Latin American Publications!

This has allowed for the recovery of 422 MW in distributed generation, bringing the total to over 1,000 MW, and an additional 228 MW in centralized generation.

Furthermore, 778 MW have been synchronized with the installation of 41 photovoltaic solar parks, which are producing more than 30 percent of the country’s total generation during peak sunlight hours.

“Despite the work done, the situation of the national power system remains very complex, with an average daily deficit of 1,500 to 1,700 MW.

In recent days, the deficit has exceeded 2,000 MW, causing service disruptions 24 hours a day, exacerbating public discontent and damaging the economy,” he noted.

He also added that the deficit is mainly due to the instability of electricity generation and the lack of fuel for distributed generation, with approximately 1,000 MW of capacity unavailable for this reason.

jdt/arc/bbb

The post Cuba works on recovering the National Power Grid first appeared on Prensa Latina.

---

From Prensa Latina via This RSS Feed.

This has allowed for the recovery of 422 MW in distributed generation, bringing the total to over 1,000 MW, and an additional 228 MW in centralized generation.

Furthermore, 778 MW have been synchronized with the installation of 41 photovoltaic solar parks, which are producing more than 30 percent of the country’s total generation during peak sunlight hours.

“Despite the work done, the situation of the national power system remains very complex, with an average daily deficit of 1,500 to 1,700 MW.

In recent days, the deficit has exceeded 2,000 MW, causing service disruptions 24 hours a day, exacerbating public discontent and damaging the economy,” he noted.

He also added that the deficit is mainly due to the instability of electricity generation and the lack of fuel for distributed generation, with approximately 1,000 MW of capacity unavailable for this reason.

jdt/arc/bbb

The post Cuba works on recovering the National Power Grid first appeared on Prensa Latina.

---

From Prensa Latina via This RSS Feed.

“We are calling on our diplomatic representatives to fully embody the missions entrusted to them,” Didier emphasized.

Ambassadors and consuls are committed to defending Haiti’s image on the international stage, despite security, humanitarian, and political challenges.

At the Fourth Conference of Ambassadors held in this capital, the head of the Presidential Transitional Council, Laurent Saint-Cyr, called for collective mobilization in the face of the structural crises.

Haitian diplomats must defend the nation’s interests with determination, strong alliances, a spirit of sacrifice, and a sense of responsibility, he stressed.

The country doesn’t need spectator ambassadors, but rather committed men and women, united and focused on a common mission: restoring the confidence and dignity of the Haitian people.

He considered it important to follow up on issues such as immigration, diaspora integration, Haitian diplomatic reform, youth participation, and women’s leadership in decision-making positions.

Jean-Victor Harvel, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship, emphasized the need for a coherent and proactive diplomacy, aligned with national priorities, and insisted on strengthening mission management, improving the country’s image, and consolidating Haiti’s diplomatic presence internationally.

jdt/arm/mem/joe

The post Haiti advocates for active, strategic, and beneficial diplomacy first appeared on Prensa Latina.

---

From Prensa Latina via This RSS Feed.

President Sheinbaum opposes intervention and urges dialogue amid rising regional tensions.

On Thursday, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum expressed her willingness to convene countries from the Americas and other continents to seek a peaceful way out of any conflict in Venezuela.

RELATED:

Scientists Urge Global Scientific Community to Oppose U.S. Actions Against Venezuela

She said Mexico’s position — rooted in a historical conviction and a constitutional mandate — should be shared by South American countries even when political differences exist among governments.

“We do not agree with interventions… and we are in favor of the peaceful resolution of conflicts,” Sheinbaum said, emphasizing that the issue of President Nicolas Maduro’s government “is a separate matter.”

“The central issue is interventionism and interference,” the Mexican president reiterated, adding that the United Nations has many mechanisms to steer a peaceful solution with the participation of the parties involved.

"This is not about drugs. It's about regime change."

Bipartisan representatives in the U.S. House sought to curtail Trump's warmongering efforts against Venezuela last night by bringing the War Powers Resolution to a vote. It narrowly failed to pass 211-213, with nine members… pic.twitter.com/SalyryTrYu

— BreakThrough News (@BTnewsroom) December 18, 2025

However, Sheinbaum clarified that her government has not received any requests to lead multilateral efforts, nor has it established communication with any other government for that purpose.

The Mexican leader on Wednesday urged the United Nations to “assume its role to prevent any bloodshed and to always seek the peaceful resolution of conflicts.” Sheinbaum insisted that, on the domestic front, supporting nonintervention is a legal and political obligation.

“It would be extremely serious if the president of Mexico were to agree with any intervention, because it would even be violating the Constitution,” she said.

On Wednesday, Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yvan Gil thanked Sheinbaum for her call to the United Nations amid escalating tensions between Washington and Caracas, as the United States carries out an unprecedented military deployment in the Caribbean and and the U.S. President Donald Trump threatens to amplify the conflict to unpredictable levels.

What norms is the United States violating in the Caribbean? pic.twitter.com/3Zk9LQ3KsY

— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) December 18, 2025

teleSUR/ JF

Source: EFE

---

From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.

He was also responsible for the shooting of MIT physics professor Nuno Loureiro on Dec. 15.

On Thursday night, police in the state of Rhode Island identified the suspect in last week’s mass shooting at Brown University as 48-year-old Claudio Manuel Neves Valente, who was found dead. The suspect died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound inside a storage facility in Salem, New Hampshire.

RELATED:

Brown University Shooting: Authorities Continue Search for Gunman

According to authorities, investigators tracked Valente through surveillance footage and a vehicle, which led them to a car rental company in the U.S. state of Massachusetts.

Police obtained a copy of the car rental agreement bearing the suspect’s name, as well as video matching the appearance of the suspect on the Brown University campus on the day of the shooting.

U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts Leah B. Foley said that Valente was also responsible for the fatal shooting of Massachusetts Institute of Technology physics professor Nuno Loureiro at his home in Brookline, Massachusetts, on Dec. 15.

“There is video footage of him entering an apartment building in the location of the professor’s apartment,” Foley said.

ICYMI🚨: According to witnesses and court documents, a man who reportedly sleeps in the basement of Brown University's Barus and Holley building told police he spotted the suspect in the basement area earlier on the day of the shooting and followed him outside.

As the witness… pic.twitter.com/D0GYyutZ5k

— Officer Lew (@officer_Lew) December 19, 2025

“It is believed that in Lisbon that those two individuals attended the same university in Portugal,” Ted Docks, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Boston field office, said at a news conference.

Brown University President Christina Paxson said Valente enrolled in a Brown graduate physics program in 2000 and withdrew less than a year later. He had no current affiliation with the school.

Paxson noted that most physics classes at Brown University have been held in the Barus & Holley building, which was the site of the shooting.

Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha said Valente initially entered the United States on a student visa and was granted permanent resident status in 2017. Providence Police Chief Oscar Perez said Valente was a native of Portugal with a last known address in Miami.

#FromTheSouth News Bits | United States: In Providence, crowds gathered at a local park to honor the victims of the Brown University shooting. pic.twitter.com/1szGnvQe9T

— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) December 18, 2025

teleSUR/ JF

Source: Xinhua

---

From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.

President Diaz-Canel proposed proclaiming 2026 as the Year of Fidel Castro’s Centennial

On Thursday, Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel addressed the National Assembly and highlighted the approval of the Economic Plan, the State Budget, and the Science, Technology, and Innovation Law.

RELATED: Cuba Recovers After Hurricane Melissa Damages Over 100,000 Homes

The Cuban President affirmed that the country faces a complex crisis exacerbated by the U.S. blockade and an uncertain international context, which threatens multilateralism, international law, and global peace.

Diaz-Canel emphasized that Cuba also suffers economic aggression through the intensification of the blockade, its inclusion on the list of state sponsors of terrorism, and the sabotage of international trade and financial transactions.

The President acknowledged that 2025 was a year of great challenges, but highlighted the international support against the embargo and Cuba’s inclusion as a member of the BRICS group, which strengthened its leadership in the global South.

He also denounced the U.S. doctrine of “peace through strength,” and stated that it seeks to impose imperialist domination, seize natural resources, and threaten Venezuela with acts of war and maritime piracy.

🇨🇺 El respaldo unánime de la comunidad internacional, a pesar de las sucias gestiones, las brutales presiones del gobierno de Estados Unidos y las falacias que este difunde sobre Cuba.#cubadebate #cuba #AsambleaNacional pic.twitter.com/G7tYW8lp0f

— Cubadebate (@cubadebatecu) December 19, 2025

The text reads, “The unanimous support of the international community, despite the dirty dealings, the brutal pressures of the United States government, and the falsehoods it spreads about Cuba, is remarkable.”

The President reiterated that Cuba will not surrender and that three principles guide it: unity, continuity, and creative resistance, to confront the crisis with discipline, innovation, and active popular participation in all sectors.

Diaz-Canel emphasized the need for macroeconomic stabilization, correction of distortions, and productive growth, with accountability and concrete measures to guarantee social justice and sustainability in the Cuban economy.

The President highlighted the importance of science and innovation as engines of development, which integrates universities, businesses, and local communities to generate practical solutions in production, energy, health, and daily life.

He noted that the challenge is to transform every law and plan into tangible actions. The President proposed proclaiming 2026 as the Year of Fidel Castro’s Centennial, and urged that every task be imbued with the Commander’s spirit of solidarity and commitment to social justice.

The President of #Cuba Miguel Diaz-Canel, denounced the #US security strategy, warning that it seeks to impose its imperialist dominance and threatens regional #peace. In this regard, the president condemned the growing and provocative threats against #Venezuela, under pretexts… pic.twitter.com/EVdVrDdDZA

— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) December 19, 2025

teleSUR: JP

Source: Cubadebate

---

From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.

The country’s relationship with Cuba is a constant point of contention with the United States.

On Thursday, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum affirmed that the country’s relationship with Cuba will remain a “sovereign decision” and that it is linked to Mexican humanism. She rejected any “reconsideration” of support as suggested by the U.S. government.

RELATED: Mexico Would Never Accept Foreign Intervention, Reaffirms Sheinbaum

The Mexican President emphasized that people should not suffer the consequences of the economic, commercial, and financial blockade, and insisted that Mexico’s stance toward Cuba has been consistent since the administration of Former President Adolfo Lopez Mateos (1958-1964).

Sheinbaum recalled that Mexico was the only country that voted against the U.S. embargo on Cuba at the United Nations and the Organization of American States (OAS). She highlighted that today, numerous countries support the resolution to eliminate it.

The President noted that Mexico’s relationship with Cuba has been a constant point of contention with the United States since the Cuban 1959 Revolution, but that this should not influence the bilateral relationship between the two neighboring countries.

Mexico’s President Sheinbaum urges the UN to intervene, while Brazil’s President Lula offers to mediate, as Latin American leaders voice concern over rising US-Venezuela tensions on oil exports https://t.co/TyiEi4SaJ9 pic.twitter.com/45utatjVCJ

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) December 17, 2025

Sheinbaum emphasized that it is the Cuban citizens who directly suffer the consequences of the embargo, which has been considered the main obstacle to the island’s development for more than six decades.

Between March 2024 and February 2025, the U.S. embargo caused losses of US$7.5561 billion to Cuba, a 49% increase compared to the previous period. In the same period, the blockade generated losses of nearly US$300 million in healthcare and $496 million in energy, due to restrictions on importing fuel and spare parts.

On October 29, Cuba achieved another diplomatic victory at the UN General Assembly, with 165 votes in favor of the resolution demanding an end to the U.S. embargo.

#FromTheSouth News Bits | Mexico: The first Innova Fest 2025 has concluded, an initiative that promoted technological development with a social focus. pic.twitter.com/vZhXzACjtn

— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) December 10, 2025

teleSUR: JP

Source: La Jornada – Escambray

---

From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.

By Diego Sequera and Ernesto Cazal  –  Dec 15, 2025

The United States’ National Security Strategy 2025, published last week but dated November, is a text that transcends the imprint of a technical manual or a diplomatic wish list.

It is, rather, a political act at a turning point: the first official US document that starts, albeit in a veiled way, from the somewhat less veiled awareness of US decline as a starting point.

However, the document attempts to manage the fragments of decline, to gather them around a doctrine for hemispheric reaffirmation where its “backyard” is proclaimed as the region of its power.

The security strategy does so through a double operation: on the one hand, by redefining the rules of the game in the Western Hemisphere; on the other, by carrying out a coercive reterritorialization of the global order where the economic becomes inseparable from the strategic and where the former conceals the necessary levels of violence that cannot be expressed in writing.

