2026
Latin American Publications!
125 readers
17 users here now
A community for Latin American publications.
NOTE: All the publications in this feed are Latin American in origin; that does not mean they only report on Latin American news.
founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
2027
8
Russia Urges US Not to Commit ‘a Fatal Mistake’ by Invading Venezuela (+UN Security Council)
(orinocotribune.com)
2028
Decolonizing the Venezuelan Subsoil from Transnational Monopoly Interests.
For over a hundred years, Venezuela’s history has been written in “black gold.” From the first sparks of domestic innovation to the suffocating enclaves of foreign monopolies, the story of Venezuelan oil is a saga of a nation struggling to break the chains of energy colonialism.
RELATED:
Venezuelan Oil Exports Continue As Usual Despite the U.S. Total Blockade
In this installment, we explore the origins of the industry: the national pioneers forgotten by Western history, the arrival of the transnational “predators,” and the first great awakening of the Venezuelan working class.
1878: The “Eureka” Moment of National Sovereignty
The mainstream narrative often claims that Venezuela’s oil industry began when foreign companies arrived to “civilize” the landscape. This is a historical fallacy. The true birth of the industry was 100% Venezuelan.
On October 12, 1878, long before the American corporations dotted the horizon, a group of local entrepreneurs led by Manuel Antonio Pulido founded the Compañía Nacional Minera Petrolia del Táchira at the Hacienda La Alquitrana.
Using primitive but effective technology, they drilled the “Eureka” well. This milestone proved that Venezuelans possessed the ingenuity to manage their own subsoil resources.
🇻🇪 Venezuela es el país con más reservas probadas de petróleo. Su geopolítica se fundamenta en su posición geográfica y sus enormes recursos naturales.
La actividad económica se desarrolla principalmente en la zona norte del país, donde también se concentra el 65% de la… pic.twitter.com/J0VK5kIC1R
— El Orden Mundial (@elOrdenMundial) December 18, 2025
The text reads: “Venezuela is the country with the largest proven oil reserves. Its geopolitics are based on its geographic position and enormous natural resources. Economic activity is concentrated mainly in the northern part of the country, where 65% of the population also lives. Do you think Trump will directly attack Venezuela? Let us know in the comments.”
The Transnational Incursion: Building a “State Within a State”
As the massive potential of Venezuelan basins became clear, the gates were forced open. Under the long, shadow-filled dictatorship of Juan Vicente Gómez, “The Greats”—the world’s most powerful oil companies—descended upon the country.
Companies like Standard Oil (now Exxon), Shell, and Gulf Oil had established a dominant presence. They built enclaves. These were gated communities known as “oil camps,” where foreign managers lived in luxury while Venezuelan workers were subjected to segregated housing and racialized labor hierarchies.
These corporations operated as a “state within a state.” They dictated laws, manipulated land concessions, and extracted billions in wealth while paying the Venezuelan state a pittance in royalties. This era of “energy feudalism” saw the country’s natural wealth being drained to fuel the industrialization of the Global North, leaving Venezuela with environmental scars and systemic poverty.
1936: The Great Strike
Following the death of the dictator Gómez in 1935, the Venezuelan people finally had the space to breathe—and to organize. In 1936, the oil industry became the primary theater of the class struggle.
The Great Oil Strike of 1936 was a watershed moment. For 43 days, thousands of workers across the Zulia and Falcón states laid down their tools. They were demanding dignity in the face of foreign arrogance.
While the government eventually forced the workers back to their posts, the strike was a strategic victory. It sent a clear message to the boardrooms in New York and London: the oil may be under the ground, but the power belongs to the hands that extract it.
1943: The Medina Angarita Reform and the “50/50” Principle
By the 1940s, the Venezuelan State recognized that the old concessionary model was a form of “energy feudalism” that favored only foreign boardrooms. In 1943, under the government of General Isaías Medina Angarita, a landmark Hydrocarbons Law was enacted to fundamentally redefine the relationship between the Nation and “The Greats”.
The crown jewel of this reform was the “50/50” Principle. For the first time, it was stipulated that the total amount of taxes and royalties paid by companies must represent at least half of their net income.
