions like ANSWER connect the new war to domestic inequality, pointing out that “working-class young people… will be sent to kill and die, not the children of executives at ExxonMobil.” Networks such as Samidoun and currents of the Fourth International stress that “regardless of one’s opinion on the regime, imperialist intervention is not a solution” and can only bring “death, repression, and injustice,” demanding a full withdrawal of U.S. forces from the Caribbean.
#Venezuela
— International Human Rights Foundation (@IHRF_English) January 3, 2026
The United Nations: “A Dangerous Precedent”
The United Nations has responded with clear alarm at both the bombing and the removal of Venezuela’s head of state. While Trump officials present the operation as a lawful extension of anti‑narcotics policy, the UN’s concern centers on the precedent it sets for global order.
Through his spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric, Secretary‑General António Guterres said he is “deeply alarmed” by the escalation and warned that the events carry “worrying implications for the region.”
Crucially, the statement underlined that, “independently of the situation in Venezuela, these developments constitute a dangerous precedent,” stressing that the “rules of international law have not been respected” and calling for inclusive dialogue and full respect for human rights.
Venezuela’s Permanent Mission, led by Ambassador Samuel Moncada, has requested an emergency Security Council session to address what it calls “brutal, unjustified, and unilateral” armed aggression.
- The mission has formally invoked Article 51 of the UN Charter, reserving Venezuela’s right to legitimate self‑defense to protect its population and territorial integrity.
- Diplomatic letters to the Council describe the removal of Maduro as an “international crime of kidnapping” and a violation of the protections normally afforded to heads of state.
At stake is whether the international community will tolerate the use of raw military power to remove elected governments and seize strategic resources—or whether this moment becomes the catalyst for a strengthened, multipolar defense of sovereignty, law, and peace in Latin America and beyond.
Sources: teleSUR – Al Jazeera – Al Mayadeen – RT – Con el Mazo Dando – VTV – TRT – Xinhua – BBC – France 24 – Alba Movimiento – Democracy Now
From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.
1188
1189
The airstrike against Venezuela is Washington’s 6th military intervention in Latin America in the last 75 years.
On Jan. 3, President Donald Trump confirmed that U.S. forces entered the residence of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and extracted him and First Lady Cilia Flores from the country by air.
RELATED:
2 Vital Reasons China Condemns US Attack on Venezuela as Illegal and Dangerous
Venezuela denounced the missile attack from U.S. helicopters on Caracas and other cities, which caused civilian and military deaths and injuries.
The following is a summary of the main U.S. interventions in Latin America in the last 75 years:
Bay of Pigs – Cuba
On April 15, 1961, U.S. B-26 planes bombed Cuban bases to destroy the Revolutionary Air Force and facilitate the landing at Playa Giron of the so-called Brigade 2506, composed of exiles and mercenaries trained by the CIA in Guatemala and Nicaragua.
The following day, Commander Fidel Castro declared the socialist character of the Cuban revolution that had brought him to power in January 1959. On April 17, some 1,500 men supported by U.S. naval aircraft and ships attempted to land in the Bay of Pigs, about 112 miles southeast of Havana.
The attack sought to overthrow Castro and install a government formed in Miami, but it was suppressed by the Cuban people. The Bay of Pigs invasion occurred in the context of Cuba’s rapprochement with the Soviet Union. The failure of the invasion was a severe setback for U.S. President John F. Kennedy and irreparably damaged relations between the two countries.
everything Chavez said has proven to be right: "The president of the US talks as if he owns the world. What type of "democracy" do you impose with marines, invasions and bombs? If the world could speak with one voice, it would say: Imperialist yankee, go home!" pic.twitter.com/2GuLmqfFN9
—
(@zei_squirrel) January 3, 2026
Dominican Republic
On April 28, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson sent 20,000 Marines to the Dominican Republic to suppress a civil conflict that erupted after Juan Bosch, who came to power following the death of dictator Leonidas Trujillo in 1961, was deposed by the military.