According to the text, the new strategy seeks to secure what the US considers its sovereign right over the Americas in order to benefit its own interests. Within that framework, the US redefines the rules of the geopolitical game, although it does not have the necessary cards to win.

The visible currents
As has been the hallmark of the Trump years, and especially in this second chapter, the publication of the 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) combines the grandiosity of another event that is supposed to be a turning point, along with, once the uproar has passed, a scrutiny that offers its vulnerabilities, inconsistencies, and unfeasibility.

In that sense, as a historical document—which it is, including its contradictory nature—three currents visibly converge, perfectly linked to the disordered and heterogeneous character of the elite in command of the unstable empire.

Throughout the 33 pages, four parts and 16 sections coexist. They are cohesive but not without contradictions, and the following trends are revealed:

• A narcissism and exaltation that has Trump as its center and object–the “miraculous” emperor president–of the alleged turnaround;
• An anti-elitist simulation that goes beyond the MAGA spirit, reaching the new neo-conservative mutation that allows it to operate within the first noted current;
• A fundamental reformulation of a strategy with overtones clearly based on a realism that is more aware of the current limits of the US but, despite the visible modifications with the same imperialist goals, synthesized in the dominant presence of Elbridge Colby, the assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, responsible for the “renewing” elements of the new foreign perspective of the current administration.

The impression of consistency in the document fails to conceal the internal ideological contradictions.

More importantly, despite the fact that this awareness must remain unstated, the NSS is the first official document that articulates, in a sotto voce, awareness of US decline.

A combination of incurable superficiality is coupled with the anxiety to update immediate, even peremptory, lines of action to reshape the US’s place in the world as the sole and “formidable” superpower on the planet.

It is not accidental that the NSS’s first premise focuses on the drift in which the country finds itself, both internally and externally, as a consequence of the lethargy to which “the elites,” as the document ironically states (p. 1), have caused: a loss of strategic direction that is dissipating US strength and effectiveness.

The “foreign policy elites,” states the NSS, “convinced themselves that permanent world domination was to the benefit of our country.”

A miscalculation plagued the bipartisan foreign policy establishment, leading it to assume the cost of “eternal global burdens,” accentuating and making unavoidable the disconnect between that “responsibility” to the world and US “national interests.”

Along the way, the economic and commercial counterpart of this, the neoliberal free market, undermined and dismantled the middle class and the industrial base “on which the economic and military preeminence of the US depended,” continues the NSS.

Of course, the new formulation represented by the NSS is a “welcomed and necessary correction,” a power exclusive to President Trump.

This dimension, the apparent return to a nativist urgency that focuses on the vindication of the US as a republic, centers on “protecting this country, its people, its territory, its economy, and its way of life” from military dangers, threatening outsiders, and “predatory economic practices.” These dangers are summarized in the deregulation of migration and the consequent threat of invasion, particularly in the form of “narco-terrorist” infiltration within US borders: “No adversary or danger should be able to expose the US to risks” (p. 2).

For its defense, it is urgent that the US must possess the most “powerful, lethal, and technologically advanced” army to “protect our interests” and, in case of war, to win quickly without a significant human cost.

Despite admitting their mistakes, the exceptionalist dream/nightmare remains the essential basis of the US role in the world: “what we want” is the operative concept, and “what we want” operates, fundamentally, in opposition to “what we have,” even though they are sometimes mixed up.

What the US wants, according to the NSS, is the most “robust, modern, and credible” nuclear deterrent; as the foundation of US military power, “we want” the strongest, most dynamic, innovative, and advanced economy; “we want the most robust industrial base in the world”; “we want” the most robust energy sector; “we want to remain” at the forefront of science and technology; “we want” our “unrivaled soft power,” with which “positive influence” is exerted, to remain strong; and, finally, “we want” a restoration of “cultural and spiritual health” that will lead to the “new golden age.”

With this indirect admission of the state of emergency, and with the imperative of a resurgent effort, the first point of distancing is marked from what have been the ways that the empire has represented itself so far, if we take as a contrasting reference the 2022 National Security Strategy of the Biden administration, in which all of these weighted elements continued to be recognizable, unalterable, and unquestionable.

The shift, both rhetorical and operational, becomes more pronounced in the “strategic principles” (p. 5) concerning what the US “wants in and from the world” and concerning the risk, it is claimed, of ignoring the “core and vital” interests.

• That technological standards in AI, biotechnology, and quantum computing “drive the world forward”;
• The end of “endless wars” is avoided while preventing an antagonistic power from dominating oil and gas supplies in the “Middle East” along with critical transit points without having to resort to “endless wars,” an undeclared reference to Iran;
• That the ongoing damage inflicted by foreign “actors” be reversed by maintaining freedom of navigation in the “Indo-Pacific” and securing supply chains that, as with technology, are references to China and its southern sea;
• Support for US allies while reversing the state of decline in Europe and its “Western identity”;
• The most important and dramatic shift is that “we [the US] want to ensure that the Western Hemisphere remains reasonably stable and well governed enough to prevent and discourage mass migration to the US; we want a hemisphere whose governments cooperate with us against narco-terrorists, cartels, and other transnational criminal organizations; we want a hemisphere that remains free from hostile foreign incursions or ownership of key assets and that supports critical supply chains; and we want to ensure our continued access to essential strategic locations.” Thus, the Monroe Doctrine is updated with its “Trump Corollary” as a continuation of the Roosevelt Corollary, as will be seen later.

This effort must be the result of the distribution of burdens and responsibilities among “partners and allies” because the days when the US held up the world “like Atlas” are over (p. 12).

It is official, then, that the bill is not to be paid solely by Washington, and everyone has to contribute. However, this forces us to recognize, therefore, that “the fundamental political unit of the world is and will continue to be the nation-state” (p. 9).

Where, the NSS asserts, “sovereign rights” are supported, the US, acting from its own interests, will “encourage” others to do the same against the remaining institutions that must be reformed. This alludes, once again implicitly, to multilateral organizations that must be “reformed” (p. 9).

This claim, however, if we limit ourselves exclusively to the document, criticizes the dissolving vision of the borders of “globalism” with its unrestricted migration to ensure its own passage to the reindustrialization and reinvigoration of the military industrial base, the direct control of supply chains, and energy and financial dominance.

Once again, in the use of adjectives and rhetorical devices, the cracks and fissures are visible: “Preserving and growing our (financial) dominance entails leveraging our dynamic free market system and our leadership in digital finance and innovation to ensure that our markets continue to be the most dynamic, liquid, and secure while remaining the envy of the world” (p. 15).

The constant declaration of the “great shift” and an apparent relocation of efforts, an act that should embody an exercise in self-examination, recognition of one’s place, and therefore, some humility, is overlaid with a narcissism that clouds its supposed internal reform of interests and strategies.

The high-flown rhetoric that permeates the postulated principles and the strategic considerations that presuppose the “turnaround” fails to hide, precisely, the alleged Copernican shift in the US vision.

The combination of the miraculous arrival of the president-emperor, the admission of the failure of the liberal order, and the urgencies of a nuanced realism fail to synthesize that image if subjected to proper examination.

Nostalgia for grandeur leaves unaltered the essential basis which has been the continuity of hegemonic aspiration, to which is added the caveat of being at that limit which is not fully admitted, leaving intact the geopolitical hallucination of the neoconservatives, resulting in the new strategic “thinking” being an accumulation of “tactics” where the superior goal does not differ substantially from that of any previous government that has occupied the White House.

“Flexible” and imperialist realism and the alleged “great turn”
“President Trump’s foreign policy is pragmatic without being ‘pragmatist,’ realistic without being ‘realistic,’ principled without being ‘idealistic,’ muscular without being ‘militaristic,’ and moderate without being ‘pacifist.’ It is not based on traditional political ideology. It is motivated primarily by what serves the US, or, in two words: ‘America First’” (p. 8), the NSS states.

In contrast to both the 2018 and 2022 National Security Strategies, the new NSS ceases to acknowledge that the US is in an era of intense competition with other emerging global powers.

On the contrary, through euphemistic devices and effort, wherever possible, it emphatically strives not to mention the other competitors.

However, it is a recognized and public fact, the author and main force behind the document is, as mentioned, Elbridge Colby, a think tanker with a well-furnished brain and a recognized anti-China hawk.

Despite all the omissions and the apparent admissions of external threats and their internal impact, the guiding principle remains the same: the focus is claimed to be national, America First; it’s not about China, when in reality it is all about China—the only competitor that truly threatens, according to Colby, US dominance.

“In order to remain superpowered, the US may, temporarily, need to stop superpowering,” wrote The Atlantic in a recent piece about Colby.

A “consummate institutionalist” of official Washington, as the article also points out, Colby, grandson of William Colby, the former director of the CIA and creator of the Phoenix Program (the model of disappearance and extermination that plagues us to this day), is a staffer who has collaborated with different administrations and think tanks in the capital.

Colby was also one of the central authors of the 2018 National Defense Strategy, which marked a departure from continuity and recognized the rise of other powers as strategic rivals.

But in 2021, there was a turning point with the publication of his book The Strategy of Denial: American Defense in an Age of Great Power Conflict.

Following a historical review of the evolution of defense strategies, the book essentially argues that the US must prioritize, first and foremost, the rise of what it considers its only serious competitor or rival: the People’s Republic of China.

“The plain reality is that China is too powerful for the US to simply make it stop fighting; the US and any of its allies and partners therefore need to persuade it not to” (p. 185), Colby argues within the scenario of a military conflict surrounding Taiwan.

This is the central nerve of his strategy both in the book and in the NSS itself, the latter starting from the premise that the Taiwan geographically and defensively divides the island chains in the western Pacific that constitute a natural barrier between China and the western flank of the US empire.

Being unable to confront the People’s Republic directly and exclusively, lacking the economic, financial, logistical, and technological resources to do so, three pillars are needed: investment in naval and air technology, a network of allies, and denying the possibility of victory in a conflict in which the cost is greater than the benefits for Beijing.

This, in turn, implies, as has been more or less distilled so far, abandoning other “priorities” corresponding to the globalist vision in order to concentrate all efforts on these three points and a single adversary/enemy.

However, this also involves a scenario in which partners and allies are willing not only to accept part of the burden of that effort but also the human and military costs that this could entail in order to achieve a higher goal that, if successful, would ensure control of the western Pacific as a pillar of global dominance.

There is, therefore, an explicit admission that the US is not in a position or condition to achieve those goals today and, thus, is threatened.

Hence the need for a “cessation of hostilities” (pp. 25-26) in Ukraine that would reduce attention on Russia and lead it to a point of “strategic stability” (p. 27). However, this cessation of hostilities would not constitute the end of the war but a momentary pause.

To regain a hypothetical leading position in military industry and technology, time needs to be bought; and to buy time, a system of diplomatic, military, regional, and economic alliances in East Asia in particular, and in the rest of the world in general, is indispensable.

There is no other way that the US can block the ascendancy of the People’s Republic of China in terms of its political, commercial, and cooperation mechanisms throughout the planet.

Yet, the scenario in which the battle for Taiwan is fought involves a complex game of public perception, the action of meticulously functional and well-oiled alliances, along with the impact that air and naval superiority should entail.

It is Colby’s concern, he states in his book (p. 302), that the US public considers it worth “the sacrifice and risk involved” in containing a “hegemonic” state at a significant distance from its problems.

Therefore, it can be inferred that going against this idea of preeminence is comparable to a political heresy that must be persecuted; thus, it must be understood that internal dissent to this postulate is one of the main threats to national security.

Colby has publicly stated that the US is not prepared for a hypothetical World War III, and the only way to avoid it is to prepare for it.

Seen in this way, and here, perhaps, in the crazy terms of late imperialism, lies the vision and lucidity of Colby and his supporters. The texts of 2018 and 2022 assume and reveal this external threat. They operated within a vicious maximalist vision, while the new NSS claims that what is necessary is strategic sequencing or a sum of cohesive tactics to deny the expansionist continuation of China.

This explains the apparent abandonment of self-destructive Europe and the reduction of Africa and the Middle East to a network of public–private partnerships where US companies and state contracts are favored while centrally, the absolute control of the Western Hemisphere is consolidated as a power base capable of revitalizing and strengthening, through extractive control, private initiative. In this sense, multipolar states must be expelled from Latin America and the Caribbean, denying Beijing a “sphere of influence” in the region.