Key achievements of the 1943 Law included:
- Mandatory Refining: Companies were forced to build refineries on national soil, ending the colonial practice of exporting only raw crude.
- Tax Unification: A 30% income tax was introduced alongside a minimum royalty of 16.6%.
- Technical Oversight: The State gained the power to supervise oil operations directly.
This reform became a global gold standard; later inspiring nationalist demands in countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
1960: OPEC—A Venezuelan Shield Against Global Cartels
For the Global South, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) was a revolutionary act of decolonization. The intellectual architect behind this was the Venezuelan Minister Juan Pablo Pérez Alfonzo.
Founded in Baghdad in September 1960 by Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, OPEC’s mission was simple: to stop “The Greats” from unilaterally manipulating oil prices to the detriment of producing nations.
Pérez Alfonzo argued that oil is a non-renewable resource and its price should reflect its true value to ensure the progressive development of the people who own it.
OPEC transformed oil from a corporate commodity into an instrument of state sovereignty. For Venezuela, this leadership positioned the country as a pioneer in international cooperation.
1976: The “Chimerical” Nationalization
On January 1, 1976, President Carlos Andrés Pérez raised the national flag at the Zumaque I well, marking what was officially called “Oil Independence Day”. This act created Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA) as the parent company to oversee the industry.
However, historians often refer to this as an “incomplete” nationalization. While the State legally owned the oil, the 1975 Reservation Law contained the controversial Article 5, which allowed the State to enter into operational agreements with private companies for “technical assistance”.
The “Old” PDVSA that emerged was:
- Technocratic and Elitist: It fostered a “meritocracy” that operated with high technical standards but remained ideologically aligned with Western corporate interests.
- A “Backdoor” for Transnationals: Through marketing and technical contracts, foreign companies maintained significant influence and profited from equipment and assets that were already paid for.
- Disconnected from the People: The industry functioned as a “state within a state,” reinvesting its wealth into its own corporate growth rather than social development.
This era set the stage for the neoliberal “Opening” of the 1990s, where the elites would attempt to hand the industry back to foreign powers entirely.
Así ha saqueado y robado Estados Unidos del ultraderechista Donald Trump un petrolero en las costas de Venezuela. Ataque imperialista con total impunidad. No es ninguna lucha contra el narcotráfico, es una lucha por el control del petróleo. pic.twitter.com/fvhFSSE6IT
— Fonsi Loaiza (@FonsiLoaiza) December 10, 2025
The text reads: “This is how the United States, under the far-right Donald Trump, looted and stole an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela. An imperialist attack with total impunity. This is not a fight against drug trafficking; it is a fight for control of oil.”
The Oil Opening of the 1990s
Following the nationalization of 1976, the 1990s marked a period known as the Oil Opening. This was a strategic shift aimed at making the state monopoly more flexible by inviting massive private capital—primarily from foreign transnationals—back into the country.
Driven by a financial crisis and the “old” PDVSA’s inability to fund the technology needed for extra-heavy crude, the government initiated three phases of partnership:
- Operational Agreements (1992-1993): Reactivating marginal or inactive fields.
- Strategic Partnerships (1993-1995): Developing the massive reserves of the Orinoco Oil Belt.
- Shared Profits (1996): Exploring new high-risk areas.
While this period attracted giants like ExxonMobil, BP, and Chevron, it sparked intense controversy.
2001–2007: The Renationalization and the Organic Law
The rise of the Bolivarian Revolution, with President Hugo Chavez brought a radical reorganization of the industry to reverse the “Oil Opening”. The Organic Hydrocarbons Law of 2001 (and its 2006 reform) served as the legal shield to regain state control.
The key pillars of this Renationalization included:
- The 51% Rule: All primary activities must be carried out by “Mixed Enterprises” where the State maintains at least 51% shareholding and real operational control.
- Royalty Increase: The extraction tax was raised from as low as 1% during the Opening to a standard 30%, ensuring the Nation receives income from the very first barrel extracted.
- Ending PDVSA Autonomy: The state-owned company was subordinated to the Ministry of Energy and Petroleum to align oil revenue with social investment and national development.
