Latin American Publications!

At the closing of a working breakfast at Ateneo de Madrid, Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares pointed out that if Denmark requests assistance as a NATO member, the European Union (EU) could respond positively.

“If there are currently elements or situations around Greenland or in the Arctic that could jeopardize Atlantic security, I am sure we could all analyze it, and if security needs to be reinforced, it would be,” Albares stated.

Clarifying that European security is not adequately protected, he affirmed that Spain and its European allies would be willing to “analyze it, study it, and strengthen it.”

On another note, as with the case of Ukraine, the Spanish Foreign Minister advocated for launching a “coalition of volunteers” with a view to advancing European integration and the common defense project.

“Europe has to stop talking and start acting and make it clear that it will have a seat at the table with the major powers,” he opined, referring to the case of Venezuela and other threatened countries. No mention of the US or US President Donald Trump.

jdt/arm/mem/ft

The post Spain suggests strengthening European security in Greenland first appeared on Prensa Latina.

---

From Prensa Latina via This RSS Feed.

“The most difficult situation persists in some districts of Kyiv and on the left bank of the Kyiv region, particularly in the Boryspil district (east of the international airport) and Brovari district (northeast),” Sviridenko wrote on her Telegram channel.

Last Friday, authorities in the capital reported that the eastern bank of Kyiv was partially without power.

As a result, restrictions were imposed on metro service, and electric buses were used instead. Subsequently, heating supply problems were reported in nine districts of the city.

Water supply interruptions were also reported on both the eastern bank and the Pechersky district due to power outages at water infrastructure facilities.

jdt/arm/mem/gfa

The post Ukrainian government admits severe energy crisis in Kyiv first appeared on Prensa Latina.

---

From Prensa Latina via This RSS Feed.

The collective response has been one of firmness, serenity, and determination to preserve peace, raise their voices for the release of President Nicolas Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores, and defend the constitutional order, which “is a guarantee of protection and social justice for our people,” she stated.

In a message on her Telegram account, the president expressed that “our strength comes from the struggles of those who never surrendered and is sustained by loyalty to a sovereign, inclusive, and humane national project.”

The keys to victory are unity, fortitude, and perseverance in the defense of national dignity, she affirmed.

He emphasized that, together, “we must move forward to consolidate economic stability, social justice, and the welfare state in which all Venezuelans of good will deserve to live.” jdt/arm/mem/jcd

The post President praises unity and historical awareness of Venezuelans first appeared on Prensa Latina.

---

From Prensa Latina via This RSS Feed.

This was announced by the Chairperson of the AU Commission, Mahmoud Ali Youssouf, at the opening of the 51st Ordinary Session of the Committee of Permanent Representatives, an event that will continue until January 30 and marks the beginning of preparations for the 39th Summit of the continental organization, to be held from February 14 to 16.

Youssouf emphasized that Africa will have the honor of hosting the 32nd United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP32) in 2027, to be held in Ethiopia.

In that regard, he said that the host country, the United Nations, and the African Union are working to prepare for the major event.

Reflecting on the organization’s upcoming summit, he acknowledged the difficult context and the limited progress on peace and security.

“Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, Libya, and the Sahel— the challenges continue. A new unconstitutional change has been added to the list: Madagascar, and Benin narrowly escaped it,” he emphasized.

On this issue, he reported that the Commission is working with the available resources to provide appropriate solutions through the actions of its commissioners, special envoys, panels of experts, and himself.

jdt/arm/mem/nmr

The post African Union designates water as the theme of the year 2026 first appeared on Prensa Latina.

---

From Prensa Latina via This RSS Feed.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt explained in a statement that the discovery warranted further investigation and caused the presidential motorcade to change its usual route.

She said that during inspections at the airport terminal, “the United States Secret Service discovered a suspicious object.

Further investigation was deemed necessary, and the presidential motorcade’s route was modified accordingly,” she emphasized, according to ABC News.

jdt/jav/ro/dfm

The post “Suspicious object” before Trump’s motorcade passes first appeared on Prensa Latina.

---

From Prensa Latina via This RSS Feed.

Kanto is located in the eastern part of Honshu, Japan’s largest island, and includes Tokyo and its surrounding areas.

Ensuring the safety of residents was one of the priorities set by the Prime Minister after she expressed her solidarity with those forced to evacuate amid the extreme cold, as well as with the Japanese living in fear due to the threat of the fires.

Following government directives, the Self-Defense Forces are assisting in firefighting efforts, and an office has been established to centralize information regarding the fires.

BThe first fire broke out on January 8 in the city of Yamanashi, where winds are hampering the work of firefighters.

Approximately 74 hectares have already burned, and authorities have had to evacuate some 77 homes. Another fire broke out yesterday in Gunma and, although it remains confined to a mountainous area without houses, it also required military support to contain it.

jdt/jav/ro/msm

The post Japanese government strengthens efforts to contain forest fires first appeared on Prensa Latina.

---

From Prensa Latina via This RSS Feed.

Minister Pedro Sanchez explained that the process will be carried out through direct contracting exclusively with companies backed by their respective governments, and will prioritize the highest technical, legal, and economic standards.

“We are firmly committed to technology transfer and knowledge development that will allow us to move toward true strategic autonomy,” the minister stated on his social media account. He also explained that the bidding process will be overseen by the Ministry of Defense’s Transparency Group and a company specializing in government contracting, and will be based on at least a dozen fundamental criteria.

It is noteworthy that the dialogue between the different offers will be conducted with the Drones and Anti-Drones team, while ensuring the updating of the software and the training and qualification of instructors for both the operation and maintenance of the equipment, as well as the transfer of technology.

jdt/jav/ro/ifs

The post Colombian government to tender National Anti-Drone Shield Project first appeared on Prensa Latina.

---

From Prensa Latina via This RSS Feed.

From the Manuel Galich Room, renowned experts will share their experiences on “Imperialist Aggression Against Venezuela, the Role of Law, and the Latin American and Caribbean Region as a Zone of Peace.”

Participants include Pavel Aleman, Master of Science and researcher at the Faculty of History and Philosophy of the University of Havana; PhD. Celeste Pino, Vice President of the Cuban Society of International Law, of the National Union of Jurists of Cuba (UNJC).

Also PhD. Yuri Perez, President of the Cuban Society of Constitutional Law of the UNJC; and writer and historian Ernesto Limia, a law graduate and member of the Union of Writers and Artists of Cuba (UNEAC).

The meeting will address the complex scenario facing the Bolivarian nation and the world today, a situation that has generated rejection from the international community, artists, and intellectuals committed to just causes.

In this regard, the president of Casa de las Americas, Abel Prieto, stated exclusively to Prensa Latina that the events of January 3rd have “set a very serious precedent in terms of the imposition of the law of the strongest and total disregard for the norms of civilized coexistence among nations.”

jdt/jav/ro/amr

The post Cuba: Intellectuals to analyze the imperialist attack on Venezuela first appeared on Prensa Latina.

---

From Prensa Latina via This RSS Feed.

This article by Andrea Becerril originally appeared in the January 12, 2026 edition of La Jornada, Mexico’s premier left wing daily newspaper.

Mexico needs union leaders who understand the national and global landscape and the importance of international solidarity in order to unify strategies for fighting and defending common interests, or else there is a latent risk that they will try to eliminate these unions, warned the national leader of Los Mineros, Napoleón Gómez Urrutia.

In an interview, he detailed the results of his four-month working tour of Latin American and European nations “to position Mexico in global debates on labour, democracy and social justice,” and insisted that in the new geopolitical context, international worker solidarity is vital.

“This is something that those of us who lead unions in the country must reflect on: labour rights are no longer defined solely in national congresses, but also in international forums, in union networks and in globalized political spaces.”

To embark on this journey through Brazil, Spain, England, and France, he requested an indefinite leave of absence as a federal deputy for Morena, “but these were not months of rest, but rather of intense strategic work, of international dialogue to build labor alliances against models that harm workers.”

Gómez Urrutia added that in each country he shared recent achievements, such as wage recovery and union democracy resulting from progressive labor reforms promoted by the governments of the Fourth Transformation.

Latin America must act as a bloc

The leader commented that in Sao Paulo, Brazil, he participated in the Regional Meeting of IndustriALL Global Union, one of the most important industrial trade union federations in the world, where the defense of industrial employment was analyzed, the impact of automation was discussed, and the need for Latin America to act as a bloc to raise labor standards and avoid competition through low wages was reaffirmed.

Similarly, he met with members of the Metalworkers Union of ABC, one of the continent’s most emblematic organizations, of which the current president of Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, was once general secretary. They discussed the importance of union leadership with a political vision, capable of transcending mere union concerns, as well as the defense of jobs against large transnational corporations.

Once in Europe, the first stop was Spain, where he met with high-level officials, including the Second Vice President and Minister of Labor, Yolanda Díaz, with members of parliament from the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE), as well as with the Secretary General of the General Union of Workers (UGT), Pepe Álvarez, with whom he agreed that 21st-century trade unionism must compete for political power.

Napoleón Gómez Urrutia with Jean Pascal of Confédération Générale du Travail in France.

With France’s most combative trade union federation, the Confédération Générale du Travail, “we agreed that trade unionism must defend the welfare state,” while in London, England, he held meetings with political, academic and economic actors, where it was reaffirmed that trade unionism must be present in these spaces and he debated the limits of progressive parties when they move away from workers’ demands.

Gómez Urrutia stressed that during that tour from September to December of last year, he attended to express invitations from trade union organizations and returned “with greater clarity and a clearer vision of where the labor agenda should go.”

In that regard, “I call upon my fellow Mexican union leaders to strengthen international alliances and thus halt these efforts to eliminate trade union organizations.”

He noted that Wall Street business groups were the ones who pushed for workers to decide whether or not to pay union dues, as a way to weaken the organizations.

He recalled that the Cananea miners managed to withstand a strike of more than 18 years, among other things, thanks to international solidarity.

The Mining Union itself, he said, overcame the attacks and the attempt to annihilate it undertaken by former presidents Vicente Fox and Felipe Calderón, along with Germán Larrea and other of the richest businessmen in the country, “with the support of the United Steel Workers, from the United States and Canada, and many other unions around the world.”

He added that he himself lived through a forced exile of 12 years, amidst great international solidarity that allowed him to remain in the leadership of the Mining Union and carry out a judicial process that acquitted him “of fabricated charges” from the then PAN governments.

• 

  News Briefs

  Mineros leader Gómez Urrutia says There are Those Who Want to Eliminate Unions

  January 12, 2026January 12, 2026

  The trade unionist, who lived in forced exile in Canada for 12 years, discussed the necessity of international working class solidarity in defense of unions.

• 

  News Briefs

  Supreme Court’s Aguilar: Reversing Judicial Reform is “just wishful thinking”

  January 12, 2026

  Mexico’s Chief Justice of the Supreme Court indicated that the people of Mexico are unlikely to want to return to a “justice system behind closed doors.”

• 

  News Briefs

  Café Bienestar Supports Only 1% of Coffee Farmers

  January 12, 2026

  Coffee producers are hoping that 2026 will be a year where the government expands support for the industry and ensures fair prices.

The post Mineros leader Gómez Urrutia says There are Those Who Want to Eliminate Unions appeared first on Mexico Solidarity Media.

---

From Mexico Solidarity Media via This RSS Feed.

This article by Alejandro Páez Varela and Álvaro Delgado Gómez originally appeared in the January 11, 2026 edition of Sin Embargo.

Mexico City. Hugo Aguilar Ortiz , Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN), believes it is unlikely that the Mexican people will want to reverse the Judicial Reform and return to the model that the country’s highest court previously had, in which justice was administered behind closed doors, rigid and indifferent to the reality outside the SCJN headquarters.