This expulsion must begin, of course, with the main proponent of the multipolar approach in the region: namely, Venezuela. For Washington, the American continent is no longer a neighborhood but, as mentioned before, a matter of strictly domestic politics.

Contrary to and in opposition to many traditional strategists and commentators, Colby’s vision centers on the need to reduce the over-extension of the empire as a way to revitalize the empire.

In that sense, it is a transitional and provisional text: once Washington is “recovered,” it can reclaim its former power. At this point in history, the highway of domination is counterproductive, and a major detour is needed to achieve that higher goal: the US needs to defeat China, but for now, it depends on the old road.

This constitutes imperial realism and a manifestly and internally extreme situation.

The Trump Corollary: functional sovereignty and reconfiguration of the hemispheric order
The 2025 National Security Strategy proposes a fundamental shift in what constitutes sovereignty in the Western Hemisphere, the operational core of which is the so-called “Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine” (p. 5). However, it is not limited to updating US foreign policy; it is not a mere tactical adjustment. It consists of a redefinition of the rules of the game: which decisions by other countries are acceptable and which, although legal and sovereign, are treated as threats.

Within this framework, we can consider three moments of sovereignty that are recognized by historical development and systematic application of imperial reasoning.

An early 20th-century political cartoon depicts Uncle Sam riding across the Americas while brandishing a large club inscribed “Monroe Doctrine 1824-1905.” Photo: Bettmann Archive/Getty Images.

The

The US Monroe Doctrine (formulated in 1823) explicitly recognized the sovereignty of the new Latin American states and limited itself to prohibiting European intervention in the affairs of the Hemisphere. Its logic was one of non-interference: “America for the Americans… and the Americans are free and independent.”

The Roosevelt Corollary (1904), on the other hand, introduced conditional sovereignty in the event that a country in the Americas failed to meet its international obligations; in such a scenario, the US would be obliged to exercise, at least temporarily, the functions of “international police.” Here, sovereignty could be delegated or revoked if the state did not comply with external standards: fiscal, moral, civilizational, etc.

However, the Trump Corollary does not suspend sovereignty: it redefines it from its very foundation. The question is no longer whether a state is sovereign or not but what kind of sovereignty counts as legitimate for hemispheric order.

Legitimacy no longer depends on the internal regime or compliance with international norms but on its compatibility with the US value chain.

The NSS formulates it with technical clarity and hegemonic rhetoric:

• “We will deny non-hemispheric competitors the ability to position threatening forces or other capabilities, or to own or control strategically vital assets, in our Hemisphere” (p.15).
• “The terms of our agreements, especially with those countries that depend most on us and over which we therefore have the greatest influence, must be single-source contracts for our companies” (p.19).
• “We must do everything possible to expel foreign companies that build infrastructure in the region” (p.19).

This implies that the sovereignty of others is measured by their ability not to interfere with—and preferably, to facilitate—the vital interests of the US.

It is striking (and reveals a deeper structural continuity than the rhetorical differences) that both the Roosevelt Corollary (1904) and the Trump Corollary (2025) use Venezuela as an exemplary case to justify their hemispheric doctrine.

In 1902-1903, the European naval blockade against Venezuela for non-payment of debts served Roosevelt as a casus belli to assert that the US, and only the US, had the right to intervene in the hemisphere when an “incapable” state threatened regional stability.

Today, Venezuela’s alliance with non-hemispheric actors—China, Russia, and Iran—and its resistance to integrating into the US value chain play an analogous role: its autonomous capacity makes it the perfect example of deviation from the new order to be imposed.

In both cases, Venezuela is a pretext: its existence allows the establishment of a general doctrine—that of conditional sovereignty in 1904, that of functional sovereignty in 2025—which is then applied to the entire hemisphere.

The aim is to use Venezuela as a model to redefine what counts as a legitimate order and who decides when that order has been violated.

Three structural displacements

1. From legal sovereignty to functional sovereignty.

In the Westphalian tradition, sovereignty is a status: the legitimate monopoly of coercion within a recognized territory.

In the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy, sovereignty is an operational capability: that of aligning with the infrastructure, logistics, and standards that sustain the reproduction of US capital.

A state may be fully recognized by the UN, hold elections, and have territorial control, but if it allows a Chinese company to build a port, a mine or a 5G network, its sovereignty becomes functionally illegitimate in the terms of the Corollary.

Here, the structural validity of governments within the region, conceived as a space of US preeminence, is questioned.

2. From territorial control to infrastructural control.

Classical domination was exercised over the state: invasion, occupation, regime change. Now, in a different way, functional domination is sought over the means of production of sovereignty itself: energy, logistics, data, critical minerals, technical standards.

According to the new Corollary, controlling access to refineries and oil technology (CITGO, Chevron) will be adequate; financing will be conditioned on the reversal of contracts with Russia, Iran, or China; “aid” will be offered in exchange for “single-source contracts” for US companies.

Power lies in the control of the nodes that make any government possible: energy, infrastructure, minerals, etc.

3. From sovereignty as a right to sovereignty as a coercive offer.

In the liberal and republican tradition, sovereignty is an inalienable right founded on self-determination. In the 2025 National Security Strategy, sovereignty is presented as a service offering: the US “invites” integration into a system where prosperity and stability are guaranteed provided that the conditions are accepted.

“The choice that all countries must face is whether they want to live in a US-led world of sovereign countries and free economies or in a parallel one in which they are influenced by countries on the other side of the world” (p. 18).

Is it a free choice? The answer is undoubtedly no. It is structurally incentivized and coercively framed. Sovereignty is what the US certifies as compatible with the new hemispheric order.

The Trump Corollary refuses to deny the existence of state sovereignty but frames it as the capacity for functional alignment. A sovereign state, in this order, is one that makes itself available to the US value chain through coercion via an institutional, financial, and technological design.

Exceptionalism and the Venezuelan borderline case
The Trump Corollary aims to function as an architecture of the new order, introducing a change in the framework of what is possible in the Hemisphere: what was once a sovereign decision—choosing with whom to trade, with whom to ally—now becomes a sign of risk or destabilization.

Its strength lies in making deviation unthinkable: those who deviate will be punished.

It is no longer a question of whether Venezuela can partner with China: rather, the NSS insists that if Venezuela does, it ceases to be a legitimate interlocutor, and therefore, any action against it (sanctions, isolation, military and diplomatic pressure) becomes reasonable and even necessary.

This status is analogous to the homo sacer conceptualized by the Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben: Venezuela can be sanctioned (blocked, isolated, militarily pressured) without this constituting a “violation of sovereignty” because, in the language of the Corollary, it is not exercising legitimate sovereignty. However, neither can it be integrated into the US-led order, because its very existence—autonomous, non-functional—perverts the coherence of the system.

In this structural vacuum, any measure against Venezuela becomes legitimate: sanctions, therefore, are containment measures; the financial blockade consists of a restoration of the minimum conditions of stability; and military pressure does not constitute an “aggression” but a prevention of threats.

Within the framework of the US military deployment in the Caribbean, coercive measures against Venezuela appear as technical risk-management operations. The US military has intensified naval and air patrols in waters near Venezuela under the formal label of “anti-drug operations,” with the explicit use of lethal force against civilian vessels or those involved in commercial (oil) operations and non-military logistics networks, something that the 2025 National Security Strategy authorizes as a replacement for the “exclusively police-based strategy of recent decades” (p. 16).

In this context, sanctions are presented as preventive containment measures: the “forced sale” of CITGO, for example, is justified as an impediment to strategic assets remaining under the control of a government that maintains alliances with actors described as “adversaries” in the strategy (p. 17).

The financial blockade—exclusion from the Swift finance system, prohibition of dollar transactions, etc.—is framed as a restoration of minimum conditions of stability, according to the Treasury Department’s discourse, which repeats, point by point, the NSS’s warning about the “hidden costs in espionage, cybersecurity, and debt traps” of cooperation with non-hemispheric powers (p.18).

Furthermore, military pressure is described as threat prevention based on the mandate to “deny non-hemispheric competitors the ability to control strategically vital assets” (p.15).

In this framework, all coercive action shifts from the political register to the technical one, based on a calculation of functionality.

Venezuela embodies the ultimate challenge to this doctrine: it is the extreme case. It maintains strategic alliances with China, Russia, and Iran; it controls critical resources without surrendering their management to aligned capital; and it has developed exchange mechanisms that circumvent the dollar and US value chains.

In this sense, the Trump Corollary frankly acknowledges: “Some influences will be difficult to reverse, given the political alignment between certain Latin American governments and certain foreign actors” (p.17).

Venezuela serves as a precedent, as it demonstrates that it is possible to maintain an autonomous foreign policy even under prolonged coercive pressure.

In light of the analyzed document, we can confirm that the encirclement of Venezuela seeks not only a change of government. Above all, it aims to exterminate Venezuela’s political and econimic model in favor of one of “American exceptionalism”: to prove that no country can survive outside the order of selective sovereignty established by the new doctrine. Regional change following regime change.

The Trump Corollary is a technology for producing the excludable: it introduces a new way of measuring legitimacy based on alignment with the US value chain.

The US reserves the right to decide which assets are “strategically vital”, which alliances constitute “systemic risk”, and which governments, although sovereign, should be treated as anomalies.

The real novelty is not that the US imposes its will on others—that is already known. It is that the US unilaterally decides which decisions by other countries count as legitimate, and which countries, even if sovereign, are treated as threats. This constitutes blatant imperialist extortion.

It’s the economy, dummy (again)
While the US exceptionalist policy will gain new momentum with the redefinition of sovereignty and “legitimacy” within a hemispheric order that only prioritizes the interests of power in Washington, its rhetorical approach must be understood within the context of the economic offensive that apparently interests Trump.

Thus, the document treats the Western Hemisphere as a space of strategic opportunity: a market in formation, a potential industrial base, a network of supply chains, and the closest thing to a tax haven with lax labor laws that, if governed from Washington, can drastically reduce US dependence on Asia and Europe after decades of rampant neoliberal globalization.

To achieve this, the strategy is divided into two complementary moves: recruiting partners who are already aligned and expanding influence toward those who are not yet integrated.

The text makes it clear that “trade diplomacy” is the strategic backbone of the “America First” foreign policy: “The United States will prioritize trade diplomacy to strengthen our own economy and industries, using tariffs and reciprocal trade agreements as powerful tools” (p. 16).

Thus, the NSS positions the US as the epicenter of a purported coordinated hemispheric reindustrialization: it seeks to have its partners “strengthen their national economies” because a more prosperous hemisphere becomes “an increasingly attractive market for US trade and investment.”

While the partners gain access to technology, financing, and markets, the US gains systemic resilience. The mutual benefit is not mutual but asymmetrical:

“Strengthening critical supply chains in this hemisphere will reduce dependencies and increase American economic resilience” (p. 17).

This means that minerals used in batteries, medical components, agricultural inputs, and even low-complexity chips could be produced in any Latin American country—and not in China—under US standards, patents, and contracts. Geographical proximity thus becomes a strategic advantage in terms of logistics and control.

Although the focus is economic, the Corollary does not separate trade from security: “And even as we give priority to trade diplomacy, we will work to strengthen our security partnerships, from arms sales to intelligence sharing and joint exercises” (p. 17).

The sale of fighter jets, drones, or coastal surveillance systems provides a functional anchor within a security framework. Each military contract creates technical dependence, standardizes protocols, and opens the door to civilian contracts (in energy, telecommunications, or logistics) that solidify alignment.

The second move—expansion—operates where alliances are not automatic. There, the US does not compete on a level playing field. Therefore, the NSS proposes a structurally advantageous alternative and delegitimizes its competitors due to systemic risk.

“The United States has succeeded in reducing external influence in the Western Hemisphere by demonstrating, with specificity, how many hidden costs—in espionage, cybersecurity, debt traps, and other forms—are implicit in so-called ‘low-cost’ foreign aid” (p. 18).

The US distorts the policies of multipolar actors: China does not offer south–south cooperation, claims the NSS, it offers covert dependency. Russia does not build ports; it establishes surveillance points and logistical access points. Iran does not refinance oil; it introduces uncertifiable technologies into global markets. The psychopolitical projection in this case is remarkable, with symptoms of a factitious disorder imposed on another in the field of US foreign policy.

In contrast, the US presents itself as the partner of real sovereignty: “[US] American products, services, and technologies are a much better long-term purchase because they are of higher quality and do not come with the same conditions as aid from other countries” (p. 18).

However, the new Corollary is not content with preaching: it announces the correction of its own bureaucracy in order to compete: “We will reform our own system to streamline approvals and licenses, once again, to become the partner of first choice” (p. 18).