The U.S. aim was to prevent the country from falling into communist hands and creating “a second Cuba” in the Caribbean. The U.S. placed General Antonio Imbert Barrera at the head of the government.
In September 1966, U.S. troops left the country, shortly before presidential elections were held in which Bosch was defeated by Joaquin Balaguer, who had been part of the administration of Trujillo dictatorship. Backed by the U.S, Balaguer remained in power until 1996.
Grenada
On Oct. 25, 1983, nearly 2,000 U.S. Marines, along with a symbolic force of 300 soldiers from other small Caribbean countries – Jamaica, Antigua, Barbados, Dominica, Saint Lucia and Saint Vincent – invaded the Caribbean island of Grenada to overthrow the military regime that came to power on Oct. 19, after executing head of government Maurice Bishop, three of his ministers and numerous civilians.
President Ronald Reagan justified the ‘Operation Urgent Fury’ on the need to protect the lives of the approximately 1,000 U.S. residents on the island and to restore democratic institutions. Most U.S. troops left the country on Nov. 1, 1983.
Last night's attack on Venezuela fits into a long history of brazen US interventions in Latin America and the world. pic.twitter.com/bgU5fX2Oqu
— Alan MacLeod (@AlanRMacLeod) January 3, 2026
Panama
On the night of Dec. 20, 1989, President George H.W. Bush ordered the invasion of Panama with 26,000 soldiers. The objective of Operation ‘Just Cause’ was to dismantle the local army and capture Panamanian leader Manuel Antonio Noriega, accused of drug trafficking.
According to data declassified by the Pentagon in 2019, over 500 people died, 314 of them military personnel and the majority Panamanian. However, humanitarian institutions have stated that U.S. occupying forces killed as many as 4,000 Panamanian civilians.
Noriega, who governed the country between 1983 and 1989 and had been a CIA collaborator, surrendered 13 days later to U.S. troops who had surrounded the Apostolic Nunciature in Panama City where he had taken refuge after the invasion.
Haiti
On Sept. 19, 1994, over 23,000 U.S. military personnel occupied Haiti to facilitate a transition to democracy and the return of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, Haiti’s first president elected in a democratic election (1990), who had been overthrown on Sept. 30, 1991, in a military coup led by General Raoul Cedras.
The arrival of the troops came hours after a U.S. delegation, led by former President Jimmy Carter, reached an agreement with Cedras for the entry of U.S. troops into Haiti, the departure of the coup government from the country, the return of Aristide, and the calling of future elections.
Aristide returned to Haiti on Oct. 15 and resumed his mandate. By the end of March 1995, U.S. forces handed over command of the peacekeeping operation to the United Nations, and legislative and municipal elections were held in June.
Almost a decade later, in February 2004, the United States would again deploy Marines to Haiti, this time as part of a U.N.-authorized international coalition, following an armed revolt that led to Aristide’s departure.
#FromTheSouth News Bits | Honduras' former President Manuel Zelaya condemned the attack by the United States on Venezuela, showing the regional unity, which is also a target of the imperialist actions in the region. pic.twitter.com/eY8C2EkDSd
— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) January 3, 2026
teleSUR/ JF
Source: EFE
From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
2
2 Vital Reasons China Condemns US Attack on Venezuela as Illegal and Dangerous
(www.telesurenglish.net)
China condemns US attack on Venezuela as a violation of sovereignty and UN Charter. Global South unites against unilateral military aggression.
Related: 3 Reasons Iran Condemns US Attack on Venezuela as a Global Threat
5 Shocking Reasons China Condemns US Attack on Venezuela as Illegal and Dangerous
China condemns US attack on Venezuela in the strongest possible terms following Washington’s large-scale military incursion on Venezuelan soil early Saturday, January 3, 2026. In an official statement issued from Beijing, the Chinese government denounced the operation—which reportedly led to the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores—as a “flagrant use of force against a sovereign state” and a direct assault on the foundational pillars of the international legal order.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry labeled the action “hegemonic” and warned it endangers not only Venezuela’s sovereignty but the broader stability of Latin America and the Caribbean—a region long declared a “zone of peace” by its governments. According to Beijing, the U.S. strikes on both military and civilian infrastructure represent a systematic violation of the United Nations Charter and a dangerous precedent that could unravel decades of diplomatic consensus in the Global South.