“I have no doubt that there are people who believe that justice should be reduced to a mathematical model, a model of exact sciences, and that sensitivity and interaction with people should be disregarded. But I believe that this is an outdated exercise, as we say in the Indigenous community, these are dreams, that has already happened and it is unlikely to return,” said the Chief Justice in an interview for the program Los Periodistas, which airs on Channel 11.

“I believe that the people of Mexico will hardly want to return to a rigid justice system, a justice system behind closed doors, with zero empathy for the citizens, a justice system that doesn’t even want to look at the reality that is here outside the main door of this Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation,” Aguilar Ortiz added.

“People support the Reform”

In this regard, he stated that he has received testimonials from many people who have expressed the positive change the Court has undergone since the approval of the Judicial Reform. These testimonials indicate that the Supreme Court is now closer to the people, and that 2027 will be an opportunity for the public to consolidate this new model that is being built. “I have testimonials from authorities who visit me, from people who send me messages, who feel the change in the Court,” said the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

“In the coming years, we will consolidate this vision. 2027 will be another very important year. To a large extent, we will see how the public reacts to this process. I think it’s the best thing that could have happened to the country. I say this because I was a direct witness to the injustices in communities, and today people like me, who lived in those conditions, can come here to talk about their needs, their aspirations, and their dreams, and together build a different model,” he added.

“We are in a vibrant, active court, deeply committed to delivering real justice, to delivering justice for ordinary people,” reiterated Aguilar Ortiz, who recalled the difficulties he faced a few years ago upon arriving at the Court and how he always considered ways to change the situation. “I was right here where we are now, I entered through this door many times to this Supreme Court, I submitted documents here at our Clerk’s Office, I sought audiences with the justices, I sought to speak with the secretaries, and it was difficult, very difficult,” he said.

“Everyone who comes to the Court, whether they bring a specific personal problem or come as a lawyer, as an advisor, which is how I first came to this building. We all bring dreams, we all perceive the treatment, the institutional design, the procedure that is followed, and we dream about how the system can be improved, and that was my situation for a long time, both individually and collectively,” he commented.

“We will not lose our footing in court.”

“With the lawyers, with whom we grouped together to support indigenous communities, farmers, and women, we thought about how to improve justice, and a fundamental aspect is the human touch, that the public servant, from the guard who receives the documents, to the Minister, does not lose focus and the human sense; they are procedures, they are laws, they are decisions, but it is still human,” he added.

Therefore, he emphasized that the new Judicial Reform changed that model, which was distant from the citizens, into one of open doors, in which the ministers are close to the reality experienced by ordinary citizens, whom he called upon to help them build a better system of justice.

“So, the Judicial Reform has meant that we are now at the head of the Court, ordinary citizens, citizens who are grounded, who know our human and intellectual limitations, and who know the challenge the country has to build a more just society, and we have made an open call to the citizens to help us build it day by day, in all spaces,” said Aguilar Ortiz.

“Clearly, we have the capacity, the knowledge, and the experience from working daily with the justice system to transform the institution, but, as I have pointed out, that is not everything. To build a just society, we need to go beyond the case files, beyond the building, to every corner, and the people of Mexico can be absolutely certain that this is now being led by someone who comes from humble beginnings, from a Mixtec community in the state of Oaxaca, convinced that we can achieve a new scenario for justice in Mexico,” he concluded.

• 

  News Briefs

  Mineros leader Gómez Urrutia says There are Those Who Want to Eliminate Unions

  January 12, 2026January 12, 2026

  The trade unionist, who lived in forced exile in Canada for 12 years, discussed the necessity of international working class solidarity in defense of unions.

• 

  News Briefs

  Supreme Court’s Aguilar: Reversing Judicial Reform is “just wishful thinking”

  January 12, 2026

  Mexico’s Chief Justice of the Supreme Court indicated that the people of Mexico are unlikely to want to return to a “justice system behind closed doors.”

• 

  News Briefs

  Café Bienestar Supports Only 1% of Coffee Farmers

  January 12, 2026

  Coffee producers are hoping that 2026 will be a year where the government expands support for the industry and ensures fair prices.

The post Supreme Court’s Aguilar: Reversing Judicial Reform is “just wishful thinking” appeared first on Mexico Solidarity Media.

---

From Mexico Solidarity Media via This RSS Feed.

This article by Alexia Villaseñor was originally published in the January 12, 2026 edition of La Jornada, Mexico’s premier left wing daily newspaper.

The government programs Café Bienestar and Producción para el Bienestar represent minimal support for coffee producers, representatives of coffee growers pointed out.

According to official figures, there are just over 500,000 coffee producers in the country, but only 6,646 small coffee farmers from Oaxaca, Puebla, Veracruz and Guerrero are in Café Bienestar, which barely exceeds one percent.

Regarding the Production for Well-being program, which provides annual support of 6,200 pesos, “it only serves a little over 220,000 producers. Not even 50 percent of those nationwide. So, we propose that at least 400,000 should be supported,” stated Fernando Celis, a producer from the state of Veracruz.

Meanwhile, Arturo García, a producer from Guerrero, recalled that the coffee sector has been affected for decades by market behavior, as the price on the New York Stock Exchange has fallen at times to as low as $70 per 100 pounds, while at other times it reaches $400.

He added that “the aging of the farms and the producers is a reality; there is no generational replacement, and production is declining. Also contributing to this is the lack of an active role for governments and public policies to promote the development of coffee farming, along with the pests and diseases affecting the crops.”

In December of last year, the Law for Sustainable Development of Coffee Farming was published in the Official Gazette of the Federation to promote the production, marketing and processing of the bean.

However, García mentioned that “it does not address health and safety issues for imported coffee,” nor does it regulate the price at which the industry would have to buy the aromatic product.

“The industry, the buyers, are not paying the price that corresponds to the stock exchange, therefore, we demand that the government regulate that those reference prices that the stock exchange manages are met,” he demanded.

Furthermore, he argued that “the government, the production sector, and the industry have not been interested in promoting coffee production because more and more robusta coffee, which is inferior and of low quality, is being imported.” He mentioned that there is a high consumption of instant coffee in the country, “so we sell the good coffee we produce and consume the bad coffee that is imported.”

To strengthen the sector, he indicated that coffee production must be boosted, which requires financial support. He also mentioned the need for a campaign to promote the consumption of Arabica coffee beans.

“We cannot continue to protect instant coffee, which is made with colorings, sugar, flavorings and low-quality beans.”

At the same time, Celis specified that progress can be made this year to improve in this area, but it requires the government’s “will” to “increase the number of beneficiaries of production for well-being, fertilizer support, and the Sembrando Vida program.”

• 

  News Briefs

  Mineros leader Gómez Urrutia says There are Those Who Want to Eliminate Unions

  January 12, 2026January 12, 2026

  The trade unionist, who lived in forced exile in Canada for 12 years, discussed the necessity of international working class solidarity in defense of unions.

• 

  News Briefs

  Supreme Court’s Aguilar: Reversing Judicial Reform is “just wishful thinking”

  January 12, 2026

  Mexico’s Chief Justice of the Supreme Court indicated that the people of Mexico are unlikely to want to return to a “justice system behind closed doors.”

• 

  News Briefs

  Café Bienestar Supports Only 1% of Coffee Farmers

  January 12, 2026

  Coffee producers are hoping that 2026 will be a year where the government expands support for the industry and ensures fair prices.

The post Café Bienestar Supports Only 1% of Coffee Farmers appeared first on Mexico Solidarity Media.

---

From Mexico Solidarity Media via This RSS Feed.

With a collage on social media showcasing important events in the relationship between the two nations in 2025, the Cuban diplomat recalled the anniversary and assured that current ties continue to progress in the economic and commercial spheres.

Marsan recently reflected, at the United Diplomatic Council (UDC) meeting held in New Delhi, on the momentum achieved last year when they approached the 65th anniversary of those ties.

Among the significant events of 2025 in India-Cuba relations, the diplomat stressed the meeting held in July in Brazil between President Miguel Diaz-Canel and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, on the sidelines of the BRICS Summit, which marked a milestone in strengthening bilateral diplomatic ties.

One of the key activities held last year was the India-Cuba Business Conference, which served as a platform for business leaders, government officials, and diplomats to explore potential partnerships in sectors such as biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, renewable energy, education, and trade.

The visit to Cuba in November by India’s Minister of State for External Affairs and Textiles, Pabitra Margherita, was also noteworthy.

During his visit, Margherita met with the Cuban president, Deputy Prime Minister Eduardo Martinez, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Trade and Foreign Investment Oscar Perez-Oliva, and Acting Foreign Minister Gerardo Penalver to exchange views on current cooperation and explore new areas of collaboration.

Also, the celebration of the Indian Film Festival in Cuba.

jdt/iff/ro/lrd

The post India and Cuba mark 66 years of respect and collaboration first appeared on Prensa Latina.

---

From Prensa Latina via This RSS Feed.

According to the organizers, this twentieth edition commemorates the event held in Havana six decades ago and prioritizes the contributions of the Global South with the aim of stimulating important analyses of the event and its relevance to anticolonialism, antiimperialism, and decolonization.

The Centre for Research on Cuba and the Cuba Research Forum emerged from a collaboration between the University of Wolverhampton and the University of Havana (UH) in 1998, an agreement later adopted in 2003 by the University of Nottingham.

This year, 43 panels are scheduled with presentations by 170 speakers from nearly one hundred universities and research centers across all continents.

The international congress “60 Years After the Tricontinental Conference: Context, Impact, Legacy, and Future” will be held until Wednesday, January 14.

From its initial announcement to its current convening, it has taken on greater significance given the new landscape and current and unfolding regional and global events.

The Tricontinental Conference, held in Havana in January 1966, brought together more than 500 delegates from over 80 countries and colonies of the Third World, now called the Global South, as a response from the peoples of Africa, Asia, and the Americas to colonialism and imperialism. Leaders such as Salvador Allende, Amilcar Cabral, and Cheddi Jagan participated.

jdt/jav/ro/jqo

The post Cuba discusses state of Tricontinental on its 60th anniversary first appeared on Prensa Latina.

---

From Prensa Latina via This RSS Feed.

According to the organizers, this twentieth edition commemorates the event held in Havana six decades ago and prioritizes the contributions of the Global South with the aim of stimulating important analyses of the event and its relevance to anticolonialism, antiimperialism, and decolonization.

The Centre for Research on Cuba and the Cuba Research Forum emerged from a collaboration between the University of Wolverhampton and the University of Havana (UH) in 1998, an agreement later adopted in 2003 by the University of Nottingham.

This year, 43 panels are scheduled with presentations by 170 speakers from nearly one hundred universities and research centers across all continents.

The international congress “60 Years After the Tricontinental Conference: Context, Impact, Legacy, and Future” will be held until Wednesday, January 14.

From its initial announcement to its current convening, it has taken on greater significance given the new landscape and current and unfolding regional and global events.

The Tricontinental Conference, held in Havana in January 1966, brought together more than 500 delegates from over 80 countries and colonies of the Third World, now called the Global South, as a response from the peoples of Africa, Asia, and the Americas to colonialism and imperialism. Leaders such as Salvador Allende, Amilcar Cabral, and Cheddi Jagan participated.

jdt/jav/ro/jqo

The post Cuba discusses state of Tricontinental on its 60th anniversary first appeared on Prensa Latina.

---

From Prensa Latina via This RSS Feed.

The Communications and Multimedia Commission explained that the measure does not affect the use of X, a platform with some five million users in this Asian country, but only seeks to curb offensive content and protect users.

The Malaysian government had requested that Elon Musk’s company implement more effective technical controls, but considered the response based on user complaints insufficient.

VThe decision follows a similar measure adopted by Indonesia amid growing criticism of Grok’s use in generating offensive images, including depictions of women and minors.

The block comes after X restricted image editing on Grok to paying users.