This implies concrete decisions: reducing the terms of the International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) from 18 to 6 months, making the Millennium Challenge Corporation’s (MCC) environmental requirements for energy projects more flexible, or allowing the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) to finance “single-source” contracts with US companies, as required by the document (p. 19).

This is a coercive incentive structure: whoever chooses the “multipolar world” will be excluded from the financial, technological, and logistical systems that define contemporary prosperity.

In this context, the economy is intrinsically linked to security. It is the main stronghold of the new hemispheric hegemony, and Venezuela, due to its resistance to integrating into this US-led order, represents a political exception that must be neutralized for the model to be sustained.

Belated and retroactive vindication of the nation-state: the trade deficit
Thus, imperialist realism collapses when, while claiming to have everything under control, it conversely admits a dramatic loss of ground that forces it to relinquish a global responsibility that, by its own sustained undermining, is a mistake. All the while, it asserts that the mission persists and has only been temporarily redirected.

Apparently, “the US retains enormous assets—the world’s strongest economy and military, unsurpassed innovation, unrivaled ‘soft power,’ and a historical track record of benefiting our partners and allies—which makes it easier for us to compete successfully” (p. 19). In short, according to the NSS, the US needs to take a step back in order to recover the superiority that it claims to already possess.

“The America First brand diplomacy seeks to rebalance global trade relations. We have made it clear to our allies that the current deficit in the US accounts is unsustainable,” states the NSS, and it demands that “other prominent nations,” including Europe, Japan, Korea, Canada, and Mexico, “adopt trade policies that help rebalance the Chinese economy toward domestic consumption” because regions such as Southeast Asia, Latin America, and West Asia alone “cannot absorb the enormous surplus capacity” of the People’s Republic (p. 22).

However, the NSS also admits, pejoratively, that “The US and its allies have not yet formulated, much less implemented, a joint plan for the so-called ‘Global South’” (p. 22), but it still intends to assume that leading role, notwithstanding the new definitions of “sovereignty” and “nation-state” reviewed so far.

But for Emmanuel Todd, whose aim has not failed him so far, a trade deficit, whether of the US or of a western European country, entails the possibility of being able to say definitively that “in the West, the nation-state does not exist” (The Defeat of the West, p. 15).

As Todd argues: “A systematic deficit renders the concept of the nation-state obsolete, since the territorial entity in question can only survive by receiving a tax or a privilege from abroad, without any counterpart” (p. 16).

It is a structure that, in order to function, needs a middle class that acts as the “center of gravity” and “nervous system” of a minimally homogeneous nation under certain parameters.

The NSS acknowledges the need, as seen, to rebuild the middle class given the oligarchic fragmentation caused by the sustained unrestricted movement of capital from the bottom up due to accumulation by dispossession, which also leads to fierce competition among the elite.

This characteristic, deeply investigated by numerous economists, is a sign of crisis, which for Todd signifies national disintegration. Recent US employment reports are far from encouraging, and alongside all this, a technological and cloud-based oligarchy, driven by finance and the speculative economy, is extensively assuming control throughout the US federal government apparatus.

Through this filter, a document that, while claiming to represent the middle class, appeals to this same corporate constellation, that of the “tech bros,” to collaborate in surveillance tasks begins, algorithmically, by monitoring and controlling the domestic population itself, precisely that middle class that this administration claims to defend (p. 21).

Whether in its adjustment of global vision or in its local dimension, of all the races it aspires to run, the empire should be careful about which of these two it will lose first, even more so when the mechanistic logic with which it outlines its strategy prevents its planners from calculating the reactions and consequences of this readjustment.

Hegemony as the administration of decline
The announcement of a disciplined management of the retreat draws its impetus from the urgency: the certainty that the US can no longer simultaneously sustain financial globalization, military interventionism, and the multilateral consensus it built after 1945.

Faced with this impossibility, the document proposes a radical solution: to retreat in order to rearm. It rejects any kind of abandonment of hegemony and instead seeks to relocate it. The Western Hemisphere is the laboratory for this operation.

Here, it is not seeking to restore the imperial ruins of past decades. It is proposing something strategically new: a functional order with symptoms of geopolitical rheumatism.

In this sense, Venezuela is the mirror in which the US sees itself reflected: a state that insists on deciding its own destiny even when the cost is isolation, financial sanctions, and constant military pressure. Venezuela’s persistence poses an unusual and extraordinary threat to the US narrative of inevitability.

Therefore, the blockade and piracy have their imperialist justification as long as Venezuela remains the precedent of an alternative possibility. However, at the heart of this logic lies a lethal paradox: the more the US demands that others be “functional,” the more evident its own dysfunction becomes.

The US economy is burdened by unsustainable deficits. Its middle class, on which its internal stability depends, is decimated. Its political cohesion is fractured by a technocratic oligarchy that governs through algorithms and investment funds, and its “America First” rhetoric reveals, at its core, a deep insecurity: it is the voice of those who fear losing control without realizing that the power to govern has been decentralized outside of their “backyard.”

The future of the hemisphere will not be decided in the Pacific but in the politics that now appear disguised as technical management and incentive coercion—where the most decisive battle of the century is being fought for the new definitions of power.

In the vast expanse of this arena, which can be considered civilizational, as long as Venezuela continues to exist—not as a power, but as a possibility—the functional order of the declining empire will not be complete, for it heralds a world in which everything is yet to be written.

(Misión Verdad )

Translation: Orinoco Tribune

OT/JRE/SL

---

From Orinoco Tribune – News and opinion pieces about Venezuela and beyond via This RSS Feed.

Trump accuses Canada of imposing tariffs of 400% on U.S. dairy products.

On Thursday, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney revealed that the United States raised dozens of issues in trade talks with Canada and Mexico. Each country has “several matters on the table” toward the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) of 2026.

RELATED:

Canada To Recruit World-Leading Researchers

Despite Washington’s negotiations, Canada will not accept the elimination or reduction of protections for the dairy sector, he said and defended the regulated production system, which has been in place for 50 years and is recognized by the USMCA.

The regulated production system limits tariff-free imports of U.S. dairy products to 3.5% of the total demand. President Donald Trump criticizes it and accuses Canada of imposing tariffs of 400% on U.S. dairy products.

Meanwhile, Carney acknowledged that sectoral agreements to reduce tariffs imposed by Washington on Canadian steel, aluminum, and energy are unlikely, which continues to strain bilateral relations.

🚨BREAKING

A new OECD report states that Canada subsidizes/distorts its milk price by 28%

The world is going to crush us for this. pic.twitter.com/RjgaB2f2b3

— Tablesalt 🇨🇦🇺🇸 (@Tablesalt13) November 3, 2025

The Canadian primer minister indicated that the list of trade demands presented by Washington is only part of what will be discussed in the renegotiation of the USMCA in 2026, where “everything” will be included in negotiations.

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer presented Washington’s negotiating priorities for the USMCA to Congress, which included eliminating the Canadian management system and protectionist measures in the culture and media sectors.

In October, Canada and the United States were close to an agreement on steel exports, which are subject to a 50% tariff. However, a critical Canadian advertisement on tariffs, broadcast on U.S. television, provoked Trump to suspend the negotiations.

#FromTheSouth News Bits | The Presidents of the United States, Canada, and Mexico held a private meeting after the 2026 World Cup draw, reaffirming their commitment to collaborate on trade issues amid increasing regional tensions. pic.twitter.com/OP547xgUFH

— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) December 9, 2025

teleSUR: JP

Source: EFE

---

From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.

Caracas (OrinocoTribune.com)—On Wednesday, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro responded forcefully to Donald Trump’s veiled declaration of war. The president of the US regime, in a recent rant, announced a complete blockade of oil tankers bound to and from Venezuela and claimed that Venezuela had stolen “oil, land, and other assets” from the United States. Many analysts and outlets viewed the tirade as a virtual declaration of war against Venezuela.

“The truth has been revealed,” Maduro said. These recent US actions and statements serve to demonstrate that the US narrative attempting to establish that the US military presence in the Caribbean Sea aimed to combat drug cartels or the Tren de Aragua gang has completely unraveled.

“They are attempting a regime change in Venezuela to impose a puppet government that wouldn’t last 47 hours, a government that would hand over the Constitution, sovereignty, and all the wealth, and turn Venezuela into a colony,” President Maduro stated at a televised meeting in Caracas commemorating the anniversary of Simón Bolívar’s death.

“It is simply a warmongering and colonialist claim; we have said so enough, and now everyone sees the truth,” said the Venezuelan head of state.

Regarding the announced naval blockade, President Maduro stated that “Venezuela will continue to trade all its products… trade will continue, both to and from Venezuela, of our oil and all our natural resources.” The attempted US blockade, noted President Maduro, violates international law “because it is illegal according to the Charter of the United Nations and all international agreements to attempt to impede free maritime trade on the seas and oceans of the world.”

Among numerous baseless accusations, Trump told reporters Wednesday that Venezuela had illegally seized “energy rights” and that the United States wanted them back. “We’re taking back land, oil rights, whatever we had,” said Trump. “They took it from us because we had a president who maybe wasn’t paying attention. But they’re not going to do that. We want it back. They took our oil rights. We had a lot of oil there. As you know, they kicked our companies out, and we want it back.”

Holding the Venezuelan Constitution, President Maduro responded forcefully:  it is “a time for human civilization, a time of respect for international law, and Venezuela will ensure its rights are respected with force, truth, and a love for peace. We are acting within our law, and we will defend this Constitution and our people by all necessary means.”

A call to the people of Colombia
President Maduro also called for unity between Colombia and Venezuela so that “no one dares to touch the sovereignty of our countries and in order to exercise Bolívar’s dictate of permanent union and shared happiness.”

He reiterated that despite efforts to divide the two nations of Colombia and Venezuela, they remain vigilant and unified. Under the leadership of Simón Bolívar, the key figure in the liberation of much of the Americas from Spanish colonial rule, Venezuela and Colombia were united from 1819-1831 in the Republic of Gran Colombia. Gran Colombia also included mainland Ecuador, Panama, and parts of northern Peru and northwestern Brazil.

“The greatest guarantee of peace and stability is unity,” said President Maduro. “That is why today I make a Gran Colombian call to the ordinary people of Colombia, to its social movements, political forces, and its military. I call upon them for perfect unity with Venezuela.”

He reaffirmed his “deep love” for the ordinary people of Colombia, their social movements, political forces, and the military, whom he said he “knows very well.”

Controversially, Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro called Maduro a “dictator” Thursday in a social media post. He was replying to a post by CNN journalist Patricia Janiot questioning him for labeling Chilean President-elect Jose Kast a fascist.

“Maduro is a ‘dictator’ for concentrating powers; there is no evidence in Colombia that he is a ‘narco.’ That is a US narrative,” wrote Petro. “Kast is the son and believer of the Nazis. He belongs to the German generation that escaped from Germany not to save themselves from Hitler but to save themselves from Hitler’s defeat, which is very, very different.”

Many analysts see this as part of Petro’s attempt to ease tensions with the United States, which has also threatened action against Colombia for allegedly being a narco-terrorist state. These analysts claim that President Petro is trying to please a US government whom they describe as delusional. These analysts also note that the US will never abandon its attempt to destroy any progressive project in what it considers its “backyard.”

New extrajudicial execution
Also on Thursday, the US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) reported a new strike against a small boat in Eastern Caribbean waters, killing four civilians under the controversial US Operation Southern Spear.

To date, 99 unidentified civilians have been killed by the US military in actions labeled by some US legal and military experts and by the United Nations as extrajudicial executions and war crimes.

Venezuela Strongly Condemns US Threat of Blockade, Gains International Backing

According to research carried out independently by Orinoco Tribune, this latest execution is the 26th since September 2, and the number of civilians killed in the Eastern Pacific has now surpassed those killed in the Caribbean Sea. A total of 51 civilians have been killed in the Eastern Pacific (52% of the total), while 48 have been killed in the Caribbean Sea (48%).

This data supports claims by Venezuela and international organizations that the Caribbean Sea operation is unjustified if the real goal is a “war on drugs,” as more than 80% of the cocaine produced in Peru, Bolivia, and Colombia is transported via the Pacific Ocean to the United States. A total of 15 strikes have been executed in the Eastern Pacific compared to 11 in the Caribbean Sea.

Special for Orinoco Tribune by staff

OT/JRE/SL

---

From Orinoco Tribune – News and opinion pieces about Venezuela and beyond via This RSS Feed.