This condemnation is not merely rhetorical. It reflects China’s deep strategic alignment with Venezuela on issues of sovereignty, anti-imperialism, and multilateralism. In recent years, the two nations have strengthened cooperation across energy, finance, and defense, often positioning themselves as counterweights to Western-led sanctions and regime-change policies. Now, China condemns U.S. attack on Venezuela as both a moral imperative and a defense of a rules-based world order that Washington appears determined to dismantle.
China Condemns US Attack on Venezuela as Hegemonic Violation of International Law
In its formal communiqué, Beijing accused the United States of deploying “hegemony under the guise of security,” highlighting how the military operation breaches core principles of the UN Charter, particularly Article 2(4), which prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
The Chinese statement emphasized the targeting of civilian infrastructure—including power grids and residential areas—as especially alarming. “Such actions do not restore order; they sow chaos, suffering, and long-term destabilization,” the document read. By attacking non-military sites, Beijing argues, the U.S. has crossed a red line that separates legitimate security operations from acts of aggression that may constitute war crimes under international humanitarian law.
China’s position aligns with longstanding jurisprudence from the International Court of Justice, which has consistently held that unilateral military interventions—regardless of stated intent—violate international law unless authorized by the UN Security Council. Notably, no such authorization was sought or granted in this case, rendering the operation legally indefensible from Beijing’s perspective.
Furthermore, China warned that this intervention fits a disturbing historical pattern: U.S.-led regime change operations in Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa that have repeatedly triggered humanitarian crises, refugee flows, and prolonged instability. “When powerful nations bypass international institutions to impose their will by force,” the statement cautioned, “they do not bring democracy—they export destruction.”
Global South Unites Against U.S. Military Aggression
China’s condemnation arrives amid a rapid and coordinated diplomatic backlash from across the Global South. From Tehran to Montevideo, capitals are denouncing the U.S. attack on Venezuela as a direct threat to the principle of non-intervention—a cornerstone of post-colonial diplomacy. Russia has labeled the operation “armed aggression,” while Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel called it “state terrorism.” Colombian President Gustavo Petro has called for an emergency UN session to halt the escalation.
Beijing positioned its response within this broader coalition, stressing that Latin America’s declaration as a “zone of peace” must be respected. “The peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean have the right to determine their own destiny without external interference,” the Chinese statement affirmed, echoing language used by regional bodies like CELAC (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States).
As a leading advocate for multipolarity and South-South cooperation, China sees this moment as a critical test of whether international law will apply equally—or only to the weak. The PRC reaffirmed its strategic partnership with Venezuela, recalling years of mutual support in multilateral forums and joint resistance to unilateral sanctions. “Caracas is not alone,” the statement implied. “It stands with a growing front of nations committed to sovereignty over subjugation.”
Notably, even traditionally neutral actors are breaking ranks. Spanish MEP Irene Montero demanded her government sever ties with NATO, declaring, “The U.S. is a danger. Either we stop them, or they’ll burn everything down.” In Uruguay, while the official government remains silent, prominent figures from the ruling Frente Amplio—such as Rafael Michelini—have called for “total and radical condemnation,” warning that “the prairie of Latin America has been set on fire.”
Geopolitical Context: A Multipolar World Pushes Back
The U.S. attack on Venezuela—and China’s forceful response—marks a pivotal moment in 21st-century geopolitics. For decades, Washington treated Latin America as its “backyard,” intervening with relative impunity. But today’s landscape is fundamentally different. China, Russia, Iran, and regional powers have deepened ties with Caracas, transforming Venezuela into a strategic node in a multipolar network that challenges U.S. dominance.