Multiple complaints point at the alteration of photos to show people naked or in swimwear without authorization.

jdt/jav/ro/msm

The post Malaysia blocks Grok for generating manipulated and offensive images first appeared on Prensa Latina.

---

From Prensa Latina via This RSS Feed.

Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Mao Ning underscored, responding to a question from Prensa Latina, her nation’s opposition to foreign interference in the affairs of the Caribbean island.

Mao stated, “We once again urge the United States to end the blockade, sanctions, and all forms of coercive measures against Cuba, as this would benefit regional peace and stability.”

In response to another question about US interference in Venezuela’s economic affairs following Washington’s military aggression against Caracas, the spokesperson underscored that Latin American nations are sovereign and independent states with the right to choose their partners independently.

She noted, “Regardless of how the situation develops, China will continue to deepen practical cooperation with Latin American countries, including Venezuela, to promote mutual benefit.”

The Chinese Foreign Ministry has repeatedly urged the United States to lift the blockade as soon as possible and remove the island from Washington’s State Sponsors of Terrorism (SSOT) list.

Beijing and Havana celebrated the 65th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations in 2025.

jdt/iff/ro/idm

The post China underscores support for Cuba after new US threats first appeared on Prensa Latina.

---

From Prensa Latina via This RSS Feed.

Upon commemorating the 187th birthday of patriot Eugenio Maria de Hostos in Mayaguez, in western Puerto Rico, Rodriguez Leon affirmed that the MINH undertakes this task with great seriousness and pride.

“We are internationalists and Latin Americanists like Hostos, Betances, Marti and Bolivar; it is time to get united much more with our allies and be very clear about where the enemies are,” the Puerto Rican leftist leader stated, after arguing that President Donald Trump’s relaunch of the Monroe Doctrine is an attempt by the United States to recover some of its lost hegemony.

He asserted that, “2026 began with the US airstrike on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and the kidnapping of its President, Nicolas Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores, in a vile act that violates International Law and even US law.

This occurred after several months of provocations, with an intimidating display of military paraphernalia off the Venezuelan coast and the murder of dozens of people in the waters of the Caribbean and the Colombian Pacific.”

Rodriguez Leon remembered that, as part of these maneuvers, the Trump administration had also stolen an oil tanker.

The MINH leader noted, “After its aggression against Venezuela on January 3, the US government threatened Colombia, Mexico, Cuba, and Nicaragua as its next possible victims, when President Trump has resumed threats to seize Greenland, while the European Union makes only timid statements.”

jdt/iff/ro/nrm

The post Puerto Rico urges to strengthen solidarity in face of US aggression first appeared on Prensa Latina.

---

From Prensa Latina via This RSS Feed.

US President Donald Trump has introduced himself in a post on Truth Social as “acting president of Venezuela,” days after a US attack that led to the abduction of the country’s President Nicolas Maduro.

---

From Presstv via This RSS Feed.

On Saturday night, Venezuelan Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement after the @TravelGov account on X, which is administered by the US State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs, called on US citizens in Venezuela to leave the country immediately, and to be wary of “colectivos,” which, according to the US, “setting up roadblocks and searching vehicles for evidence of U.S. citizenship or support for the United States.”

The statement released by the Venezuelan Foreign Ministry on January 1o reads as follows:

The Ministry of Popular Power for Foreign Affairs of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela notes that the security alert issued by the United States Department of State concerning our country is based on non-existent stories intended to fabricate a perception of risk that does not exist.

Venezuela is in absolute calm, peace, and stability. All population centers, communication routes, checkpoints, and security installations are operating normally. All of the Republic’s weapons are under the control of the Bolivarian government, the sole guarantor of the legitimate monopoly on force and the tranquility of the Venezuelan people.

The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela reaffirms its commitment to protecting peace, institutional stability, and the coexistence of the Venezuelan people.

Previously, the Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs and the US Embassy in Venezuela issued the following advisory:

Venezuela: The security situation in Venezuela remains fluid. As international flights have resumed, U.S. citizens in Venezuela should leave the country immediately. Before departure, U.S. citizens should take precautions and be aware of their surroundings. There are reports of groups of armed militias, known as colectivos, setting up roadblocks and searching vehicles for evidence of U.S. citizenship or support for the United States. Remain vigilant and exercise caution when traveling by road. Monitor airlines’ communications and websites for updated information.

Venezuela has the highest Travel Advisory level – Level 4: Do Not Travel – due to severe risks to Americans, including wrongful detention, torture in detention, terrorism, kidnapping, arbitrary enforcement of local laws, crime, civil unrest, and poor health infrastructure. Enroll in the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP) at http://step.state.gov/ to receive security updates.

The ‘Donroe Doctrine’: When Sanctions Fail, US Imperialism Wages War on Venezuela

President Maduro sends message to the nation from US prison
On Saturday, Venezuelan National Assembly Deputy Nicolás Maduro Guerra, the son of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, announced at a meeting of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) that his father had sent a message through his lawyers, stating that he and his wife, Cilia Flores, are doing well.

“The lawyers have told us that he is strong; he told us not to be sad,” Maduro Guerra said. “‘We are fine, we are fighters,’ my father said.”

“My father is a man whom they could not defeat by any means and had to use disproportionate force against. They have not defeated him; he is strong,” he added.

The Venezuelan president and the first lady were abducted by the United States in the early morning of January 3, in Caracas, through a bloody military operation in which over one hundred people died, including civilians and soldiers, and a similar number of people were wounded.

(Alba Ciudad) with Orinoco Tribune content

Translation: Orinoco Tribune

OT/SC/SF

---

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

In a new threat against a sovereign state, US President Donald Trump declared on Sunday that Cuba will no longer receive oil or money from Venezuela. “No more oil or money for Cuba. Zero! I strongly urge you to make a deal before it’s too late,” Trump wrote on social media.

In his statement, he affirmed: “Cuba lived, for many years, on large amounts of oil and money from Venezuela. In return, Cuba provided ‘security services’ for the last two Venezuelan dictators, but not anymore!”

In an attempt to make his US followers believe that the US is in control of Venezuela, the US ruler added that “most of those Cubans are dead from last weeks US attack, and Venezuela doesn’t need protection anymore from the thugs and extortionists who held them hostage for so many years.”

Quienes culpan a la Revolución de las severas carencias económicas que padecemos, deberían callar por vergüenza. Porque saben y lo reconocen, que son fruto de las draconianas medidas de asfixia extrema que EE.UU nos aplica hace seis décadas y amenaza con superar ahora.

— Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez (@DiazCanelB) January 11, 2026

Cuban response
In response to Trump’s threats against Havana, Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel recalled Sunday that his country “has been attacked by the US for 66 years.”

“Cuba is a free, independent, and sovereign nation. Nobody dictates what we do. Cuba does not attack; it has been attacked by the US for 66 years, and it does not threaten; it prepares, it is ready to defend the homeland to the last drop of blood,” the president stated.

On social media, the Cuban president stated that the US regime “has no moral authority to point the finger at Cuba in anything, absolutely anything, since they turn everything into a business, even human lives.” He added that “those who are now hysterically venting their anger against our nation are sick with rage at the sovereign decision of this people to choose their political model.”

“Those who blame the Revolution for the severe economic hardships we suffer [today] should be silent out of shame. Because they know and acknowledge that these hardships are the result of draconian measures of extreme strangulation that the US has been applying to us for six decades and threatens to surpass now,” he emphasized.

Criminal and uncontrolled hegemon
Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez also responded, emphasizing that the US “behaves like a criminal and uncontrolled hegemon that threatens peace and security, not only in Cuba and this hemisphere, but throughout the world.”

Cuba does not receive and has never received monetary or material compensation for security services provided to any country.

“Unlike the US, we do not have a government that lends itself to mercenary activity, blackmail, or military coercion against other states. Like every country, Cuba has the absolute right to import fuel from those markets willing to export it and that exercise their own right to develop their commercial relations without interference or subordination to the unilateral coercive measures of the US,” he added

Following the US military aggression against Venezuela on January 3, which culminated in the kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro, Donald Trump has made statements threatening to increase pressure on Cuba. The president stated on January 10 that “going in and destroying” Cuba might be the only option left to force “change.”

Statement from Venezuela
Through a statement published Sunday by Venezuela’s Foreign Minister Yván Gil on social media, Venezuela reaffirmed its historical brotherhood with Cuba based on solidarity and cooperation.

Venezuela claimed that international relations must be governed by the principles of self-determination, international law, and national sovereignty.

The full unofficial translation of the statement follows:

The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela reaffirms its historical position within the framework of relations with the Republic of Cuba, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and international law, regarding the free exercise of self-determination and national sovereignty.

The relationship of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela with the Caribbean and the Republic of Cuba has historically been based on brotherhood, solidarity, cooperation, and complementarity.

Venezuela reaffirms that international relations must be governed by the principles of international law, non-intervention, the sovereign equality of states, and the self-determination of peoples. We reiterate that political and diplomatic dialogue is the only way to peacefully resolve disputes of any nature.

A six-decade blockade
In October 1960, the US established an embargo against Cuba. Subsequently, in 1962, President John F. Kennedy drastically tightened the measures, imposing a near-total trade blockade that profoundly impacted the Cuban economy.

The Dark Time of the Leviathans

Initially conceived as a temporary action to obtain compensation, the embargo has not only been maintained for six decades under 12 different US rulers, but has also been reinforced with successive illegal sanctions.

The Cuban government indicated that at current prices the accumulated damages over more than six decades of application of this policy amount to $170,677.2 million.

Currently, virtually every country in the world condemns the US blockade. Likewise, the UN General Assembly has spoken out against these policies on dozens of occasions. Traditionally, the US and Israel vote against ending the blockade.

(Alba Ciudad) with Orinoco Tribune content

Translation: Orinoco Tribune

OT/JRE/JB

---

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

By Prince Kapone  –  Jan 8, 2026

Empire Drops the Mask and Speaks in Orders
Trump 2.0 is not running an empire that still believes it has to convince anyone of anything. It is running an empire that believes persuasion is a waste of time. The old choreography—summits, joint statements, humanitarian sighs, carefully rehearsed talk about “shared values”—has been shoved aside. What replaces it is blunt speech. Empire no longer negotiates; it announces. It states the outcome first and tells the world to catch up. Venezuela is not being treated as a disagreement, a “failed state,” or a moral problem in need of guidance. It is being used as a stage. A warning shot. A live demonstration of what happens when a country insists on behaving like a sovereign inside a hemisphere Washington claims as its own.

That is why the kidnapping of a sitting head of state is treated in Washington not as a crime but as a paperwork issue. The argument is not whether the act shattered international law—it did—but whether the empire followed its own internal procedures after the fact. This inversion tells us everything. Under hyper-imperialism, legality no longer restrains power; it trails behind it like a clerk trying to catch up with a thief who has already left the building. Empire does not ask permission. It files memos afterward.

This shift is not accidental, and it is not improvised. It is written plainly into doctrine. The 2025 National Security Strategy makes the hemisphere the primary zone of enforcement. The language is revealing: “preeminence,” “denial,” “pushback.” China and other rival powers are not accused of invasion or colonization; they are accused of presence. Their mere existence in Latin America is framed as a threat. This is Monroe Doctrine logic stripped of nostalgia and reissued as policy: the hemisphere is to be cleared, organized, and disciplined so the United States can stabilize its own declining position in the world by tightening control close to home.

The oil ultimatum flows directly from this logic. When Trump declares that Venezuela will “turn over” tens of millions of barrels of oil to the United States, he is not describing a deal. He is describing custody. This is the language of a landlord addressing a tenant, or a colonial administrator addressing a territory whose resources are assumed to belong elsewhere. Talk of “managing” the proceeds for the benefit of Venezuelans is the familiar moral varnish applied to a very old operation: extract first, explain later. Formal sovereignty can remain on paper, flags can still fly, officials can still give speeches—as long as the circulation of oil is commanded from outside.