The European Union (EU) vote on the Mercosur trade agreement, scheduled for Friday, has been delayed until early January. The postponement follows opposition from France and Italy, which has prevented the formation of a qualified majority needed for the deal’s approval.

---

President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen confirmed during a dinner of European leaders dedicated to geoeconomics and competitiveness that the pact will not be signed in Brazil this weekend, as originally planned.

RELATED: European Farmers Rally in Brussels Against EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement

This decision responds, in particular, to a request from the Italian Government, which requires more time to analyze the content of the agreement in the face of internal pressure from its agricultural sector.

The EU has been negotiating an agreement with the Mercosur countries for 25 years. If the agreement now falls through because of 200g of beef per European citizen in relation to a 35% tariff reduction, the EU will lose credibility, raw materials, and access to markets. pic.twitter.com/urXWdyamt4

— Johann Sollgruber (@JohanSollgruber) December 17, 2025

Italia’s Agenda

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni informed Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva on Thursday that she is “willing” to sign the pact “as soon as the necessary responses are provided to the farmers” and requested “a few days” to finalize her official position.

For its part, the Brazilian government, which currently holds the pro tempore presidency of Mercosur, firmly warned about the consequences of a new delay.

On Wednesday, President Lula stated that if the agreement was not signed on Saturday, December 20, “there will be no more agreement,” at least while he remains in charge of the country.

Nevertheless, diplomatic sources indicated that MERCOSUR would consider a postponement until January “acceptable”, provided the signing is finalized within that timeframe.

VIDEO: 🇪🇺 🇧🇪 'No to Mercosur': Farmers, police clash in Brussels during protest against trade deal

Hundreds of tractors clogged the streets of Brussels on Thursday as European farmers protested against EU plans for a trade deal with South American bloc Mercosur pic.twitter.com/orgtaz4a38

— AFP News Agency (@AFP) December 18, 2025

EU and Mercosur Relationship

In this context, Uruguayan Foreign Minister Mario Lubetkin emphasized that the European Union needs the agreement as much as MERCOSUR and noted that, so far, they have not received formal communication from Brussels about the cancellation of the event. “I believe they will ultimately find the formula that allows them to finalize the agreement”, he considers.

Furthermore, Lubetkin reflected on the need to modernize MERCOSUR in the face of new global challenges: “We cannot maintain a MERCOSUR with commercial parameters from many years ago… it is clear that we lack answers regarding what it should be like. What is also clear is that no one wants to leave MERCOSUR .”

---

From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.

Speaking at the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly, on the occasion of the International Day against Colonialism, the Venezuelan diplomat remembered the pronouncements made by US President Donald Trump on December 16.

He noted that on that day Trump announced to the world that “Venezuelan lands and oil belong to him and must be handed over immediately,” because if his orders are not obeyed, the most powerful navy in history will impose a naval and air blockade on Venezuela.

Moncada stated that with this declaration, there is no legal instrument that can stand against this “monstrous declaration.”

In this regard, he cited the UN Charter, customary international law, Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, the jurisprudence of international courts, and the German Convention.

The ambassador stated, “This is a grotesque violation of all civilizational norms, and that is colonialism, a crime of aggression.”

He asserted that the United States is imposing chaos and destruction on international relations “in the same way that malign actors did prior to World War II.” He reaffirmed that gunboat diplomacy has no place in the 21st century.

jdt/arc/jcd

The post Venezuela says Trump wants to turn back the clock 200 years first appeared on Prensa Latina.

---

From Prensa Latina via This RSS Feed.

The province, which hosts more than 20 percent of Cuban beaches, shows a sustained recovery of foreign visitors, highlighting the notable presence of Russian travelers and the expectation for new flows.

The infrastructure is being prepared in conjunction with the Ignacio Agramonte International Airport, which will resume direct commercial operations from December, crucial for tourists to step directly into the territory.

Specialized training is a pillar: the Formatur School annually graduates about 125 professionals in cooking, reception and gastronomy, with 62 percent of teachers master and based at the beach poles.

The strategy includes a strong command of languages and a diploma in administration for young people, ensuring the service standards demanded by international tourism.

In investments, the Cubanacan chain operates five hotels with foreign brands such as Resonant and Sanctuary, after investments of more than 300 million pesos since 2024.

The reopening of the Hotel Costa Blanca in Santa Lucía and the reactivation of 35 percent of the Tararaco hotel plant, consolidating this pole of sun and beach.

The province extends its offer beyond the sun and beach, integrating city tourism -with its World Heritage Historic Center-, rural and events.

Science and innovation projects such as the sustainable tourism product “Blue Client” and the transition to renewable energy matrices set the standard.

The territorial delegation of Tourism works with the University of Camagüey to exploit the potential, identifying estates for new product designs.

With this comprehensive strategy, Camagüey consolidates its profile as a diverse destination, prepared for a high season that prioritizes quality and international insertion.

abo/mem/fam

The post Tourism in Cuba focuses on Camagüey first appeared on Prensa Latina.

---

From Prensa Latina via This RSS Feed.

By Maria Páez Victor  –  Dec 16, 2025

“Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro described the detention of an oil tanker seized by US military personnel in the Caribbean Sea on Wednesday as an act of piracy” (Orinoco Tribune, 12 Dec. 2025)

Trump, the president of the most capitalist nation on Earth, has dealt a blow to the very system upon which his country – and indeed most of the West – considers the bedrock of the economy. A blow that not even the most revolutionary person today would have foretold or thought to achieve. He has trashed the notion of private property and outright stolen a full oil tanker in international waters, like modern pirates, and kidnapped its crew. 

Since September, mighty US navy warships obliterated with military missiles 22 small outboard motorboats mostly in the Caribbean and some in the Pacific, killing at least 87 people. They were unidentified, unarmed, and there was no evidence of drugs. One boat’s two survivors, clinging to the wreckage for an hour, were not picked up but obliterated by a second missile later. These killings were all extra-judicial, therefore illegal as there was no due process, no chance of defence, no courts, no judges, no adherence to US laws or international laws, no respect of human rights or for age-old norms of seafaring rescue. Trump and his buffoonish “secretary of war” were judge and executioner. In other words, it was a premeditated murder.  By the precedent set at the Nuremberg trials, all who follow illegal orders to murder are also guilty of murder: an individual carrying out illegal instructions on behalf of a superior is not absolved of responsibility under international law.

The killings have been denounced by most Caribbean and Latin American countries, progressive NGOs worldwide, solidarity movements and most non-aligned countries including Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, the BRICS, China, Russia, Iran, Turkey, and the United Nations. France and the UK have spoken out, but only lukewarm nods have come from Canada and the EU. However, human rights experts and international law experts invariably have pronounced that these were extrajudicial, unlawful killings. 

But Wall Street remained unperturbed by the murder of seamen and fishermen.  The markets were not affected in any real way: murder in the high seas is “not their department”. 

Nor have the markets been affected in any significant way by the hybrid war against Venezuela these past years: the sabotages, the mercenary invasions, the cyberattacks, the exclusion from the international financial system, the UK theft of Venezuelan gold,  the theft of all Venezuelan foreign assets including its oil company CITGO, and the sanctions impeding the production and sale of oil by Venezuela restricting its ability to import food and medicines. Venezuela was not even allowed to acquire Covid-19 vaccines during the pandemic. The list of actions designed to impoverish and destabilize Venezuela goes on. It includes assassination attempts on Venezuelan leaders, the promotion and recognition of a false president, and the death of more than 100,000 Venezuelans due to the 1,000+ illegal, unilateral, brutal economic sanctions. The economic cost to the country is staggering: $232,000 millions to the petroleum sector and $642,000 million to the non-petroleum sector. 

None of these appalling imposed sufferings of Venezuelans seemed to impress in any meaningful way geopolitics or world markets. After all, what importance did a Latin American country like Venezuela have in the broad scheme of international geopolitics and economy? It all seemed to be confined in a sort-of private “quarrel” between the US and Venezuela.

Not so the robbery of a full oil tanker in international waters on December 10, 2025. 

After the news got out – with a handy PR video of the assault to demonstrate just how “tough” the US is – oil prices climbed immediately. Brent crude futures rose 0.4% to $62.21 a barrel, and US West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude futures also gained 0.4% to close at $58.46 per barrel on the same day. Oil is very affected by supply issues and by restricting the supply of oil from Venezuela, the price of oil and price of gasoline can rise. 

But that price fluctuation is minor compared with the long-term risks which Washington has visited upon international shipping, especially its safety and security and that of its cargo.  Trump has said that he will seize even more tankers, increasing the already heightened insecurity and uncertainty. Will oil tankers now-on have to be heavily armed to deliver their cargo and protect their crew? The oil in that seized tanker was prepaid, so Venezuela has not lost the income from it, but since, in all likelihood, the oil’s final destination was China, Trump has stolen from China. This puts the seizure of the tanker and its cargo on a totally different scale of importance geopolitically with China as the victim. 

There is more. The enormity of the US assault on a commercial, civilian oil tanker that was carrying out non-military private business in international waters, is an uncommon blow to the cornerstone of the capitalist system on which the entire economy of the West relies: that is: private property. By committing such an impudent and openly publicized assault on a private, unarmed, oil tanker, the US Navy has committed – without a doubt – an act of piracy. The Venezuelan minister of defense has said, “It is a crude, rude act of cowardly thievery to appropriate resources that do not belong to you.” And cowardly it was, as we all saw the video in which marines armed to the teeth quickly grabbed unarmed seamen. 

It is worse than the piracy of old because in this case it is state-sponsored piracy. It is a grab at another country’s natural resources, as the US is obsessed with Venezuela because it has the largest proven oil reserves on the planet, and to do so it endeavours to turn its government into a lackey puppet that will do the bidding of the US and its oil corporations. The US does not want to buy Venezuelan oil, it wants to own it, as Trump openly declared in 2023. Therefore, it wants to bring down its present government and install a vassal state. No other nation save Russia, has received so many sanctions as Venezuela, and for twenty years the CIA attacks to undermine the government have not ceased. The sanctions have, however, failed, so now Washington has turned to the military “option”: to take Venezuela by force.

The United States of America is now a piratical country: an abuser of its own domestic laws and international laws. It is a lie that they took possession of the oil tanker because it was “violating sanctions”, when said sanctions are in themselves illegal and invalid. They are unilateral US instruments of harassment and interference in the sovereign affairs of other nations, not backed by the United Nations Charter, and the UN is the only mechanism to impose legal sanctions on a nation. The tanker assault also violates the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the UN Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation and is demonstrably contrary to the Geneva Convention. 

This armed robbery at sea was also condemned by the Non-Aligned Movement that comprises 121 countries, and which also condemned the US’s attempt to completely close Venezuela’s sovereign airspace which the US has no right to do. The US is undermining the Proclamation of Latin America the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace. 

A main concern, however, is the geopolitical risk of stealing the tanker. The US has trashed the one undisputed principle of capitalism: that private property is sacrosanct. This theft, unlike murder, instantly affected markets as the assault put in peril international shipping, the international laws and protocols surrounding it, and the protection of private property. If the US can do this, so can any other nation with the military force to carry it out. Might is right in this new order that the cruelty of the Trump administration is trying to enforce upon our civilization. 

Of course, Venezuelans have reacted in disgust, as recent polls show 96% of the population condemn the attack. But as well, there has been international condemnation from the Caribbean nations, China, Iran, Colombia, Mexico, Brazil, and Cuba. China has pointed out how this assault created “instability in global energy markets and undermined international economic security”. China and Russia have been solid defenders of Venezuela’s right to self-determination and have shown their solidarity by helping with Venezuela’s defence. This is no small thing, putting Venezuela’s sovereignty in the middle of geopolitical concerns. because the US clearly and outspokenly, seeks to curtail any involvement of China or Russia in Latin America. 

Venezuela Mounts Full-State Rejection to Trump’s Blockade Threat, Gains International Backing

We must put all this in context. The war of Washington against Venezuela is not just about that country, but against all of Latin America and the Caribbean which the US insists is their back yard’ – with Canada thrown into the bargain. 

The new US National Security Strategy has been described as “the Monroe Doctrine on steroids” (The Hill, 15 Dec. 2025) The new Strategy is a brazen, shameful bravado of a bully that attempts to exert its will by force upon sovereign nations. It states: “After years of neglect, the United States will reassert and enforce the Monroe Doctrine to restore American pre-eminence in the Western Hemisphere, and to protect our homeland and our access to key geographies throughout the region. We will deny non-Hemispheric competitors the ability to position forces or other threatening capabilities, or to own or control strategically vital assets, in our Hemisphere.” 