- Jurisdictional Sovereignty: All legal disputes must now be settled in Venezuelan courts rather than international tribunals that favored transnationals.
"En Venezuela nos quitaron nuestra tierra, los derechos petroleros, todo lo que teníamos allí, nos quitaron nuestro petróleo, teníamos mucho petróleo allí, expulsaron a nuestras empresas petroleras y las queremos de vuelta allí".
El genocida Trump, con una retórica colonial… pic.twitter.com/SFWwNYkkYB
— Daniel Mayakovski (@DaniMayakovski) December 18, 2025
The text reads: “In Venezuela, they took our land, our oil rights, everything we had there. They took our oil; we had a lot of oil there. They expelled our oil companies, and we want them back.” The genocidal Trump, with his repugnant colonial rhetoric, claimed Venezuela’s oil and energy infrastructure as his own, demanding to plunder its resources in a surreal manner. The desperation of the empire forces it to remove its mask and openly admit that they are just pirates who plunder countries to fill their pockets.
The Modern Siege: Sanctions and the “Naval Blockade”
Since 2017, the Venezuelan oil industry has faced what experts describe as a “structural enclosure” through unilateral sanctions imposed by the U.S.. This strategy shifted from targeting individuals to a total sectoral blockade aimed at the financial and operational collapse of PDVSA.
The impact has been multifaceted:
- Financial Suffocation: Executive orders in 2017 and 2019 prohibited debt renegotiation and led to the confiscation of CITGO, Venezuela’s strategic refining arm in the U.S..
- The “Naval Blockade”: Washington has designated tankers, shipowners, and even individual captains on “blacklists” to prevent Venezuelan crude from reaching global markets.
- Operational Deterioration: Prohibition on importing spare parts and diluents caused production to plummet from 1.9 million barrels per day in 2017 to historic lows near 350,000 in 2020.
- Forced Discounts: To bypass the blockade, Venezuela must sell its oil on the “gray market” with discounts of 20% to 30%, while facing exorbitant freight and insurance costs.
By 2025, the pressure intensified with the revocation of licenses (such as Chevron’s General License 41) and the final liquidation phase of CITGO assets, representing a modern attempt at “recolonization” through energy collapse.
A Century of Resistance
The history of Venezuelan oil is not merely a timeline of extraction, but a profound narrative of a nation’s quest for true independence.
From the domestic ingenuity of Petrolia del Táchira in 1878 to the visionary founding of OPEC in 1960, Venezuela has consistently challenged the logic of energy colonialism.
However, as the events of the 21st century show, sovereignty is a territory that must be defended daily. The transition from the neoliberal “Opening” of the 1990s back to a state-controlled model demonstrated the high stakes of oil revenue.
The subsequent “structural enclosure” through sanctions and naval blockades serves as a stark reminder that imperial interests will use every tool—from financial sabotage to the seizure of oil ships—to regain control over the world’s largest oil reserves.
Sources: teleSUR – Venezuelanalysis – Misión Verdad – New York Times – Alí Rodríguez Araque – PDVSA TV – Organic Hydrocarbons Law 2001
From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.
2029
President Putin emphasizes that talks must be aimed at eliminating the root causes of the conflict.
On Friday, Russian President Vladimir Putin reiterated his willingness to end the conflict in Ukraine through peaceful means and stressed that his country is prepared to halt military actions once Russia’s medium- and long-term security conditions are guaranteed.
RELATED:
Russian Military to Liberate Historic Territories in Ukraine if Diplomacy Fails
During his traditional annual marathon question-and-answer session with journalists, he underscored that Russia remains open to negotiations, provided they are based on clear principles and on the elimination of the root causes that gave rise to the crisis.
Putin said the conflict did not arise spontaneously, but instead originated with the 2014 coup d’etat in Ukraine, the rise of “Nazifascism” to power and repeated deceptions regarding a possible peaceful solution to the genocide of the Russian-speaking population in the Donbas region.
The Russian leader also said the Minsk agreements were never implemented by Ukraine and its Western backers. He added that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) deceived Russia by breaking its commitment not to expand eastward and by seeking to establish a bridgehead in Ukraine.