This is what hyper-imperialism looks like in the current phase. It does not need occupation. It does not need legitimacy. It relies on blockade, seizure, financial strangulation, legal theater, and the selective use of spectacular violence to enforce obedience. Venezuela is not being punished because it failed. It is being punished because it refused to align—because it insisted on multipolar relations in a system that now demands exclusivity. The message is simple and brutally clear: sovereignty is conditional, resources are negotiable only in one direction, and resistance will be met not with debate but with force.

Fortress America, then, is not isolationism. It is imperial contraction paired with intensified domination. The map gets smaller, the fist gets tighter. Venezuela is where the empire stops pretending to persuade and starts issuing orders. The American Pole is not a shield; it is a cage being welded shut, one oil shipment, one seizure, one threat at a time.

How the Storm Broke: From Drug-War Alibi to Open Siege
In the first days of January 2026, the United States crossed a threshold that had long been approached but rarely breached so openly in the Western Hemisphere: it sent Special Forces into the capital of another republic and removed a sitting president by force. Over 150 aircraft and elite units struck Caracas before dawn, overwhelming Venezuelan defenses and extracting Nicolás Maduro and his partner, Cilia Flores, to an American warship and then to New York for federal prosecution. This was not an arrest in any meaningful legal sense; it was the physical seizure of a head of state from his own territory. The operation was dressed in the language of law enforcement and “narco-terrorism,” but its meaning was unmistakable. Sovereignty was not challenged. It was ignored.

For much of the world, the character of the act was immediately clear. Caracas, Havana, Moscow, Beijing, and capitals across the Global South denounced the raid as a colonial-style intervention without mandate or legal foundation. Even within Europe, alarm was expressed at the sheer brazenness of the operation. Legal scholars and institutions such as Chatham House noted that no plausible reading of the UN Charter or international law could justify the abduction of a sitting president under unilateral criminal charges. Yet in Washington, the debate never centered on legality in the international sense. It centered on authorization, procedure, and jurisdiction under U.S. law. This inversion is revealing: under hyper-imperialism, law no longer constrains power externally. It functions internally, as a retrospective filing system for acts already committed.

The kidnapping of Maduro did not emerge from a vacuum. It was the culmination of a coercive sequence that began months earlier under a different name: the war on drugs. Beginning in September 2025, the Trump administration deployed naval and air assets into the Caribbean under the pretext of counter-narcotics operations, publicly framing Venezuela as a “narco-terrorist regime” and Maduro as the alleged head of a cartel known as the “Cartel of the Suns.” Under this banner, U.S. forces launched missile strikes against dozens of small boats in international waters, killing more than one hundred people. These strikes were presented as precision interdictions of drug traffickers, yet no credible public evidence was produced to substantiate the claims. In multiple cases, the vessels appeared indistinguishable from fishing boats, including at least one that was not even Venezuelan but Colombian. What mattered was not proof, but precedent: lethal force normalized under a familiar moral alibi.

International human-rights bodies quickly raised alarms. United Nations experts warned that the strikes bore the hallmarks of extrajudicial executions and violated fundamental principles governing the use of force at sea. Rather than retreat, the administration doubled down rhetorically, folding these killings into a broader narrative of hemispheric defense. The drug-war frame did its work. It rendered extraordinary violence ordinary, established a standing military presence in the Caribbean, and accustomed both domestic and international audiences to the idea that U.S. missiles could be fired in the region without congressional declaration or multilateral authorization. This was the rehearsal phase of hyper-imperial enforcement.

When Trump later spoke of blockades and hinted at ground operations, this was not a sudden escalation but a shift in emphasis. Public threats were amplified for domestic audiences and adversaries alike, while private reassurances were issued to allies, investors, and energy firms. There would be no costly invasion, no occupation of Caracas, no disruption that markets could not absorb. This was not contradiction; it was discipline. Hyper-imperial power learned to separate audiences, terrorizing selectively while stabilizing accumulation. The capacity to do anything was broadcast loudly, while the intention to do only what was profitable was communicated quietly.

It was in this context that the armada fully cohered. Throughout late 2025 and into 2026, U.S. Navy and Coast Guard forces consolidated their presence around Venezuela, transforming what had begun as a counter-narcotics deployment into a standing maritime siege. Tankers were intercepted and seized, insurance and port access were denied, and what the Pentagon described as sanctions enforcement functioned in practice as a naval blockade. Caracas denounced these actions as piracy, and concerns were raised internationally about the legality of a quarantine imposed without Security Council authorization. Yet the architecture held. The Caribbean was quietly converted into a managed military space.

Venezuela did not submit passively. Naval escorts were deployed to accompany tankers, and diplomatic protests multiplied. But the escalation ladder had already been climbed. Drug-war strikes normalized force. Naval presence normalized siege. Siege normalized abduction. When the federal indictment against Maduro was finally unsealed, it told its own story: many of the most sensational claims portraying him as the operational head of a coherent drug cartel were softened or abandoned altogether. The fiction had served its purpose. It had justified the buildup, the killings, and ultimately the kidnapping. Once power was asserted directly, the narrative scaffolding could be quietly adjusted.

Taken together, these moments reveal the immediate conjuncture of Trump 2.0’s hyper-imperial project. This is not regime change as it once appeared, with proxies and parallel presidents. It is regime subordination enforced through calibrated violence, legal warfare, and permanent military pressure. The drug war provided the alibi, the blockade supplied the mechanism, and the abduction delivered the message. Sovereignty, in this order, is not abolished outright. It is rendered conditional, revocable, and enforceable by force whenever it obstructs hemispheric consolidation.

The Monroe Doctrine Stripped of Euphemism
What is unfolding is not improvisation, nor simply the personality of Trump amplified by power. It is doctrine—old doctrine refurbished for an age of decline. Analysts have begun to describe Trump’s posture as a new “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine, and the phrase is accurate precisely because it removes the polite ambiguity that once surrounded U.S. hemispheric dominance. Where the original Monroe Doctrine claimed to “protect” the Americas from European empires, Trump’s version dispenses with protection and speaks openly in the language of exclusion. The Western Hemisphere is not merely an area of influence; it is a controlled space. Presence by rival powers is itself treated as provocation, regardless of whether that presence comes through investment, trade, or diplomacy.

This corollary is not rhetorical flourish—it is operationalized policy. The 2025 National Security Strategy makes this explicit by identifying the hemisphere as a primary zone of enforcement and naming China and Russia as “extra-hemispheric competitors” whose influence must be denied across energy systems, ports, logistics corridors, telecommunications, and finance. The document does not argue that these powers are militarily invading Latin America; it argues that they are present at all. That presence alone is framed as an intolerable erosion of U.S. primacy, requiring pressure campaigns, sanctions, and—when necessary—direct force.

In this framework, Venezuela’s offense is not mismanagement, corruption, or authoritarianism—the usual moral accusations recycled for press releases. Its real crime is alignment. Caracas refused to accept a unipolar order after it had already begun to fracture. It deepened energy cooperation with China, military and financial ties with Russia, and strategic coordination with Iran and Cuba. From the standpoint of hyper-imperial doctrine, this is not independence; it is insubordination. Multipolar relationships inside the hemisphere are treated not as sovereign choices but as violations of an unwritten property line that Washington claims to own.

What makes the Trump Corollary distinct from earlier versions of hemispheric control is its impatience with mediation. Previous administrations wrapped enforcement in development banks, civil society programs, and the soft language of “partnership.” Trump 2.0 dispenses with that choreography. Influence is no longer to be competed for; it is to be denied outright. Ports must not merely be friendly—they must be uncontested. Energy must not merely be traded—it must be routed through channels Washington can monitor, interrupt, and command. Sovereignty, under this doctrine, survives only insofar as it does not interfere with logistical control.

Venezuela therefore becomes a doctrinal test case. If a state with the world’s largest proven oil reserves can be forced back into hemispheric obedience—through sanctions, naval encirclement, legal warfare, and the spectacular seizure of its leadership—then the corollary is proven. If it cannot, the doctrine itself is exposed as fragile. This is why the pressure is relentless and why compromise is absent. Hyper-imperialism does not seek stable coexistence with rivals inside its claimed zone; it seeks clearance. The hemisphere must be made legible, governable, and exclusive, even as the global order outside it slips further from U.S. control.

In this sense, the Trump Corollary is not a return to the Monroe Doctrine—it is its terminal form. It emerges at a moment when the empire can no longer plausibly dominate the world, and so tightens its grip where it believes history grants it entitlement. The Western Hemisphere is to become the empire’s last uncontested room, locked from the inside. Venezuela is the door on which that lock is now being tested.

Oil Is Not the Prize — Control of Its Movement Is
Oil sits at the center of this confrontation not because Washington suddenly discovered Venezuela’s reserves, but because oil remains the most efficient lever for enforcing submission without occupation. The obsession is not with drilling rigs or nationalization statutes; it is with circulation. Who authorizes shipments, who insures them, who clears ports, who processes payments, who decides which tankers sail and which are seized. Trump’s declaration that Venezuela will “turn over” tens of millions of barrels to the United States is therefore not the language of a commercial agreement. It is the language of custody. Empire speaks here as a manager, not a buyer, announcing its right to redirect flows it believes it already owns.

The accompanying rhetoric about “holding proceeds in trust” or “managing revenues for the benefit of the Venezuelan people” belongs to a long imperial tradition. This is the same vocabulary used to justify colonial trusteeships, IMF conditionality, and sanctions regimes dressed up as concern. Formal sovereignty is allowed to survive as a shell—flags, ministries, televised speeches—so long as the material heart of the economy is externally supervised. The oil stays Venezuelan in name, but its movement is decided elsewhere. This is why officials speak less about ownership and more about oversight: command over circulation achieves the same result with fewer political costs.

What makes oil uniquely useful to hyper-imperial strategy is its dependence on global infrastructure. Crude must move through chokepoints governed by insurers, shipping registries, ports, refineries, and dollar-clearing systems—all arenas where U.S. power remains decisive. A well-placed sanction, a denied insurance policy, a seized tanker can do what an invading army once did, only cheaper and with less international blowback. The goal is not to shut Venezuelan oil down completely but to place it on a leash: allowed to flow when compliant, strangled when defiant. In this way, economic life itself becomes conditional.

Trump’s oil ultimatum therefore signals a shift from punishment to administration. Earlier sanctions regimes aimed to collapse the Venezuelan state or provoke internal rupture. Empire draws a colder lesson from that failure. Collapse is unpredictable. Administration is stable. By inserting itself into the circulation of oil—deciding volumes, destinations, and revenues—the empire converts Venezuela from an adversary into a managed resource node. Resistance does not end extraction; it merely changes the terms under which extraction is permitted.

This is why the spectacle of oil seizures matters more than the barrels themselves. Each interdicted tanker announces jurisdiction without consent. Each enforced rerouting demonstrates that sovereignty over resources is no longer territorial but logistical. Venezuela’s oil is not being taken because it is scarce; it is being disciplined because control over its movement reinforces a broader lesson to the hemisphere: development, trade, and even survival are contingent on alignment with U.S. priorities.

In the logic of hyper-imperialism, oil is not simply fuel—it is governance. It is the mechanism through which obedience is measured and enforced. Venezuela’s reserves make it vulnerable not because they are valuable, but because they are indispensable to a global system still wired through American power. The ultimatum, then, is not really about barrels. It is about who commands the valves of the world economy—and who is allowed to turn them.

Siege as System: How Empire Learned to Rule Without Landing Troops
The absence of U.S. ground troops in Caracas is not evidence of restraint. It is evidence of learning. The Trump 2.0 regime has absorbed the lessons of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya and drawn a cold conclusion: occupation is expensive, politically corrosive, and strategically inefficient. Blockade, by contrast, is modular, scalable, and indefinitely sustainable. It disciplines without responsibility. It punishes without rebuilding. It destroys capacity while preserving the fiction of non-intervention. What we are witnessing around Venezuela is not hesitation but maturity—a form of power that prefers siege to conquest because siege keeps the costs externalized.