Trump has openly said: “You have to dominate. If you don’t dominate, you’re wasting your time.” Trump is ready to revive the belief that any problem can be solved by military force, even when other tools exist. He promises to use its “military system superior to any country in the world” to steal the hemisphere’s resources.” (V. Prashad, Counterpunch, 15 Dec. 2025)

The question of private property has long been debated in political science and philosophic discourse particularly, by men such as Proudhon, Fourier, Saint Simon, and Marx.   Proudhon famously said: “Property is theft”. Karl Marx refined the concept by pointing out that it is the private property of the means of production that is a sort of theft, one that basically acts to estrange people from people, and indeed from nature itself.  In other words, capitalism alienates people from one another and revolutionary movements throughout the world are concerned with the issue of private property and ownership of the means of production. The forceful theft of a commercial oil tanker in the high seas is indeed, by capitalist standards, a violation of private property and it is the seizure of a particular substance that is crucial to the means of production that are key to industrial activity. It has already increased the volatility of oil markets and oil transportation by this blow on navigational security. So private property is now a relative notion according to Trump, subject to the whims of the most powerful.

Trump has a new take on private property (or perhaps it is as old as the caveman with a club in his hand?): if we need it or want it and you have it, we will use our military strength to take it from you but you cannot take anything from us. And to gild the lily, the new, “improved” Monroe Doctrine proclaims to the world that Washington now says it owns the Hemisphere.

So, who will put the bell on the cat? How can Trump and his entourage be stopped?  He must be stopped by the combined effect of good people, inside and outside the US,  and courageous nations that are willing to stand up to a mendacious, murderous, thieving government, no matter how powerful. One must not cower before military technology but cast awareness to those who misuse it.

• First, it is necessary that their legitimacy be widely questioned and unrecognized at every instance. The US has no right outside its own frontiers to interfere, harass and in any way influence the sovereignty of other nations. Other nations should not follow US illegal sanctions. It has no jurisdiction outside its own frontiers. As Human Rights Watch advocates, other countries should push back on lawless executions at sea as world order and peace depends on countries speaking out against violations, even when they’re committed by powerful friends.
• Secondly, the prevailing international laws must be strengthened especially in terms of penalties to be applied if violated. Laws are useless unless they are enforced. The US must be sanctioned legitimately, multilaterally, by the United Nations.   Washington should be fined, sanctions, or at least all nations should refuse to buy military equipment from it. Its outrageous murderous acts and larceny should be enough to ban it from international organizations upholding international laws. The US should be shunned at every venue for its state-run piracy that includes murders.
• Thirdly, in view of its unparallelled military resources, the US has become, more than any other nation, a threat to world peace and security. Accordingly, it should be required to forfeit its place in the UN Security Council.
• Fourth, the countries of the world should increase their trading in other currencies rather than the dollar and ignore any illegal, unilateral sanctions the US tries to impose on commerce. Freedom of navigation and freedom to trade with whomever a nation wishes should prevail.

The Trump regime is fueled by narcissistic pride: hubris.  

And the ancient Greeks told us clearly that hubris ends badly.

In the 19th Century Venezuela led the way to freedom from an unjust empire. Today, in the 21st century again it is showing the way to defeat imperialism with its serene determination, its military/civil union, its communal councils, its strong network of allies in solidarity, and its fierce defence of its own sovereignty. It will prevail again. Bolívar was a greater mind and man than Monroe ever was. 

MPV/OT

---

From Orinoco Tribune – News and opinion pieces about Venezuela and beyond via This RSS Feed.

Argentina’s Supreme Court of Justice has rejected appeals from former President Cristina Ferna dendez de Kirchner (CFK) regarding the electronic ankle monitor imposed on her and a severely restrictive visiting regime at her residence.

---

CFK’s legal team, Carlos Alberto Beraldi and Ary Llernovoy, had argued that the ankle bracelet was superfluous given that, as a former president, she is under constant guard by the Federal Police, eliminating any flight risk. This, alongside her high public profile, made the measure unnecessary, they contended.

RELATED: Police Repress Pensioner Protest Outside Argentina’s Congress Amid Crucial Budget Debate

Similarly, the justices declined to review the appeal against a unique visiting regimen imposed on CFK, which requires her to seek judicial authorization for visits—a condition not applied to any other person under house arrest in the country. Visits are currently limited to twice a week, for two hours, with a maximum of three people at a time.

Cristina’s Political Persecution

The restrictive measures originate from Judge Jorge Gorini, head of Criminal Enforcement, who recently reaffirmed the conditions. This followed media attention generated in November when CFK received a visit from a group of eleven young economists who presented an alternative economic plan to that of Milei’s far-right administration.

After a photo of the meeting circulated, Judge Gorini issued the ruling limiting visits, beyond those from lawyers, doctors, and family, which do not require authorization.

En el Día del Militante, recibimos en San José 1111 a un grupo de economistas que en representación de más de 80 profesionales me entregaron y presentaron consideraciones y propuestas sobre un modelo económico nacional de crecimiento productivo y federal para el siglo XXI.

Todos… pic.twitter.com/l1AvAjadNI

— Cristina Kirchner (@CFKArgentina) November 17, 2025

The defense and CFK’s supporters argue that these judicial measures are part of a political persecution aimed at cracking down on the opposition. They point to a judicial, media, and political offensive—aligned with the Milei–Macri alliance—that seeks to isolate the former President and obstruct her contacts with her supporters.

This critic is fueled by statements from President Javier Milei, who has twice boasted about having “put Cristina in prison.” Additionally, the unusual pace of the Supreme Court’s original ruling in December 2022—signed in just six weeks, compared to typical year-long delays—has been cited by her lawyers as evidence of irregular judicial pressure.

---

From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.

Moscow cautions that U.S. military action could have unpredictable consequences across Western Hemisphere.

On Thursday, Russia urged U.S. President Donald Trump not to make a “fatal mistake” in Venezuela and warned of the unpredictable consequences for the Western Hemisphere that direct military action against the country could entail.

RELATED:

Venezuelan Interior Minister Accuses U.S. of Plot to Seize Resources, Citing Trump

Over the past three months, the Trump administration has repeatedly threatened the possibility of carrying out military operations on Venezuelan territory, supposedly to fight international drug trafficking.

The government of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, however, has denounced that the true objective of the current U.S. military deployment in the Caribbean is to carry out a “regime change” to facilitate the appropriation of the vast natural resources of the Bolivarian nation.

Despite the illegal actions taken by the #US against Venezuela's oil and mineral trade, #Venezuela will continue to trade its natural resources #legally, says Venezuelan President #NicolasMaduro. pic.twitter.com/0nZJ5tKckR

— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) December 18, 2025

In a context characterized by Washington’s military threats, Russia’s Foreign Ministry warned of the geopolitical consequences of U.S. actions in the following statement:

“We note that tensions around our friendly country of Venezuela continue to be deliberately and consistently exacerbated. The unilateral nature of decisions that threaten international navigation is of particular concern.

We hope that the administration of Donald Trump, which is characterized by a reasonable and pragmatic approach, will not commit a fatal error and will not fall into a situation that could lead to unpredictable consequences for the entire Western hemisphere.

We urge avoiding ideological narrow-mindedness, which constrains the understanding of what is happening. Today, the words of Simon Bolivar, the distinguished son of Latin America, remain relevant: every people has the right to choose its government, and other nations have a duty to respect that choice.

We consistently advocate normalizing dialogue between Washington and Caracas. We are convinced that measures are needed to reduce tensions and to find ways to resolve existing problems and disagreements in a constructive manner and in compliance with international legal norms.

Latin America and the Caribbean should remain a ‘Zone of Peace’ that guarantees stable and independent development for the countries of the region.

We reaffirm our solidarity with the Venezuelan people in the face of the trials they are enduring. We reaffirm our support for the policies of President Nicolas Maduro’s administration, which seeks to defend national interests and the sovereignty of the homeland.”

The #US president declares a naval #blockade on oil exports from #Venezuela. The announcement has been rejected by the Venezuelan government and other countries. pic.twitter.com/NnHTidZU8U

— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) December 18, 2025

teleSUR/ JF

Source: MID

---

From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.

This article by Gloria López originally appeared in the December 13, 2025 edition of El Sol de México.

In Milpa Alta, buying and selling are done in the old-fashioned way. There are no Oxxos, no Walmart, Soriana, Chedraui, or any department stores. The absence of retail chains is no coincidence; it’s the living imprint of a territory still governed by the land, memory, and community assembly.

According to a map prepared by geographer Mercedes Sánchez Plascencia and residents of the Milpa Alta community, there is a peculiarity that distinguishes it from the rest of the capital: it is the only borough that does not have any chain of department stores.

Its 12 villages, its communal identity and its land use, where 90 percent is communal or ejido land , have managed to keep it out of something that in any other part of the capital seems inevitable.

Milpa Alta retains what the rest of the city has lost: an economy built on community and the idea that prosperity doesn’t mean displacing your neighbour.

Alondra Aristeo Garibay, a member of the board of directors of the Benito Juárez Market in Milpa Alta, also originally from San Pedro Atocpan, explains it with the clarity of someone who grew up within a community tradition.

“We are an agrarian community made up of Indigenous peoples. Decisions are made in communal assemblies, especially when it comes to our land or our way of life. That is why we do not accept transnational chains ,” she said.

She explained that the way in which the inhabitants and locals conduct themselves is through communal assemblies where decisions are made, mainly to ensure that their lands, traditions and way of life are respected.

Photo: Roberto Hernández/El Sol de México

“The form of struggle and resistance is for our community, our town, and our people. So that is the main reason, in addition to the fact that we have the advantage that our land is communal, so that gives us a certain position and right to decide over our land,” she emphasized.

The reason is simple: their local economy isn’t squeezed out by large department store chains. The community protects its local businesses, grows its own food, sells it, and consumes it.

For Alondra, Milpa Alta retains what the rest of the city has lost: an economy built on community and the idea that prosperity doesn’t mean displacing your neighbor. She observes what’s happening outside the district: empty markets, dwindling street markets, and small businesses struggling to survive. Here, on the other hand, the flow never stops.

Photo: Roberto Hernández/El Sol de México

“Look at this market, there are always people. And what is earned here is reinvested right here. We spend here, we consume here, we work here. It is our form of resistance,” she emphasized.

The young woman has been working in local commerce for four years, but her connection to it runs deeper. She studied sociology at UNAM. Her academic background gave her the tools to understand her community.

“My family has always been merchants or workers. I have family members who work the land, growing corn and prickly pear cactus; and others who are involved in business. Thanks to them, we have been able to maintain a good standard of living through our local economy,” she added.

Locals recall recent meetings to prevent the establishment of shops and services that did not respect community rules. A DHL (parcel delivery service) managed to set up shop, but only after lengthy negotiations and under an unusual condition for a global company: participating in traditional festivals and understanding community life.

In Milpa Alta, it’s common to see entire streets lined with shops that meet the needs of the local population without belonging to the large chains or brands seen in other boroughs. / Photo: Roberto Hernández/El Sol de México

“Let them know what it means to be here,” say the neighbours.

The communities know this; they recognize that they don’t need a store. “We don’t need an Oxxo,” “There’s a store on every corner, we don’t affect each other,” say the local residents.

A few aisles away, Judith Cabello Mendoza, 67, smiles when asked about the absence of chain stores.

“We grow red corn and make mole properly, the way it should be done. I buy my meat, my free-range eggs, and my nopales here. Everything I need is here or at the collection point,” she says while holding a bag full of corn on the cob and squash.

For her, the entry of large supermarkets would be an irreparable loss.

“If those stores come in, they’ll take away our sales. And we wouldn’t eat as well anymore. What we grow and make would be displaced. In the city, tortillas taste awful; here we still cook with epazote,” she says, laughing.

Judith acknowledges that some services are necessary: ​​“For example, DHL. I sometimes send mole, and otherwise I’d have to go all the way to Xochimilco. There are things that help, but a supermarket doesn’t. That would be unfair competition.”

For her, what’s being defended isn’t nostalgia, but a way of life that works. “If those shops come in, they’ll push us out. And we’ve lived well, eaten well, and worked well here all our lives.”

Most of the food sold in stores, shops, and markets is made with produce from local farmers / Photo: Roberto Hernández/El Sol de México

Ernesto Escandón, a local vendor who has been selling pancita for fifteen years, acknowledges that the preservation of his land has been inherited from his parents and rooted in the customs and traditions of Milpa Alta.