Beijing’s condemnation is thus both principled and strategic. On one level, it defends the norm of non-intervention that protects smaller states—including, potentially, China itself—from foreign coercion. On another, it reinforces Beijing’s image as a responsible global actor that champions dialogue over bombs, law over might.
Critically, this crisis occurs as global trust in U.S. leadership continues to erode. From climate inaction to endless wars, many nations now view Washington not as a guarantor of peace, but as a source of volatility. China’s stance seeks to capitalize on this disillusionment, offering an alternative vision rooted in mutual respect, economic cooperation, and legal restraint.
If the United Nations fails to act decisively—by condemning the attack, demanding accountability, and ensuring Venezuela’s sovereignty is restored—it may accelerate the very fragmentation the institution was designed to prevent. In that sense, China condemns U.S. attack on Venezuela not just for Caracas’s sake, but for the future of international order itself.
China’s Official Response: “Blatant Use of Force Against a Sovereign State”
Adding further weight to its diplomatic stance, China’s Foreign Ministry Spokesperson issued a direct and unequivocal response during a press briefing on January 3, 2026, when asked about reports of U.S. military strikes on Venezuela and former President Donald Trump’s claim on Truth Social that Maduro and his wife had been “successfully” captured and “flown out of the country.”
“China is deeply shocked by and strongly condemns the U.S.’s blatant use of force against a sovereign state and action against its president,” the spokesperson stated. “Such hegemonic acts of the U.S. seriously violate international law and Venezuela’s sovereignty, and threaten peace and security in Latin America and the Caribbean region. China firmly opposes it.”
The spokesperson went on to stress that Washington must “abide by international law and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, and stop violating other countries’ sovereignty and security.” This official Q&A—widely circulated by Chinese state media—serves as the clearest articulation yet of Beijing’s rejection of what it frames not as a security operation, but as an act of imperial overreach that endangers the entire regional order. By explicitly referencing Trump’s social media post, China also underscored the volatility of treating geopolitical decisions as political theater—a critique increasingly echoed across the Global South.
Conclusion: Sovereignty as the Last Line of Defense
As smoke rises over Caracas and diplomatic cables flood UN headquarters, one message echoes from Beijing with unwavering clarity: sovereignty is non-negotiable. China’s condemnation of the U.S. attack on Venezuela is more than a defense of an ally—it is a stand for a world where nations, regardless of size or ideology, are shielded from the sword of unilateral power.
China condemns U.S. attack on Venezuela because it sees in this moment the ghost of interventions past—and the shadow of crises yet to come. But it also sees an opportunity: to rally the Global South, uphold the UN Charter, and prove that another world is not only possible, but already being built, one act of solidarity at a time.
From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.
1198
Those responsible for the aggression are war criminals, the Bolivarian diplomat stressed.
On Saturday, Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yvan Gil stated that the U.S. military aggression against Venezuelan territory, along with the kidnapping of President Nicolas Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores, has revealed the true face of imperialism.
RELATED:
Trump Details Raid on President Maduro’s Residence
In remarks to teleSUR, the top diplomat asserted that those responsible for these acts are “the true aggressors and war criminals” and demanded proof that the Venezuelan leader and the first lady are alive.
Gil said this vile and criminal attack has the central objective of seizing Venezuela’s strategic natural resources. To this end, the Trump administration has been spreading false narratives to justify its criminal actions within Venezuelan territory.
“Venezuela remains firm in the defense of its sovereignty and of the peace championed by President Maduro,” the diplomat said, reaffirming the determination of the Bolivarian government and people to confront any attempt at foreign subjugation.
The US government bombed Venezuela, and Trump kidnapped President Nicolás Maduro and flew him out of the country to be tried in a show trial on politically motivated charges.