The modern blockade no longer announces itself with declarations of war. It arrives through administrative decisions: insurance canceled, ports closed, tankers flagged, transactions frozen, crews detained, cargoes seized in international waters. Each act appears technical, almost bureaucratic, but together they form a distributed siege system that tightens incrementally. No single move triggers a global crisis. No single action looks like invasion. Yet the cumulative effect is strangulation—economic life compressed until it can only breathe through channels approved by empire.

This method offers strategic flexibility. Pressure can be intensified or relaxed without changing the basic posture. Partial compliance can be rewarded with temporary licenses or limited access to markets. Defiance can be punished episodically, through selective seizures or legal escalation, without committing to total shutdown. The blockade becomes a dial rather than a switch. Empire no longer needs to break a state; it only needs to keep it permanently off balance, always negotiating from a position of vulnerability.

Crucially, blockade shifts the terrain of struggle away from spectacle and toward endurance. There are no televised landings, no images of flag-draped coffins returning home. The violence is slower, quieter, and easier to deny. Shortages are blamed on mismanagement. Economic pain is reframed as domestic failure. Meanwhile, the external hand remains officially invisible, operating through “enforcement,” “compliance,” and “regulatory action.” Hyper-imperialism does not seek dramatic victories; it seeks stable asymmetry.

This is why naval encirclement matters more than invasion plans. Warships stationed indefinitely are not there to storm beaches; they are there to normalize pressure. Their presence converts the Caribbean into a managed space where U.S. discretion replaces international law. Tanker seizures become precedents. Interdictions become routine. What begins as an exceptional response to sanctions violations hardens into a standing architecture of control. Over time, the extraordinary becomes ordinary, and the siege becomes background noise.

Blockade without occupation also fragments responsibility. Humanitarian consequences can be disowned, blamed on domestic authorities, or outsourced to international agencies. Meanwhile, the empire retains maximum leverage with minimal accountability. This is domination without administration, power without obligation. It allows Washington to insist it has not “intervened” even as it dictates the material conditions under which a society functions.

Venezuela, then, is not surrounded because the United States lacks the capacity to invade. It is surrounded because hyper-imperialism has decided that invasion is unnecessary. The siege does the work more efficiently. It enforces hierarchy, disciplines deviation, and signals to the rest of the hemisphere that defiance will not be met with negotiation, but with a permanent tightening of the noose—adjusted patiently, deliberately, and without end.

‘No One Surrendered Here:’ Venezuela’s Acting President Leads National Tribute to Martyrs of US Military Aggression

Why Venezuela Can Be Squeezed Without Breaking
Venezuela is not targeted because it is weak in some abstract moral sense. It is targeted because its vulnerabilities were historically manufactured in ways imperial planners know how to exploit. An economy organized around oil rents, externalized finance, and dollar-denominated obligations is not simply dependent; it is legible to power. Its pressure points are mapped in advance. Hyper-imperialism does not guess where to apply force—it follows the wiring laid down over decades of uneven development and enforced insertion into a dollar-centered world system.

Oil-rent dependency concentrated national income into a single artery that could be constricted from the outside. Externalized finance ensured that payments, settlements, and reserves passed through jurisdictions Washington could reach. Dollar obligations transformed monetary policy into a hostage relationship. None of these conditions were accidental, and none were unique to Venezuela. They were the normal price of participation in a global order designed elsewhere. What distinguishes Venezuela is that it attempted to redirect this inherited structure toward national development and social redistribution without first dismantling its external dependencies. That contradiction became exploitable.

Sanctions did not collapse the Venezuelan state in the way many in Washington predicted. Instead, they produced a harsher lesson. Despite suffocating restrictions, Venezuela continued to service portions of its debt, liquidated gold reserves under coercive conditions, rerouted oil exports through complex barter and intermediary arrangements, and kept PDVSA operating under extreme constraint. These were not signs of recovery, but they were signs of endurance. To imperial strategists, endurance without capitulation is not a success; it is proof that pressure can be intensified without triggering total breakdown.

Each act of survival taught the empire something. Debt payments demonstrated that financial extraction could continue under siege. Gold sales showed that reserves could be forced out through indirect channels. PDVSA’s continued operations revealed that production could be coerced without regime replacement. The lesson drawn was not that sanctions had failed, but that they had prepared the ground for escalation. Hyper-imperialism moves sequentially: financial siege gives way to asset seizure; asset seizure evolves into maritime control; maritime control culminates in the seizure of leadership itself.

Venezuela’s targetability, then, lies in the gap between collapse and compliance. The state proved resilient enough to survive but constrained enough to be managed. That is the ideal condition for hyper-imperial domination. Total collapse produces instability that spills outward. Full compliance offers diminishing returns. Managed pressure, by contrast, yields predictable leverage. Venezuela can be squeezed, adjusted, and recalibrated without shattering the regional order or triggering uncontrollable consequences.

This is why the escalation does not appear as a sudden break but as a ratchet. Each new measure builds on the last, justified by the endurance of the target itself. Survival becomes the pretext for further punishment. The ability to function under pressure is reinterpreted as evidence that more pressure is feasible. Hyper-imperialism does not punish failure; it punishes persistence.

In this sense, Venezuela is not exceptional—it is exemplary. It reveals how a state can be rendered permanently targetable by the very structures that once promised development. Oil rents, dollar finance, and global integration become not shields but handles, allowing external power to lift, tilt, and restrain a society without ever occupying it. What appears as vulnerability is, in fact, design. And hyper-imperialism knows exactly how to use it.

When Regime Change Fails, Empire Learns to Manage
The failure of the Guaidó experiment was not a moral embarrassment for Washington; it was a technical lesson. Formal regime change—parading a compliant figurehead, staging international recognition rituals, and waiting for the state to collapse from the inside—proved too brittle for the moment. It depended on mass defections that never came and on a fantasy that legitimacy could be manufactured by press release. Trump 2.0 absorbs that failure and discards its assumptions. The objective is no longer to replace the Venezuelan state, but to subordinate it functionally—to make who governs less important than how governance is constrained.

In this revised approach, sovereignty is not abolished; it is conditionalized. Officials may remain in office, ministries may continue to operate, elections may even be tolerated, but only within a narrow corridor defined by imperial priorities. The test is no longer ideological alignment or democratic theater; it is compliance with logistical control. Oil must flow where and how Washington dictates. Financial channels must remain legible and interruptible. Strategic partnerships with China, Russia, Iran, or Cuba must be frozen or severed. Governance is permitted only so long as it does not obstruct these imperatives.

This is why figures like Delcy Rodríguez are not immediately removed but reclassified. They are no longer treated as representatives of a sovereign political project, but as administrators of a pressured system. Their legitimacy is not recognized; it is tolerated. They function in a space closer to colonial intermediaries than national leaders—tasked with managing domestic stability under external constraint, absorbing popular anger, and translating imperial demands into local policy. The state remains Venezuelan in form, but its strategic decisions are made elsewhere.

Managed subordination solves problems that regime change could not. It avoids the chaos of state collapse while still delivering control over resources. It reduces the risk of nationalist backlash that overt occupation would provoke. It allows empire to claim it has respected sovereignty while hollowing sovereignty out from the inside. Most importantly, it creates a scalable model: what works in Venezuela can be replicated elsewhere, adjusted to local conditions, without the political costs of overthrowing governments one by one.

Under this model, resistance is reframed as mismanagement, and compliance is rewarded with temporary relief. Sanctions can be loosened selectively, licenses granted conditionally, enforcement paused and resumed at will. The economy becomes a behavioral mechanism. The population is not simply punished; it is disciplined, made to associate material survival with external approval. Politics is reduced to damage control under siege, while strategic direction is quietly removed from the national arena altogether.

This is neocolonial governance without annexation—rule exercised through choke points rather than governors. The flag remains, the anthem plays, the institutions persist, but the center of gravity shifts outward. Venezuela is no longer confronted as an enemy to be overthrown, but as a system to be managed, calibrated, and kept within bounds. In this transition from regime change to managed subordination, hyper-imperialism reveals its preferred form of domination: not dramatic conquest, but permanent constraint.

Governing by Fear, Reassurance, and Spectacle
Hyper-imperialism does not rely on force alone; it relies on managing how force is perceived. Trump’s public threats—talk of blockades, second strikes, and decisive action—are not policy blueprints so much as instruments of psychological warfare. They are designed to keep Venezuela in a constant state of anticipatory crisis, where every decision must be made under the shadow of escalation. Preparation itself becomes a form of punishment. Resources are diverted toward defense, contingency planning, and damage control, while economic life remains suspended in uncertainty.

At the same time, a second conversation runs quietly in parallel. Behind closed doors, U.S. officials reassure markets, energy firms, and allied governments that escalation will remain controlled. There will be no chaotic invasion, no disruption of shipping lanes beyond what is necessary, no shock to global oil prices that cannot be managed. This dual messaging is not contradictory; it is calibrated. Fear is broadcast downward and outward, while stability is whispered upward to those whose confidence must be maintained. Empire learns to terrify selectively.

The effect is asymmetrical clarity. Venezuelan officials must plan for the worst, never knowing which threat will be activated or when. Investors, by contrast, are encouraged to assume continuity. Allies are signaled dominance without liability. Hyper-imperialism thus separates audiences and tailors its message to each, ensuring that coercion does not spill into panic where panic would be costly. The spectacle of aggression is carefully staged, while its limits are quietly enforced elsewhere.

This theater extends beyond rhetoric to action. Highly visible operations—tanker seizures, naval deployments, leader abductions—serve as proof that threats are not empty. Yet each spectacle is bounded. Force is applied sharply and then paused, leaving space for interpretation, rumor, and negotiation under duress. The uncertainty itself becomes a weapon. When the next move is unpredictable, compliance appears safer than resistance.

Psychological warfare also reframes responsibility. Economic hardship is presented as the consequence of domestic failure or stubborn leadership rather than external siege. The population is encouraged to direct anger inward, while the external source of pressure remains abstract, distant, and bureaucratic. Meanwhile, U.S. officials perform concern for humanitarian conditions even as they tighten the mechanisms producing them. The contradiction is not hidden; it is normalized.

In this way, hyper-imperialism governs not only territory and resources but expectations. It trains societies to live within limits imposed from outside, to anticipate punishment, and to interpret relief as generosity rather than concession. Venezuela’s experience becomes a lesson in managed fear: a warning to others, a stress test for empire, and a reminder that domination today is as much about psychology as it is about power.

When Law Survives Only as an Internal Memo
The abduction of a sitting head of state from his own capital marks a qualitative break, not merely an escalation. It is the point at which international law ceases to function even as a rhetorical constraint and is reduced to an internal administrative concern of empire. The UN Charter, the prohibition on the use of force, diplomatic immunity, the principle of sovereign equality—these are not debated, reinterpreted, or even openly rejected. They are simply bypassed. The question asked in Washington is not whether the act was legal under international law, but whether it was properly authorized under U.S. law. Jurisdiction collapses inward.

This inversion is crucial. Law is no longer a framework that limits power between states; it becomes a procedural technology used inside the imperial core to manage escalation, allocate responsibility, and protect officials from domestic backlash. War Powers debates, congressional notifications, and internal reviews do not challenge the underlying crime. They regulate its execution. The seizure of Maduro is treated not as an act of aggression but as a question of compliance with U.S. statutes—an internal audit after a burglary that never questions the right to steal.

Outside the imperial center, legality dissolves into irrelevance. No UN mandate is sought. No international court is recognized as competent to judge the act. When Russia, Venezuela, and others denounce tanker seizures as piracy and violations of maritime law, their objections are noted only insofar as they affect escalation risk. Law becomes background noise—useful when it legitimizes coercion, disposable when it obstructs it. Hyper-imperialism does not abolish law; it nationalizes it.