“Here we are very rooted in traditions. This municipality is self-sustaining. Nopal is a very important source of income, but the market is the main one. And that comes from our families, from how they taught us to work, to trade, to support ourselves and to defend the land,” he said.

In his voice there is a mixture of pride and firmness. He states it clearly: “We are very protective of the land because we love it. When a commercial store comes in, that’s a drain on our economy. We don’t need it.”

But more than an opinion, Ernesto describes a community mechanism that functions as an early warning system.

“There’s a lot of communication here. When we hear a rumor that they want to bring in a store or an Oxxo, we all get worried. We protect ourselves. We ask what’s going on. And automatically, people unite,” he added.

He has worked in this market for fifteen years and has no doubt that they can continue to maintain the trade in the area.

Guadalupe Chavira de la Rosa, a senator from Milpa Alta, recalled her time as head of the delegation in the district during the period 2000-2003, where nothing is transformed without consultation and without going through the communal or ejido authority.

That’s why, when people ask why there aren’t any Oxxo stores, the answer becomes clear: businesses need commercial space, and here, land allocation is decided by the community assembly. This filter prevents what in other places arrives without question.

“To change land use, it must first go through the recognition of its inhabitants ,” she explained.

Merchants and shoppers have organized themselves to offer only essential services such as banks and shipping services, helping them to continue generating local economic activity without affecting competition. / Photo: Roberto Hernández/El Sol de México

In an interview with El Sol de México, she emphasized that the inhabitants of Milpa Alta not only preserve their water forests, but also their way of relating to the world. “We are a community of customs , of strength, of identity, of a worldview that has prevailed for centuries.”

She emphasized that although chains have tried, their economies don’t need franchises, since San Pedro Atocpan produces mole that is sold throughout Mexico City; Villa Milpa Alta processes meat and sausages; and the mountain villages maintain their own value chains. More than three thousand nopal producers supply markets throughout the capital. Neighborhood stores and open-air markets are not only sufficient: they sustain the community.

“It’s a local economy that guarantees economic development without displacing anyone,” Chavira insists. Therefore, the arrival of a franchise wouldn’t just be a change of scenery; it would break a production chain built over generations.

The arrival of a franchise wouldn’t just be a change of scenery; it would break a production chain built over generations.

She emphasized that this struggle of the inhabitants will remain for a long time since it has been shown to be a form of coexistence that does not violate and disrupt their community, so it is an example that could be replicated in all the municipalities, where development is generated without displacing its inhabitants and without breaking the social fabric.

She recalled that even “charitable” donations from large business owners have been rejected. When a proposal was made to build an educational center funded by a private company, the local population refused. “They saw it as a threat. And so did I. We don’t need a donation from any company to justify an interest in our forests.”

The Senator emphasized that in a capital city where gentrification is rampant and convenience stores are popping up faster than the flowers of dawn, Milpa Alta maintains a different order. One where community life matters more than immediacy, where land cannot be bought, where language, music, and writing remain a living heritage, where an Oxxo is not a symbol of progress but of threat.

Some merchants say they rarely go to the Central de Abasto or other distribution centers far from their communities because many of their products are produced or distributed directly in their towns / Photo: Roberto Hernández/El Sol de México

---

• 

  News Briefs

  Milpa Alta, The Mexico City Borough with No Retail Chains

  December 18, 2025

  An oasis without predatory transnational chains, where 90% of land is communally owned, and decisions are made in communal assemblies.

• 

  Mañanera

  People’s Mañanera December 18

  December 18, 2025December 18, 2025

  President Sheinbaum’s daily press conference, with comments on repatriation program, consular protection, remittances, and opposing US intervention.

• 

  Analysis

  Towards a Revolution of Consciousness in 4th Transformation Diplomacy

  December 18, 2025

  The pending task is to build a revolutionary international diplomacy that breaks with neoliberal inertia, imperialist interference, and is far from silent obedience to organizations captured by private interests, and the reproduction of a geopolitics based on dispossession, lies, and the systemic violence of transnational capital.

The post Milpa Alta, The Mexico City Borough with No Retail Chains appeared first on Mexico Solidarity Media.

---

From Mexico Solidarity Media via This RSS Feed.

PM Meloni hopes for European Commission measures to address farmers’ concerns.

On Thursday, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni insisted that her administration is willing to sign the free trade agreement between the European Union (EU) and the Southern Common Market (Mercosur), depending on decisions by the European Commission.

RELATED:

European Farmers Rally in Brussels Against EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement

“The Italian government is ready to sign the agreement as soon as the necessary responses are provided to farmers, which depend on the decisions of the European Commission and can be defined within a short time frame,” the Italian government’s press office said in a statement.

Meloni expressed this position during a phone call with Brazilian President Lula da Silva, who said the Italian prime minister asked him for “a few days” to determine whether she would support signing the agreement.

According to Lula, the Italian leader reiterated that she “does not oppose” the agreement but said she faces “political problems with farmers” in her country. Meloni nevertheless said she was “capable” of convincing them to support the pact with Mercosur, a bloc made up of Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay, with Bolivia in the process of joining.

#BREAKING: European farmers want to break into EU headquarters.#Europe #farmers_protest
pic.twitter.com/E3dtkuhqau

— U R B A N S E C R E T S 🤫 (@stiwari1510) December 18, 2025

On Wednesday, Meloni had already said it was “premature” for Italy to sign the EU-Mercosur free trade agreement and that it would be necessary to wait until additional measures to protect the agricultural sector are finalized.

Speaking before the Chamber of Deputies, the prime minister said the agreement could be beneficial for her country, but stressed that “the Italian government has always been clear that it must benefit all sectors and that, therefore, it is necessary to address, in particular, the concerns of farmers.”

The EU-Mercosur free trade agreement, which has been under negotiation for more than 25 years, is at a crucial stage, with signing scheduled for Saturday in Brazil, although uncertainty remains due to doubts raised by key countries such as France and Italy.

#FromTheSouth News Bits | Argentina: At the recent MERCOSUR Summit in Buenos Aires, President Javier Milei officially handed over the bloc’s pro-tempore presidency to Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. pic.twitter.com/diO82VREjB

— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) July 7, 2025

teleSUR/ JF

Source: EFE

---

From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.

Nicaragua’s ambassador to the United Nations (UN), Jaime Hermida, honored all the peoples who won their freedom and sovereignty in the battle against colonialism and condemned the current expansionist aggressions of the United States in Latin America, particularly its military and political threats against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

RELATED:

Samuel Moncada: “Gunboat diplomacy has no place in the 21st century”

During a UN session commemorating the International Day Against Colonialism in All Its Forms and Manifestations, the Nicaraguan representative rejected any foreign intervention in the region and emphasized that Latin America is a zone of peace. “We will not back down in the face of any attempt at recolonization,” he declared.

He reiterated Nicaragua’s solidarity with nations living under foreign domination. He denounced the continued existence of seven non-self-governing territories and other peoples who cannot enjoy their inalienable right to freedom, self-determination, and independence, such as Puerto Rico, Palestine, Western Sahara, and others who are victims of “oppressive colonialism.” The struggle continues and victory is certain, he emphasized, echoing the historic slogan of the People’s Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA).

He denounced the persistence and mutation of colonial vestiges into new forms of neocolonialism, employing sanctions, destabilization campaigns, exceptionalist policies, and arrogant and sham security measures.

He made it clear that the purpose of these political maneuvers is to dominate peoples and seize their resources, in direct attack on the Charter of the United Nations and international law.

Hermida also condemned the imposition of unilateral restrictive measures by the United States and its satellite nations, which constitute a gross violation of the rights of peoples and have adverse impacts on health, food security, and other areas.

---

From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.

Referring to this goal, Cuban Prime Minister Manuel Marrero stated that agricultural production is recovering, although it remains far from meeting the population’s demand.

He also affirmed that all regions of the country are meeting the indicators for urban, suburban, and family agriculture, and that more than 30,000 family gardens or plots and 40,000 organic gardens have been incorporated into this sector.

He further noted progress in contracting various production methods for next year and pointed out that the process of preparing food balances at the municipal level has shown improvements, although shortcomings persist.

Regarding payment delays to producers, he stated that they amount to approximately 1.192 billion pesos, figures that have decreased but are still high.

Furthermore, he noted that, in order to incentivate the import of raw materials and intermediate goods, the extension of deadlines for existing bonuses and exemptions was approved, and 100 new tariff classifications were incorporated.

“Given the existing complexities, it is essential to understand that the safest foods we will have are those we ourselves are able to produce ,” he emphasized.

jdt/arc/bbb

The post Cuban Parliament analyzes measures to increase production first appeared on Prensa Latina.

---

From Prensa Latina via This RSS Feed.

The National Council unanimously approved a resolution condemning Trump’s statements.

On Thursday, the President of the National Assembly of Venezuela, Jorge Rodriguez, presided over representatives from more than 30 sectors at the National Council for Sovereignty and Peace, in response to Donald Trump’s threats against Venezuelan natural resources.

RELATED: Venezuela Extends Russian Oil Joint Ventures Through 2041

Rodriguez asserted that the external aggression perpetrated by the U.S. seeks to control oil, rare earth elements, and water, as well as to annihilate Venezuelan identity, which he compared to hate speech toward Jewish people in the 1930s.

The President of the Assembly noted that Venezuela desires peace based on freedom and sovereignty, not the peace of the submissive. He remarked on the virtues of courage and rebellion that do not serve the imperial hegemon.

The National Council unanimously approved a resolution condemning Trump’s statements and reaffirming its commitment to the Constitution and the defense of the resources and rights of the Venezuelan people.

The most insane part about watching the U.S. steal an oil tanker from Venezuela is those of us who oppose this act of war are labeled “terrorists” to mask the truth: The U.S. empire that has spent the last 80 years waging war against the world to steal resources is the terrorist. pic.twitter.com/u1x43MPfB3

— Power to the People ☭🕊 (@ProudSocialist) December 11, 2025

Parliament Vice-President Pedro Infante emphasized the need to activate all capabilities in unity and constitutional clarity to defend the homeland. Meanwhile, Democratic Opposition leader Claudio Fermin denounced U.S. attempts to expropriate and confiscate national assets.

Center for Latin American Studies President Pedro Calzadilla expressed confidence that the people will triumph as they “did 200 years ago”. Reynaldo Quintero, President of the Venezuelan Association of Small and Medium Oil Industries, also called for collective action to protect the nation’s natural resources.

Deputy Nicolas Ernesto Guerra insisted on uniting national strength in favor of peace and dialogue and transforming popular indignation into productive energy to move forward as “heirs” of free peoples.

The Secretary General of the Council of #Sovereignty and #Peace, Jorge Rodriguez, denounced the #US aggression against #Venezuela, which seeks to seize its resources and destroy the identity of its people. pic.twitter.com/Gh3Lct3UFE

— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) December 19, 2025

teleSUR: JP

Source: teleSUR

---

From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.

This Wednesday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer warned that the US Senate will take action against any unauthorized aggression against Venezuela, in response to recent statements by President Donald Trump.

“Donald Trump does not have the authority to carry out his current plans to use military force in the Caribbean without congressional authorization. If he acts without congressional authorization, the Senate will advance a bipartisan resolution to prevent the unauthorized use of force,” Schumer stated on his Twitter account.

RELATED:

Schumer Threatens ‘War Powers Vote’ to Block U.S. Military Action in Venezuela

The warning comes after Trump’s announcement on Tuesday, in which he declared the Venezuelan government a “foreign terrorist organization” and ordered a total embargo on all sanctioned oil tankers destined for or originating from Venezuela. The president justified the measure by claiming that Caracas is withholding “oil, land, and assets that belong to the US,” which, according to him, “must be returned.”

Tensions between the US and Venezuela have escalated in recent weeks due to the Pentagon’s sustained deployment in the region, which includes the USS Gerald Ford, the world’s largest aircraft carrier. Although Washington justifies its military presence in the Caribbean under the pretext of combating drug trafficking, Trump had already asserted in November that “Maduro’s days are numbered,” though he later clarified that he had no plans to declare war.

Democratic members of Congress in the US reject the military blockade order against Venezuela

Democratic lawmakers in the United States expressed open rejection of President Donald Trump’s order to move toward a military and naval blockade against Venezuela, warning that it is a military escalation aimed at forcing regime change and seizing Venezuelan energy resources.