In this video, I explain the real reasons behind the USA's imperialist war of aggression on Venezuela: pic.twitter.com/klhWSNvXCp
— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) January 3, 2026
“We know that behind this attack there is no other reason, no other motive, than the intention to appropriate natural wealth,” Gil said and lamented that the attack occurred just hours after President Maduro issued a message in favor of peace, dialogue and diplomacy.
“We are for peace and democracy, but we are also firm in defending our nation. We also know where the aggressors are,” the Venezuelan foreign minister said.
For several weeks, Venezuela had been denouncing before various international forums an escalation of U.S. illegal actions, including veiled threats, intimidating military movements and covert operations aimed at destabilizing the South American country.
Venezuelan authorities repeatedly warned that these maneuvers violate international law and the United Nations Charter, while alerting about the risk of direct aggression.
The U.S. military attack on Jan. 3 confirms the prior denunciations and demonstrates that the pressure strategy against Venezuela has escalated into open criminal action.
The Venezuelan defense minister, Vladimir Padrino Lopez, made public statements following the attacks suffered by the country in the early hours of the morning by the United States. He addressed the people with the following: Heroic people of Venezuela! Soldiers of the… pic.twitter.com/XCX6EguCJk
— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) January 3, 2026
teleSUR/ JF
Source: teleSUR
From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.
1199
U.S. forces kidnapped the Venezuelan leader and are taking him to New York.
In a Saturday interview with Fox News, President Donald Trump admitted that U.S. forces entered the residence of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores.
RELATED:
Socialist Party Calls on Venezuelans to Take to the Streets
“He was in a dwelling that looked more like a fortress than a house. It had steel doors. It had what they call a safe room, with solid steel all around. He didn’t manage to close that room. He was trying to get in, but they surprised him so fast he couldn’t enter,” he said.
“We were prepared. We had, you know, huge blowtorches and everything needed to cut through that steel. But we didn’t need it. He didn’t make it to that part of the house,” the Republican leader added.
Trump also admitted that the U.S. military had planned to carry out the aggression against Venezuela “four days ago,” but the armed action was postponed due to bad weather.
Venezuelans take to the streets in rejection and protest against U.S. military aggression. pic.twitter.com/Ce12jEgBes
— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) January 3, 2026
“The weather has to be perfect. And we had perfect weather. We had, you know, a very good one. A few more clouds than we expected. It was fine. We waited four days. We were going to do it four days ago, three days ago, two days ago. And suddenly, the window opened and we said go. And I’ll tell you, it was just incredible,” he said.
Trump announced that President Maduro and his wife were taken “out of the country” after the U.S. attack, an operation that affected Caracas and the states of Miranda, La Guaira and Aragua. U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi said that they “will soon face the full force of American justice on American soil and in American courts.”
“Nicolas Maduro has been charged with narco-terrorism conspiracy, conspiracy to import cocaine, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices against the United States,” Bondi said, indicating that both the Venezuelan leader and the first lady were charged in the Southern District of New York.
The Venezuelan government issued a statement on Saturday following the first U.S. airstrike against Caracas: “This act constitutes a flagrant violation of the UN Charter, specifically its Articles 1 and 2, which enshrine respect for sovereignty, the legal equality of States, and the prohibition of the use of force. Such aggression threatens international peace and stability, particularly in Latin America and the Caribbean, and gravely endangers the lives of millions of people.”
Madelein Garcia, teleSUR correspondent, reports from La Carlota military base, one of the places that was hit by U.S. missiles in the attack they carried out against the nation in the early hours of January 3. pic.twitter.com/Mj9WKKrWJN
— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) January 3, 2026
teleSUR/ JF
Source: Fox – RT
From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.
1200
Iran condemns US attack on Venezuela as illegal aggression violating UN Charter and global sovereignty. Discover Tehran’s diplomatic stance.
Related: 5 Alarming Truths: Mexico Condemns US Military Intervention in Venezuela as UN Charter Breach
5 Reasons Iran Condemns US Attack on Venezuela as a Global Threat
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.
From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.