This is why the language of “law enforcement” is so central to the operation. By framing military raids, naval blockades, and extraterritorial seizures as policing actions, the empire collapses the distinction between domestic jurisdiction and international anarchy. The world is treated as an extension of U.S. legal space, where force is justified by indictment rather than declaration of war. Criminal charges replace casus belli. Courts replace treaties. What cannot be governed through consent is governed through subpoenas backed by missiles.

The implications extend far beyond Venezuela. If a head of state can be seized under unilateral criminal charges, then no sovereignty is secure. Any leader who obstructs U.S. interests becomes a potential defendant. Any country that refuses alignment becomes a crime scene. International law, once already weakened, is reduced to a ceremonial artifact—invoked selectively, ignored routinely, and enforced only against the powerless.

Hyper-imperialism thus marks the open phase of legal nihilism. The rules remain written, the institutions still stand, the language of law continues to circulate—but its binding force is gone. Law survives only as procedure inside empire, never as a limit upon it. Venezuela is not simply a victim of this collapse; it is the site where the collapse is made visible. The mask does not slip. It is deliberately removed.

Venezuela as Warning Shot, Not Exception
What is being done to Venezuela is not meant to stay in Venezuela. It is meant to travel. Hyper-imperial power always seeks an audience, and this operation is designed less as a solution to a Venezuelan problem than as a lesson broadcast outward. The message is not subtle: sovereignty that obstructs U.S. priorities will be treated as defiance, not difference. The seizure of leadership, the naval encirclement, the oil ultimatum—all of it functions as a demonstration effect, a live-fire exercise meant to recalibrate behavior across an entire region.

Trump has been explicit about this logic. The same vocabulary used against Caracas—criminality, security threats, economic coercion—has already been applied rhetorically to Mexico, Cuba, Colombia, and even territories well outside the hemisphere such as Greenland. The common thread is not ideology or regime type; it is location within strategic space. What matters is proximity to U.S. logistics, migration routes, resource corridors, and military infrastructure. Venezuela is simply the first place where the new posture is enforced without euphemism.

In this sense, Fortress America is not a retreat from global ambition but a reorganization of it. As the costs of sustaining worldwide dominance rise, the empire contracts geographically while intensifying control where it believes dominance must be absolute. The hemisphere becomes a monopolized zone: resources secured, trade routed, rivals excluded, labor disciplined, and migration contained. Venezuela’s role is to show that this enclosure is not theoretical. It can be imposed, and it will be imposed.

The demonstration works through asymmetry. Smaller states are shown the consequences of alignment with China, Russia, or any multipolar project that bypasses U.S. oversight. Larger states are reminded that even size does not guarantee immunity if strategic red lines are crossed. The goal is not uniform obedience but anticipatory compliance—states adjusting policy in advance to avoid becoming the next example.

This is why the violence is selective but visible. Empire does not need to punish everyone; it needs to punish one clearly enough that the rest internalize the lesson. Venezuela is being positioned as that lesson. Its treatment establishes a baseline expectation for how hyper-imperial authority will be exercised in this phase: openly, coercively, and without apology.

The demonstration effect therefore marks a shift from persuasion to pedagogy by force. Empire no longer tries to convince others that its leadership is beneficial. It teaches them what resistance costs. Venezuela is not the exception that proves the rule. It is the prototype through which the rule is being rewritten.

The Narrow Corridor Left to a Besieged State
Once hyper-imperialism moves into its open phase, the range of outcomes narrows sharply. For Venezuela, the future is no longer framed as a spectrum of policy choices but as a forced bifurcation imposed from outside. Empire does not offer genuine alternatives; it presents managed pathways whose consequences are predetermined. What remains undecided is not whether pressure will continue, but how it will be metabolized—through submission or through prolonged exposure.

The first path is subordinate incorporation. Under this scenario, Venezuela accepts the terms implicit in the oil ultimatum and the siege architecture that surrounds it. Exports resume, but under supervision. Volumes, destinations, insurance, and payment channels are monitored externally. Naval presence becomes permanent background infrastructure. Strategic partnerships with China, Russia, Iran, and Cuba are quietly unwound, not through declarations but through administrative suffocation. The state continues to function, salaries are paid, shortages ease selectively—but sovereignty is reduced to a managerial role. Venezuela survives, but as a resource node integrated into the American Pole rather than as an independent political actor.

This outcome is not presented as capitulation; it is marketed as stabilization. Relief is framed as generosity. Compliance is reframed as pragmatism. The violence that produced the arrangement fades into the background, replaced by technocratic language about recovery and normalization. Yet the structure remains intact: obedience enforced through reversible permissions. What is granted can be withdrawn. What flows can be halted. Stability itself becomes conditional.

The second path is resistance under exposure. Continued multipolar alignment keeps Venezuela inside the pressure field—sanctions tightened or loosened episodically, enforcement escalated selectively, propaganda intensified internationally. Economic strain persists. Political risk accumulates. Yet this path also produces a different kind of effect. By refusing incorporation, Venezuela exposes the architecture of hyper-imperial rule in real time. Each seizure, each threat, each legal contortion strips away the remaining myth that U.S. power operates through partnership or shared norms.

Resistance does not guarantee victory, but it accelerates clarity. It reveals that the issue is not democracy, governance, or corruption, but control. It forces other states to confront the reality that alignment with empire does not protect sovereignty—it suspends it temporarily. In this sense, prolonged resistance carries systemic implications beyond Venezuela itself. It sharpens contradictions that polite diplomacy once blurred and pushes the global conversation away from illusion toward structure.

These are not symmetrical options. One offers relative material relief at the price of political subordination. The other preserves strategic autonomy at the cost of sustained pressure. Hyper-imperialism ensures that neither path is easy, and that both are designed to discipline not just Venezuela but the wider world watching closely. The choice imposed is cruel by design, and it is meant to be instructive.

Empire Without Alibis
Trump 2.0 does not represent the birth of a new empire. It represents the moment an old one stops pretending. The tools on display—abduction, blockade, seizure, extraterritorial enforcement—were always present, but they were once hidden behind layers of euphemism and ritual. What distinguishes this phase is not cruelty, but candor. Hyper-imperialism no longer invests in the fiction that domination is accidental or benevolent. It asserts itself openly, confident that no countervailing force can meaningfully restrain it inside its chosen zone.

In this open phase, power abandons persuasion as inefficient. Consent is replaced by compliance. International law is reduced to internal procedure. Diplomacy becomes a transmission belt for ultimatums rather than negotiation. Permanent siege replaces episodic war. The empire no longer seeks to manage the world; it seeks to lock down a region where its logistical, financial, and military superiority can still be enforced without catastrophic overreach.

Venezuela is where this transition becomes visible. Not because it is uniquely defiant, but because it sits at the intersection of oil, multipolar alignment, and hemispheric doctrine. What is happening there is not an anomaly to be explained away; it is a pattern being consolidated. The American Pole emerges not as a defensive arrangement, but as a structure of exclusion—designed to secure resources, discipline labor and migration, and deny rivals any foothold close to U.S. shores.

Hyper-imperialism, in this sense, is a response to decline, not confidence. As global dominance becomes harder to sustain, control becomes more territorial, more coercive, more explicit. The map shrinks, but the pressure intensifies. The empire fortifies what it believes it cannot afford to lose and is willing to openly violate its own proclaimed principles to do so.

The lesson Venezuela offers the world is therefore stark. This is what empire looks like when it no longer believes in its own myths. It does not ask. It declares. It does not persuade. It enforces. And it no longer hides behind the language of partnership or rules. The American Pole is not a shield against chaos; it is a cage built in anticipation of it.

Whether this open phase stabilizes U.S. power or accelerates its unraveling remains an open question. What is no longer in doubt is the nature of the system now asserting itself. Hyper-imperialism has stepped into the light, and Venezuela is the place where the mask was finally set aside.

(Weaponized Information)

---

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

Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel has firmly rejected US President Donald Trump's threat against his country, stressing that Havana is prepared to defend itself “to the last drop of blood.”

---

From Presstv via This RSS Feed.

On January 3rd, the United States invaded and bombed Venezuela and abducted President Maduro and First Lady Flores. This violent act of imperialist aggression by the Trump regime is a continuation of over two decades of hybrid warfare aimed at suppressing the Bolivarian Revolution. Over the past months, the US has been escalating aggression against Venezuela, but this abduction is the culmination of over two decades of imperialist war. In fact, it was predicted 20 years ago this year by Hugo Chávez, the first president of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, at an address to the UN General Assembly.

In 2006, in what became one of his most iconic speeches, Hugo Chávez said:

“The government of the United States doesn’t want peace. It wants to exploit its system of exploitation, of pillage, of hegemony through war. It wants peace. But what’s happening in Iraq? What happened in Lebanon? In Palestine? What’s happening? What’s happened over the last 100 years in Latin America and in the world? And now threatening Venezuela — new threats against Venezuela, against Iran?”

Chávez could have made this exact speech today, last year, or really any time in the past two decades. His words are so apt for today because US foreign policy has not changed. It is the same violent maintenance and exertion of its hegemony and deadly system of exploitation and hegemony, no matter if orchestrated in blue or red. This is what we have been seeing with Israel’s genocide in Gaza, attacks on Lebanon and Yemen, regime change in Syria, threats and attacks on Iran, suffocation of Cuba, provocations and war preparation against China, proxy war in Ukraine, and continued regime change attempts against Venezuela. Chávez’s words will remain timeless as long as US imperialism remains intact and the smell of sulfur remains.

Since 1998, with the election of the revolutionary leader Hugo Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution, the United States has been hellbent on overthrowing the government of Venezuela. Before Chávez, American companies ran wild in Venezuela, extracting and exploiting natural resources and labor. In the 1980s, Venezuela adopted US-backed neoliberal reforms, which emphasized an open oil market, deregulation, and privatization, which accumulated huge profits for US companies at the expense of the Venezuelan people. This is the Venezuela that the United States wants; in fact, this is the US’s modus operandi across Latin America.

Today, the media class is doubling down on its line of Venezuela’s fall from grace as the richest country in Latin America. This regime change propaganda has been plastered across media platforms, like CBS’s 60 Minutes, to manufacture consent for US regime change operations, impending invasion, and for continued US war crimes against small boats in the Caribbean.

Coincidentally erased from these media narratives are the impacts of suffocation with US-led sanctions, which have slashed Venezuela’s oil revenues by 213% between January 2017 and December 2024. This amounts to $77 million in losses every single day. These unilateral coercive measures are a form of warfare aimed at impoverishing the Venezuelan people, blaming the Bolivarian Revolution for hardships, and triggering regime change from utter suffering.

It is shameful, though unsurprising given these are the same media outlets justifying US-Israeli genocide, to peddle this lie, which purposefully erases the true history of neoliberal Venezuela. In this era, romanticized by these imperialist mouthpieces as a haven to which they want Venezuela to return, just 20% of the Venezuelan population was benefiting from oil wealth, while the other 80% suffered from poverty. Also erased from these narratives are the horrors of IMF austerity, which overnight locked out millions of people from basic necessities and essential services, leading to Caracazo, an uprising of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans opposing these neoliberal reforms. It is convenient for 60 Minutes and others to erase the deaths of over 3,000 people from the military crush of these protests, just as it is to remove all traces of the neoliberal crisis that the US enforced on the country. But despite attempts, they cannot redact how the horrific neoliberalism of the 1980s and 1990s brought about the popular uprising led by Commandante Hugo Chávez, which eventually led to his successful election as president in 1998.