Deeply alarming. Donald Trump is preparing for a regime change war in Venezuela—a war that the American people don’t want and that Congress hasn’t authorized.

This is reckless and criminal. https://t.co/2mpoUdHo9I

— Congresswoman Yassamin Ansari (@RepYassAnsari) December 17, 2025

Congresswoman Yassamin Ansari called the initiative “deeply alarming” and maintained that this is a war that “the American people do not want and that Congress has not authorized.”

Similarly, Senator Chris Van Hollen denounced the narrative of combating drug trafficking as a pretext, and pointed out that the true objective of the offensive against Caracas is “to seize Venezuela’s oil and gas reserves for the benefit of Trump’s billionaire allies.”

“This has nothing to do with stopping drug trafficking,” Van Hollen emphasized. The criticism comes amid growing internal erosion of the Trump administration’s economic and trade policies, damaging unity not only in Congress but also within the Republican Party itself. This is further fueling distrust in the current administration.

Health care costs are soaring. Housing costs are soaring. Grocery costs are soaring.

NO. We do not need Trump to take us into an illegal and unconstitutional war with Venezuela to deflect attention away from the crises our country faces.

What happened to “America First?”

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) December 13, 2025

For several legislators, the escalation against Venezuela also serves as a distraction from domestic economic difficulties, while simultaneously opening the door to a military confrontation without legislative approval, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

As the U.S. administration intensifies its pressure on Venezuela, politicians, citizens, and activists in the United States warn that a war in the Caribbean would not only be illegal but also politically costly and morally indefensible. They caution that the conflict could escalate uncontrollably, affecting both the region and the interests of the American people.

---

From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.

In a statement published Wednesday morning by Wikileaks, its founder, Julian Assange, announced that he had filed a criminal complaint in Sweden accusing 30 people associated with the Nobel Foundation, including its directors, of “committing serious suspected crimes, including the crime of misappropriation of funds, facilitation of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and financing the crime of aggression” following the awarding of the so-called Nobel Peace Prize to the Venezuelan right winger María Corina Machado.

The complaint, filed simultaneously with the Swedish Economic Crime Authority (Ekobrottsmyndigheten) and the Swedish War Crimes Unit (Krigsbrottsenheten), alleges that the suspects, including Nobel Foundation chair Astrid Söderbergh Widding and executive director Hanna Stjärne, turned “an instrument of peace into an instrument of war.”

In the statement published on Wikileaks, Assange argues that Maria Corina Machado’s past and present actions categorically exclude her from the criteria set out in Alfred Nobel’s will, which explicitly states that the peace prize should be awarded to the individual who during the previous year “has conferred the greatest benefit to mankind.”

On the contrary, Assange argues that “Machado’s incitement of the largest US military reinforcement since the Iraq War makes her categorically ineligible” for the prize. Machado has been front and center in calling for the overthrow of Venezuela’s democratically elected government by any means necessary, including violence, for the better part of three decades.

The Wikileaks statement notes that the Nobel announcement and ceremony took place amid what military analysts describe as “the largest US military deployment in the Caribbean since the Cuban Missile Crisis,” which now exceeds 15,000 troops, including the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford.

The escalation continues as President Trump announced on December 10 (two days after the Nobel ceremony) that US attacks would begin on land. The strategy for Venezuela is part of what Trump’s Secretary of War, Peter Hegseth, calls a shift toward “maximum lethality, not lukewarm legality” and toward “going on the offensive.”

Machado has incited the Trump administration to war against VenezuelaIn the text, Assange claims that “Machado has continued to urge the Trump administration to continue on its path of escalation” and has gone as far as promising the US administration access to US $1.7 trillion in oil reserves and other natural resources through the privatization of the oil industry once Maduro is overthrown.

“Using her elevated position as a Nobel Peace Prize winner, Machado may well have tipped the balance in favor of war, facilitated by the suspects named,” Assange states in the criminal complaint, which includes recent quotes from Machado that, in his view, incite war against Venezuela:

• December 15, 2025, Machado on CBS’s Face the Nation: “I say this from Oslo right now: I have dedicated this award to President Trump because I believe he has finally put Venezuela where it belongs, as a priority for US national security.”
• October 30, 2025, interview with Bloomberg: “Military escalation may be the only way out… The United States may need to intervene directly.”
• October 17, 2025, call to Benjamin Netanyahu about Israel’s conduct in Gaza: “The Nobel Peace Prize winner told the Prime Minister that she greatly appreciates his decisions and decisive actions during the war.”
• October 2025, interview with Fox News: Machado referred to US military strikes on civilian ships, which have killed at least 95 people to date, as “justified” and “visionary.”
• October 5, 2025, interview in The Sunday Times on the increase in US troops and extrajudicial attacks on civilian vessels: Trump’s attacks are “visionary… I fully support his strategy.”
• February 2025, interview with Donald Trump Jr.: “We are going to drive the government out of the oil sector… American companies are going to make a lot of money… Forget Saudi Arabia, we have more oil.”
• February 9, 2019, interview with El País: Maduro will only leave “in the face of a real threat from a more powerful state,” she claimed.
• February 25, 2014, testimony before the US Congress: “The only path left is the use of force.”

They point out in the text that the Nobel Foundation is guilty of “facilitating war crimes, including the crime of aggression and crimes against humanity, in violation of Sweden’s obligations under Article 25 (3) (c) of the Rome Statute, because the defendants are aware of Machado’s incitement and support for the carrying out of international crimes by the United States and knew or should have known that the disbursement of Nobel money (11 million kronor) would contribute to extrajudicial executions of civilians and shipwrecked persons at sea and are failing to comply with their obligation to cease disbursements.”

In the text, Assange requests the immediate freezing of the monetary prize of 11 million Swedish kronor (equivalent to about US $1.2 million) and any remaining related budget; guarantees of the return of the medal, investigation of the named individuals, officials of the Foundation, and associated entities for breach of trust, facilitation of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and conspiracy; seizure of board minutes, emails, group chats, and financial records; questioning of Widding, Stjärne, and other Nobel Prize board members as suspects in the case; and thorough investigation at the national level or referral of the matter to the International Criminal Court.

A post on the social media network X by Wikileaks includes a screenshot of the message posted last night by Donald Trump, on his social media network Truth, announcing a naval blockade against “sanctioned” oil tankers entering or leaving Venezuela.

Venezuela Strongly Condemns US Threat of Blockade, Gains International Backing

About Julian Assange
Julian Assange is an Australian programmer, journalist, and cyberactivist known worldwide as the founder and spokesperson for WikiLeaks, an organization that publishes leaks of classified government and military documents.

WikiLeaks, founded in 2006, gained international fame in 2010 after publishing thousands of classified US documents leaked by former US soldier Chelsea Manning. Among the most notorious materials is the video Collateral Murder, which shows an attack from a US helicopter in Baghdad in 2007 in which civilians and journalists were killed in cold blood.

For 14 years, Assange was subjected to judicial persecution at the hands of the US and its vassals, which forced him to seek asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Under the government of Lenin Moreno, Ecuador withdrew his asylum, and he was arrested by British police and threatened with extradition to the United States, where he could have faced the death penalty for publishing the classified documents.

In June 2024, Assange reached an agreement with the US Department of Justice and was sentenced to time served (the five years he had already spent in British prison). Following the agreement, he was released, and he returned to Australia.

(Alba Ciudad)

SL

---

From Orinoco Tribune – News and opinion pieces about Venezuela and beyond via This RSS Feed.

It included major maintenance of 120 cabins and the replacement of 5,000 meters of communication cable.

On Thursday, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro highlighted the comprehensive rehabilitation of the Mariche Metrocable as a feat of Venezuelan engineering and the people’s will to guarantee a future of peace and justice.

RELATED: President Maduro: We Oppose All Forms of Colonialism

President Maduro affirmed that Venezuela has learned to overcome obstacles with creativity and innovation, demonstrating strength in the face of difficulties imposed by external factors. He reiterated that no external measure can stop the Venezuelan people’s determination to maintain their sovereignty.

The President visited the facilities of the Mariche Metrocable System in the Sucre municipality of Miranda state and verified its operation as a mass transit system that benefits more than 130,000 residents.

The restoration work included major maintenance of 120 cabins, replacement of 5,000 meters of communication cable, and the installation of 5,000 meters of fiber optic cable. The auxiliary motor was also reactivated, and the main electric drive motors were restored, which guarantees safe operations.

The Ministry of Popular Power for Transportation developed the project in conjunction with the “Together Everything is Possible” Corporation, with the support of community organizations and communal councils.

President Maduro also announced the 2025-2026 Communal Rice Plan, which encompasses 4,000 hectares under cultivation, reaffirms the commitment to the 14 productive sectors, and the continuity of national production.

#ENVIVO | El presidente de Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro: En 1958 se aprueba el primer tratado internacional, firmado por todos los gobiernos del mundo, así que es obligación de todos los gobiernos del mundo calificar la piratería como grave crimen en alta mar y castigarla… pic.twitter.com/idqv0jtQJV

— teleSUR TV (@teleSURtv) December 18, 2025

The text reads, “In 1958, the First International Treaty was approved, signed by all the governments of the world, so it is the obligation of all the governments of the world to classify piracy as a serious crime on the high seas and punish it severely.”

The President remarked that recognition “belongs to patriots,” who are those who fight alongside the people and defend their ideals unwaveringly in the face of any adversity. He maintained that Venezuela has earned international respect for defending its freedom and advancing steadily toward peace.

He declared that “doubt is treason” when defending land, mineral wealth, and sovereignty. The President asserted that International Law condemns acts of maritime aggression as a grave crime, recalling the 1958 agreements and the 1982 treaties against piracy.

President Maduro denounced the seizure of the Zkipper oil tanker by the United States as a serious crime under international law and treaties. He affirmed that, despite aggressions, Venezuela will continue to position its products in the global market and defend the national economy.

He also announced the nationwide distribution of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, so that the people are informed of the inalienable rights that guarantee the defense of their nation.

#FromTheSouth News Bits | Venezuela: The State oil company PDVSA denounced a cyberattack against its systems, assuring that its core operations remain unaffected. pic.twitter.com/07XLBc7OWi

— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) December 18, 2025

teleSUR: JP

Source: VTV – Radio Miraflores

---

From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.

The National Assembly of People’s Power of the Republic of Cuba issued a statement strongly condemning “the recent act of piracy and maritime terrorism carried out by the United States government in international waters of the Caribbean Sea” on December 10, when US military forces attacked an oil tanker near the Venezuelan coast.

RELATED:

Cuba Rejects EU Extension of Sanctions Against Venezuela

In the statement, Cuban deputies reject the imposition of a “so-called naval blockade against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,” a measure that, according to the text, “constitutes a very serious violation of International Law and the Charter of the United Nations,” as well as representing a direct threat to regional peace.

The #US president declares a naval #blockade on oil exports from #Venezuela. The announcement has been rejected by the Venezuelan government and other countries. pic.twitter.com/NnHTidZU8U

— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) December 18, 2025

The statement emphasizes that these actions are part of an “escalation of aggression by the United States government against the sister Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,” within the framework of a military deployment that, according to Havana, is “disproportionate and unjustified” and jeopardizes the stability of the Caribbean.

The document also states that the assault on the vessel, the seizure of its cargo, and the pretexts used to obstruct Venezuelan oil trade demonstrate “Washington’s true objective: to seize control of its immense natural resources.”

For Cuba, this strategy is part of the so-called “new National Security Strategy” of the United States and what it describes as the “Trump Corollary,” which reaffirms the nefarious Monroe Doctrine.

🔴🇨🇺Cuba respalda al Gobierno de Maduro frente al bloqueo naval de EEUU🇺🇸

🔹El presidente de Cuba, Miguel Díaz-Canel, ha repudiado el “bloqueo naval” impuesto por EE.UU. contra Venezuela🇻🇪 y expresado apoyo al Gobierno del país bolivariano.

🔗https://t.co/l5YOaEksH2 pic.twitter.com/H4zh4QdMbR

— HispanTV (@Nexo_Latino) December 17, 2025

The Cuban National Assembly emphasizes that the reported acts flagrantly violate the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, setting a “very negative precedent for free international trade and freedom of navigation between sovereign nations.”

Recalling that Latin America and the Caribbean was proclaimed a “Zone of Peace” at the Second CELAC Summit held in Havana in 2014, the Cuban Parliament urges the peoples and parliaments of the world to “firmly condemn this escalation of aggression against the Bolivarian nation” and to mobilize against “these practices of modern piracy.”

---

From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.