Putin SMACKS DOWN NBC 'journalist'
NBC reporter tries to cause drama by claiming that Russia is "rejecting" Trump's Ukraine peace offer, which therefore will make Russia "responsible" for any new casualties.
Watch Putin put him in his place pic.twitter.com/06JgYy4OhQ
— Sprinter Press (@SprinterPress) December 19, 2025
Putin said no new “special military operations” would be carried out if the West treats Russia with respect and takes its interests into account. He recalled that when the situation reached a critical point in 2012, Russia proposed allowing populations in southeastern Ukraine to live in peace, without persecution, without Russophobia and without impositions stemming from an unconstitutional change of power. These proposals, however, were rejected by the Ukrainian government.
Putin also pointed out that Ukraine initially accepted the agreements reached during negotiations held in Istanbul. However, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky later refused to comply with those agreements, revealing a lack of genuine willingness to end hostilities.
To reach a peaceful settlement, Russia has set out conditions including recognition of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Crimea, and Sevastopol as part of the Russian Federation; the complete withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from Russian territories; and Ukraine’s neutrality, nonalignment, denuclearization, demilitarization, and denazification.
Also on Friday, Putin said he is willing to guarantee security in the event presidential elections are called in Ukraine, but he ruled out a full ceasefire. “We are ready to think about how to guarantee security… at least to cease or refrain from carrying out strikes in the rear on election day,” he said.
#FromTheSouth News Bits | Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi welcomed Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Presidential Palace in New Delhi as part of an official visit to discuss issues of mutual interest. pic.twitter.com/pBjPBTG0EY
— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) December 8, 2025
teleSUR/ JF
Sources: TASS – EFE – RT
From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.
2030
2031
The European producers reject the EU-Mercosur free trade agreement.
On Friday, the Brussels-Capital/Ixelles police said 13 people were arrested during farmer protests that took place in the European Quarter, mainly in Luxembourg Square in front of the European Parliament.
RELATED:
Italy to Sign EU-Mercosur Trade Deal Depending on Policies for Farmers
On Thursday, over 7,300 people and some 400 tractors gathered at the North Station to protest against the free trade agreement between the European Union (EU) and the Southern Common Market (Mercosur) as well as against proposed cuts to the funding of the Common Agricultural Policy in the initial draft of the next European Union budget.
Police authorities separated the official demonstration carried out at the North Station from the unrest that broke out in the European Quarter and stressed that those responsible for the violent incidents gathered there spontaneously.
In total, six administrative arrests and seven judicial arrests were made after the demonstration. Four police officers were also injured in incidents that occurred outside the framework of the official protest.
🇧🇪🇪🇺🇬🇷 Farmer protests against Mercosur agreement escalate in Brussels and Greece There were massive riots on Thursday as part of coordinated farmers' protests in the EU metropolis of Brussels and in large parts of Greece. #Belgium #EU #Greece pic.twitter.com/wVRr6TP3B0
— 🔰 Military-News (@MilitaryNewsEN) December 19, 2025
In addition, during clashes between police and protesters, a man required medical treatment for a serious head injury, although it is unknown whether he was a demonstrator or a journalist.
Authorities counted 950 tractors in the European Quarter, where potatoes, beets, cobblestones and chains were thrown at several buildings, while fireworks were also set off.
As the disturbances, which began around 2 p.m. local time, escalated, police intervened repeatedly against protesters — including the use of water cannons and tear gas — to disperse the crowd and prevent tractors from breaking through barriers and entering the security perimeter established for the European summit held throughout Thursday.
🔴BELGIUM 🇧🇪| Clashes took place in #Brussels on Thursday between police and around 10,000 European farmers during a massive demonstration against the projected trade agreement between EU and #Mercosur, a South American bloc. The protestors gathered near the European Parliament. pic.twitter.com/eysLRwh9U5
— Nanana365 (@nanana365media) December 19, 2025
Security forces reported extensive property damage, including a dozen destroyed gas masks, dozens of damaged uniforms, shields and helmets, a police vehicle damaged after being struck by a tractor, and several “Frisian horses” — mobile barriers used to secure the area around the European Parliament — destroyed after being run over by tractors.