While Chávez’s victory did not immediately alert Washington, and the Clinton administration adopted a “wait and see” policy, in the years following, alarms certainly began to ring. Chávez’s openly anti-imperialist politik, including selling oil to Cuba and supporting anti-imperialist resistance and governments, and the imposition of Venezuela’s sovereignty, quickly made US politicians, oil tycoons, and those with stakes in the US empire tremble.

Sabotage Made in the White House (2001-4)

With the arrival of Bush in the White House in 2001, US policy towards Venezuela became more overtly aggressive, with Chávez as the target fresh from re-election victory. This shift was deepened in response to Chávez’s opposition to Bush’s so-called “war on terror” and refusal to join the “coalition of the willing, as well as Venezuela’s escalating assertion of its oil sovereignty. As the US escalated attacks across Afghanistan and Iraq, Chávez criticized and called out the terror and violence the US imposed across the world and domestically. Chávez’s bold opposition to US terror was a substantial threat to the imperialist coalition that sought to impose its violent will on the peoples of West Asia. In response, the US accelerated its hybrid warfare from a campaign of pressure and isolation to regime change.

This came to a head in 2002, when the US backed and coordinated right-wing elites to kidnap Chávez in an attempted coup where they tried to dissolve the constitution of the Bolivarian Republic. In quick succession, the US recognized the short-lived 47-hour coup , which embarrassingly failed as popular forces rallied in tandem with the military to brush off the coup. Rather than demoralize the Venezuelan people, this coup galvanized the socialist project with oil revenues now reinvested in education, healthcare, and housing rather than the pockets of US tycoons. The government built 3,000 new schools and, by 2005, eradicated illiteracywith the support of Cuba; set up 6,000 community health clinics as 15,000 Cuban doctors provided healthcare for millions of Venezuelans; and by 2009, infant mortality was cut by 40%, and the free healthcare system was caring for millions of Venezuelans.

In the face of overwhelming support for the revolution, the US changed course and used economic and technological warfare to try to strangle the revenue the government was relying on to fund its sweeping reforms. 8 months after the failed coup, the US-backed opposition groups sabotaged the nationalized oil company, PDVSA, through INTESA (majority owned by US weapons company SAIC) , a company working in PDVSA. At the same time, US-funded opposition groups provoked a “strike” at PDVSA. The strike and lockout cost the country $20 billion, which could have been used to fund the healthcare system, to build a million homes, or continue to better the lives of Venezuelan people. In 2004, US-trained thugs violently attacked and killed people in Caracas in another attempt to oust Chávez. This was quickly followed by a NED- and USAID-funded campaign, led by US puppet Maria Corina Machado, for a referendum to recall President Chávez. This was yet another attempt to impose regime change that was crushed repeatedly by the streets.

Despite relentless attempts to overthrow Chávez, the revolutionary government pushed ahead with anti-imperialist worldbuilding in forming the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America, or ALBA, as an anti-hegemonic alternative to the US ‘Free Trade Area of the Americas’ (FTAA) which prioritized social programme and solidarity over neoliberal, extractive “trade”; leadership of OPEC to facilitate development and constitute the progressive bloc across Latin America; and challenged US imperialist violence, with powerful statements like:

‘From Latin America, from Venezuela, we send out our heart to our brothers the Iraqi people, and the Arab peoples … who are fighting the battle against the imperialist aggressor” (Hugo Chávez, April 2004)

Second Offensive (2005-08)

As Venezuela continued using oil incomes to develop Venezuela in the interests of the people, the US imperialist aggression continued in full force. This pushed the United States into formulating a multi-pronged approach aimed at overthrowing the Bolivarian revolution. In 2005, the Bush administration imposed formal sanctions on Venezuela and funnelled millions of dollars into opposition figures to cause chaos and suffering. This approach has been tried and tested by the US empire across the world, most notably in Cuba, where a decades-long total blockade has sought to produce immense suffering amongst the Cuban people, that they support the overthrow of their own government via US-backed figures.

Between 2005 and 2012, the US used the National Endowment for Democracy to funnel $30 million into opposition parties, non-governmental organizations, and other opposition groups in Venezuela. This spiked ahead of the December 2006 presidential election with the aim of propelling figures to undermine the democratic process and provide domestic calls for US invasion. One of the key figures to emerge from this money was Maria Corina Machado, the 2025 winner of the Nobel “Peace” Prize and vocal supporter of the US imperialist invasion of Venezuela. After the Trump regime killed over 110 Venezuelans and abducted their President, totally undermining the sovereignty of a country, Machado stated the US had fulfilled its promise to enforce the law. Such figures, despite being snubbed by their puppet master, Trump, are paraded to give the sense that imperialist invasion has a domestic face.

In 2005, the US officially labelled Venezuela a “non-cooperative” country and banned the sale of all weapons, parts, and software, including maintenance of F-16 fighter jets and any regional defense cooperation. Under the guise of “terror, the Bush administration effectively imposed an embargo on the country as an attempt to suppress its international solidarity, bold policy, and socialist construction. Over the following years, the Bush administration continued imperialist attacks, including propaganda of “authoritarianism” and human rights abuses, lawfare imperialism via companies like Exxon, as well as escalating targeted sanctions, including on the financial sector, the first OFAC designations for senior Venezuelan officials, as well as other individuals and businesses at whim.

All the while, Venezuela was providing free heating oil to Americans across 25 states. The CITGO-Venezuela Heating Oil Program began in 2005 and provided over 2 million Americans with free and discounted heating services, including for homeless shelters and Native American communities. While the US was investing millions of dollars into attacking Venezuela and bringing about regime change, the Chávez government was providing aid to the American people.

This material international solidarity provided to exploited Americans was part of a wider and sweeping investment in public services in Venezuela itself. By 2008, Venezuela’s GDP grew by almost 5%, driven by the oil boom, which facilitated the massive investments in public spending. In this period, 25% of oil revenue went directly into the government’s Fonden national fund for direct investment into public projects for food sovereignty, housing, education, healthcare, transportation, cooperatives, sanitation, and socialist construction. Between 1998 and 2008, 17 large hospitals were built, primary-care physicians increased twelve-fold, infant mortality fell by more than a third, death from malnutrition cut by half, higher education enrolment more than doubled, foreign debt fell by more than half, five million people were brought into formal sanitation systems, major new transportation networkers were built, and 6,200 new cooperatives received funding. The Venezuelan people’s material conditions were vastly improved by this ambitious and socialist government, using oil revenue in the interests of the people. This, of course, motivated the United States’ coercive measures.

Coercion and control (2009-13)

The Obama regime’s first moves marked an escalation in direct attacks on revolutionary leaders in government in Venezuela. Between 2010 and 2013, Obama sanctioned 19 Venezuelan officials, froze their assets, and denied them travel, all based on lies over “drugs.” Such a turn marked a move to designate individuals as enemies of the United States and provide propaganda points for further actions. Years before, Chávez predicted this labelling of “narco-trafficking” as justification for invasion and regime change. The same formula was also imposed on Diosdado Cabello and then Maduro. In an interview in 2005, Chávez said:

“Years ago, someone told me: ‘They’re going to end up accusing you of being a drug trafficker—you personally—you, Chávez. Not just that the government supports it, or permits it—no, no, no. They’re going to try to apply the Noriega formula to you.”

In 2013, Hugo Chávez passed away, leaving behind a legacy inspiring Venezuelans and all those across the world who moved to build societies based on peace and justice. The Presidential election of 2013 set out the same playbook the US was to use in all preceding elections. The vote was won by Nicolás Maduro, who contested a NED-funded candidate, Henrique Capriles, who refused to accept his defeat and claimed it was a rigged election. The Obama regime used this opportunity to give grounds for regime change by denouncing the election results and labeling Maduro the illegitimate leader. Thus arose the newest villain in Venezuela, deemed an authoritarian human rights-abusing dictator, or whichever combination of words the US ruling class selected that day.

US-funded groups instigated violent riots across Venezuela, providing the ideal conditions for the “imperialism of peace” waged by the US on the country. The “Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act” passed in 2014 provided further basis for widespread sanctions, using so-called “human rights” as the rationale for interference and punitive measures. The most prominent propaganda lines the US used to peddle during this time were over “human rights”, “corruption”, and “drugs”, all to demonize Venezuela and justify all coercive measures, just as the lies of the “terror” threat were the rationalization for the US to kill over 4.5 million people.

Lethal Actions (2015-2019)

On March 9, 2015, the Obama regime labelled Venezuela an “extraordinary threat to US national security, invoking the Emergency Economic Powers Act to do so. This Executive Order froze the assets of seven senior Venezuelan officials and banned them from the US, as well as critically providing the legal scaffolding for all further unilateral coercive measures imposed on Venezuela by subsequent administrations. Obama seamlessly set up the scaffolding that enabled Trump’s more abrasive, lethal attacks on Venezuela.

Between 2015-17, the US Treasury pressured financial institutions to cease operations in Venezuela and to close the accounts of their clients. In quick succession, this economic strangulation had deadly effects: Citibank rejected Venezuela’s payment for 300,000 doses of insulin, UBS Swiss Bank delayed a purchase of vaccines for months, Pfizer, Abbot, and Baster refused to issue certificates for cancer drugs, and a $9 million payment for dialysis supplies was blocked. The US deliberately disrupted the free healthcare the government was providing to Venezuelans.

In 2017, during Trump’s first presidency, the US imposed a more robust financial blockade on Venezuela, seeking to cut Venezuela off from financial markets. The US imposed bans on financial engagement between US and Venezuelan individuals and companies, and issued warnings of penalties for foreign banks if they did so. In an attempt to circumvent these attacks and fund public services, the Maduro government introduced the Petro, a cryptocurrency based on oil reserves. Immediately, the US sanctioned that too as it continued to stack lethal sanctions, blocks, and bans intended to destabilize, attack, and destroy the country’s ability to function on its own.

In 2019, the Trump regime escalated its terrorist maximum pressure campaign on Venezuela.  They imposed a total oil embargo and de facto economic embargo, seized Venezuelan company CITGO, sanctioned the Central Bank of Venezuela, and continued to add officials to the sanctions list. While these coercive measures sought to economically strangle the country, the US continued to push opposition figures. In January, Juan Guaidó declared himself president of Venezuela. With US pressure, at least 60 governments across the world were pushed into recognizing this illegitimate statement. In order to push him to challenge Maduro’s legitimate government, the US handed Guaidó control of foreign frozen Venezuelan assets, including CITGO, as well as Venezuelan embassies. Despite being handed all of the concessions needed, Guaido failed to garner any popular support as people in Venezuela and across the world saw this as an open and weak attempt at regime change.

Between 2015 and 2019, food imports fell by 73%, which caused chronic hunger to skyrocket by 214%; 180,000 surgeries were halted due to a lack of antibiotics and anesthetics; 2.6 million children could not access vaccines; and over 60% of HIV/AIDS patients were forced to suspend their treatment. These all-out sanctions forced public services to cut their capacity by half as shortages of fuel, spare parts, and imports reduced their ability to function, according to UN Special Rapporteur Alena Douhan. US sanctions killed 40,000 people in one year, between 2017 and 2018. The true cost of US measures is in its hundreds of thousands, all victims of the US empire, hellbent on imposing its interests and will on a sovereign nation.

Suffocation (2020-2024)

In response to the Maduro government’s resilience and popular support, the US set a $15 million bounty for the capture of Maduro and four other officials, as well as imposing ridiculous charges over “narco-terrorism” and corruption against Maduro and 14 other officials. US sanctions, mercenary-backed coup attempts, and Guaido’s meddling continued to harm Venezuelan people as medicine shortages leaped, the US blocked aircraft and bullied foreign insurers to drop their coverage of oil tankers.

The sanctions regime caused a quarter of Venezuelans to leave the country, many to the United States, where they were told they would find safety. Migration has been weaponized, just like with Cuba, in order to build domestic pressure for those outside of Venezuela propagandized to believe the suffering in Venezuela is at the hands of the government, not US warfare.

Biden’s government, purporting to be interested in “democracy” in Venezuela, made a big show of easing some sanctions in the run-up to the 2024 elections. This was set up in order to feign concern, attempt to hide US hybrid warfare, and to justify the propaganda push denouncing the elections. In quick succession, the US sanctioned more officials and seized Maduro’s presidential plane.

Invasion (2025-26)

As power changed hands from Biden to Trump, the outgoing government imposed further fresh sanctions on Venezuelan officials, including Maduro, paving the way for further moves by the incoming Trump government.

The Trump regime designated US-created “drug cartels” as “foreign terrorist organizations. In August, the US raised the bounty on Maduro to $50 million and began a renewed propaganda campaign on the grounds of “narco-terrorism” and “cartels. This all provided the justification for the escalated aggression against Venezuela, with repeated war crimes as the US bombed small boats in the Caribbean and Pacific, which killed over 117 people.

Despite negotiations and diplomacy on the part of the Maduro government, including when Trump deported thousands of Venezuelans, the US only ramped up its aggression. All the while, the US has been continuing its funding and promotion of opposition candidates in elections, pushing propaganda in domestic and international media, and attempting to wrangle control of Venezuela’s oil.

In the past month, this aggression showed to the world just how the US operates without any consequence or accountability. On December 10, the US hijacked and stole 1.8 million barrels of Venezuelan oil and a tanker set for Cuba. A few weeks later, they hijacked and stole another oil tanker in international waters and tried and failed to hijack another. From December 21 until January 7, the US was chasing an empty oil tanker, which was put under Russian protection. Despite this, on January 7, the US hijacked and stole this tanker in the North Atlantic as well as another tanker in the Caribbean. These continued attacks, while the US and Israel threaten to bomb Iran, continue a slower, quieter genocide in Gaza, and threaten to attack Cuba, Nicaragua, Mexico, and Colombia, are part of the US empire’s monstrous operation. They seek to suffocate any challenge to its maintenance of an international system of plunder and exploitation.

Right now, the Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores are captured in chains in New York, facing sham charges that are more for the spectacle than any justice. The US is continuing to steal Venezuela’s oil, broadcasting videos and cheering about hijacking another tanker. They are throwing around threats and gloating about deadly bombings that have killed over 110 people. It can feel hopeless, just as over two years of US-Israeli genocide go on without any justice for those who carry it out, who justify it, and who protect it.

All over the world, people are rising up against the US empire. Chants of “Yankee go home” have rung out across the Americas, Europe, Asia, and Africa. Venezuelans have been taking to the streets every day, chanting “Maduro, aguanta, que el pueblo se levanta / Maduro, hold on, the people are rising up”. When we take a look back at the past 20 years of US violence against Venezuela, we know that the biggest fear for the imperialists is a popular uprising. That is why they make the people suffer, that is why they fund figures to pretend to speak for them, that is why they spend billions of dollars on propaganda.

20 years ago this year, when Chávez took to the floor in the United Nations, he was not only speaking to the people of 2006 nor to Bush, but to us today as we rise up: “What is happening is that the world is waking up and people everywhere are rising up. I tell the world dictator: I have a feeling that the rest of your days will be a living nightmare, because everywhere you will see us rising up against American imperialism, demanding freedom, equality of peoples, and respect for the sovereignty of nations. Yes, we may be described as extremists, but we are rising against the empire, against the model of domination.”

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Venezuelanalysis editorial staff.

Nuvpreet Kalra is CODEPINK’s Digital Content Producer. She completed a Bachelor’s in Politics & Sociology at the University of Cambridge, and an MA in Internet Equalities at the University of the Arts London. As a student, she was part of movements to divest and decolonize, as well as anti-racist and anti-imperialist groups. Nuvpreet joined CODEPINK as an intern in 2023, and now produces digital and social media content. In England, she organizes with groups for Palestinian liberation, abolition and anti-imperialism.

Source: Counterpunch

The post Hugo Chávez Predicted This appeared first on Venezuelanalysis.

---

From Venezuelanalysis via This RSS Feed.

Our weekly roundup of stories in the English and Spanish language press on Mexico and Mexican politics.

Arturo Sánchez Jiménez, Respeto a soberanía de Venezuela, exigen miles en la CDMX La Jornada. Asimismo, llamaron a fortalecer la unidad regional: “Es hora de avanzar en la formación de una gran unidad latinoamericana para enfrentar al imperialismo”.

Mexico City protesters march against US intervention in Venezuela Reuters

Trump Threatens Military Action in Mexico Under the Pretext of a War on Drugs, Telesur. U.S. President Donald Trump threatened on Thursday, January 8, to launch a land military operation against Mexico over what he alleges is a war on drug cartels.

Donald Trump anuncia que iniciará ataques terrestres en territorio mexicano Telesur. Después de la operación militar estadounidense contra Venezuela, Donald Trump afirmó que México, así como Cuba y Colombia, podrían ser los próximos objetivos de Washington.

Anne Vigna, Mexico’s president downplays Trump’s threats Le Monde. Does keeping a cool head require burying it in the sand?

Gonzalo Ortuño López, Desafíos ambientales de México en 2026: proteger a defensores, cumplir metas climáticas y aumentar el presupuesto Desinformémonos. Este año, las expectativas de expertos y activistas se centran en vigilar las acciones del Gobierno para resolver la crisis de violencia que amenaza a las personas defensoras del territorio.

Frank Morris, Deportations are set to explode — a huge worry for farmers already facing a labor shortage Wisconsin Public Radio. Washington will pump an extra $170 billion into Immigration Customs Enforcement, or ICE, and the Border Patrol between now and September 2029. With a massive budget behind the effort, the goal is to ramp up deportations to at least 1 million immigrants a year.

Jorge Zepeda Patterson, Mostrar, con campañas de publicidad masiva, q Trump se equivoca Sin Embargo. Desafortunadamente, este tipo de pensamiento mágico es muy común en la prensa mexicana. Una idea que solo tiene sentido si tienes una agencia de publicidad.

Megan Messerly, ‘Mexico should indeed be concerned’: Trump’s threats rattle Mexican officials, businesses Politico. A U.S. strike inside Mexico would only “embolden hardliners within Morena,” said Gerónimo Gutiérrez. From his mouth to God’s ears.

Rocío Moreno, Cherán K’eri: Luchar desde las necesidades colectivas Resumen Latinoamericano. Cherán K´eri significa Cherán el grande, pero su grandeza va más allá de la enorme extensión de su territorio y población. Creo que su grandeza está en las cosas que hacen esas personas en su territorio y fuera de él.

• 

  News Briefs

  Clicks

  January 11, 2026January 11, 2026

  Our weekly roundup of stories in the English and Spanish language press including the ever ubiquitous Trump threat, deportations, and Mexico rises for Venezuela and Maduro’s freedom.

• 

  Analysis

  The White House Cartel

  January 11, 2026January 11, 2026

  “Make America Great Again” is an outdated slogan, since that country’s economic growth has been fueled by hundreds and thousands of acts of piracy.

• 

  News Briefs | Photos

  Mexico City Mass March for Venezuela, Maduro & Flores

  January 10, 2026January 11, 2026

  Defense of sovereignty and a unified continental response to US imperialist aggression comprised the collective agenda of the 10,000 strong march.

The post Clicks appeared first on Mexico Solidarity Media.

---

From Mexico Solidarity Media via This RSS Feed.

This editorial by Antonio Gershenson originally appeared in the January 11, 2026 edition of La Jornada, Mexico’s premier left wing daily newspaper. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those ofMexico Solidarity Media*, or theMexico Solidarity Project.*

We’ve already seen that it’s impossible to stop the Republican presidential madness. Without laws, without rules, without a shred of common sense or morality, Trump does as he pleases. He has ordered the killing of any person, regardless of age, religion, or economic status. The only thing that matters is trying to hide the blazing sun shining down on him and his genocidal government. The head of the White House has become the head of the world’s largest cartel.

The threats are no longer just threats; they have been carried out with complete impunity, a level of behavior unseen for years. This has been demonstrated by his support for the “Minister of Death,” Benjamin Netanyahu, by creating a criminal organization immune to any law, and by ICE’s persecution of innocent people whose only crime is working and supporting their families.

We are talking about a country that is definitely, and historically has proven to be, a danger to humanity.

The assault on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, although widely predicted, has left us speechless. Well done to the acting president, Delcy Rodríguez. Her inaugural address was a true call for human consistency, dignity, and a return to reason.

Long live PDVSA! Long live the oil workers! These are more than just slogans. They are the heartfelt and genuine demand for what is rightfully theirs. Venezuelan oil belongs to the people of Venezuela. The acting president emphasizes that they owe nothing to the United States. On the contrary, the US has abused the profits generated by Citgo.

Delcy says: “President Trump has a score to settle with; they stole more than 35 billion dollars with Citgo because it’s not just the company’s value, but also the annual dividends it has generated since 2019. Where are they? Where is that money? They stole it! Venezuela owes nothing to any US government. It’s a legitimate claim, although we know that for the immoral Republican government, that doesn’t matter. They openly declare themselves the new pirates of the Caribbean.”

President Rodríguez continued, “The oil doesn’t belong to the United States, the gas doesn’t belong to the United States: they belong to Venezuela.” And they will continue to say it openly: “If you want a barrel, if you want a single molecule of oil or gas, you have to pay for it. There is no other way; neither threats nor extortion nor theft nor looting are the way.” They were wrong, Trump was wrong, and very wrong… Venezuela owes nothing to the United States.

And not only that, President Delcy, with a firm voice, demands a historic apology from the United States and compensation for the lives lost in that country. And let the President not forget, it is the workers and the people in general who defend their resources. We don’t want to imagine Trump, or the despicable Marco Rubio, demanding in-kind payments from Pemex. Demanding quotas, advances, or anything else, as a show of cooperation and non-subordination to that country.

We don’t want to imagine a demand being made on President Sheinbaum to stop sending oil to Cuba, or to dismiss the group of Cuban doctors working under contract and through humanitarian aid in Mexico. “Make America Great Again” is an outdated slogan, since that country’s economic growth has been fueled by hundreds and thousands of acts of piracy. They have been the biggest drug traffickers since they discovered that enormous business.

It’s no secret that their troops were subjected to addiction since World War II, during the multiple invasions of various countries. The high rate of addiction suffered by American soldiers during the Vietnam War is an example of how the US government doesn’t care about its own people. In short, we are talking about a country that is definitely, and historically has proven, a danger to humanity.

US pressure affects us in all areas of production, science, art, and strategic industries, such as nuclear power. We are on high alert due to the current critical situation of our nuclear industry. We will not let our guard down on this issue. It is urgent that the current administration support the development of an industry that has been neglected by all neoliberal governments.

We have stated this on numerous occasions. The Mexican nuclear industry needs greater support from the current government. If we are talking about defending our energy sovereignty, supporting nuclear power will be the best demonstration of consistency. We will address this topic in greater detail in subsequent articles.

• 

  News Briefs

  Clicks

  January 11, 2026January 11, 2026

  Our weekly roundup of stories in the English and Spanish language press including the ever ubiquitous Trump threat, deportations, and Mexico rises for Venezuela and Maduro’s freedom.

• 

  Analysis

  The White House Cartel

  January 11, 2026January 11, 2026

  “Make America Great Again” is an outdated slogan, since that country’s economic growth has been fueled by hundreds and thousands of acts of piracy.

• 

  News Briefs | Photos

  Mexico City Mass March for Venezuela, Maduro & Flores

  January 10, 2026January 11, 2026

  Defense of sovereignty and a unified continental response to US imperialist aggression comprised the collective agenda of the 10,000 strong march.

The post The White House Cartel appeared first on Mexico Solidarity Media.

---

From Mexico Solidarity Media via This RSS Feed.