Regarding damage to public spaces, police reported several traffic signs damaged or knocked down, broken windows — especially near Parliament — and road surfaces damaged by fires, including the burning of dozens of tires in Luxembourg Square.
Cleanup crews from the regional sanitation agency Bruxelles-Proprete, who worked until 11 p.m. to remove debris, estimated that 50 metric tons of waste were left behind after the farmers’ protest. Some residents were also reported collecting potatoes left on the ground in bags to take them home.
Social leaders, indigenous movements, and farmers are mobilizing against the policies of Daniel Noboa's government, specifically decisions regarding the rise in diesel prices in Ecuador.
📸@elenadequito13
Images from our correspondent in Ecuador, Elena Rodriguez. pic.twitter.com/iKVPTTSdX0
— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) October 7, 2025
teleSUR/ JF
Source: EFE
From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.
2032
2033
2034
The far-right politician pre-awards sale of four Patagonian plants for more than US$700 Million.
On Friday, Argentine President Javier Milei pre-awarded the share packages of four hydroelectric power plants in the southern Comahue region for more than US$700 million, as part of the privatization process of assets held by companies Energia Argentina (ENARSA) and Nucleoelectrica Argentina (NASA).
RELATED:
Argentina’s Senate Delays Labor Reform Debate to February 2026
Economy Minister Luis Caputo launched the second stage of the public bidding process for the sale of 100% of the share capital of the companies that operate the Alicura, El Chocon, Cerros Colorados and Piedra del Aguila complexes.
The Piedra del Aguila plant was pre-awarded to Central Puerto S.A., which submitted a bid of US$245 million, while the El Chocon complex was awarded to a consortium led by BML Inversora S.A.U. and MSU Energy, with an offer of US$236 million.
The group made up of Edison Inversiones S.A.U. and the Consorcio de Empresas Mendocinas para Potrerillos was named the pre-award winner for the Alicura and Cerros Colorados plants, with bids of US$162 million and US$64 million respectively.
Argentina perdió el agua en 2 años:
Ya son 12 las provincias que han firmado convenio con Mekorot (empresa de agua de Israel) fuera de control, monitoreo y de la normativa vigente.
Los convenios se hicieron sin licitación y sin consulta popular, por contratación directa. pic.twitter.com/jSnx0Obt7k— Bot Checker 🤖 (@BotCheckerCL) December 16, 2025
The text reads, “Argentina has lost its water supply in two years: Twelve provinces have signed agreements with the Israeli water company Mekorot, operating outside of any current oversight, monitoring, or regulations. These agreements were awarded directly, without bidding or public consultation.”
The Economy Ministry also set Dec. 22 for the signing ceremony of the concession and transfer contracts with the pre-awarded companies. The event will be held in the city of Cipolletti, in Rio Negro province.
The contracts will take effect once the final award resolution is published in the Official Gazette. The concessions for these four plants, granted in 1993, expired in August 2023, and since then the Argentine state has provisionally extended them in order to prepare a new tender process.
Currently, the Alicura plant is operated by U.S.-based AES; El Chocon is run by the Italian group Enel; Piedra del Aguila is under concession to Argentine power generator Central Puerto; and Cerros Colorados is operated by Orazul, a subsidiary of Argentine company Aconcagua Energia.
#FromTheSouth News Bits | Argentina: The National Network of Sons and Daughters for Identity and Justice Against Oblivion and Silence (H.I.J.O.S) holds its meeting in Buenos Aires, marking 30 years since its founding. pic.twitter.com/1nR2QNkl0Q
— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) December 8, 2025
teleSUR/ JF
Source: EFE
From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.
2035
The former president denounced that the ongoing process violates his constitutional rights.
On Thursday, the La Paz Court of Justice decided to uphold the preventive detention of former Bolivian President Luis Arce (2020-2025), who is under investigation for alleged corruption in the management of funds for Indigenous development.
RELATED:
Former Bolivian President Luis Arce Arrested
The Prosecutor’s Office clarified that the case follows the ordinary legal process for acts committed while Arce served as Economy Minister in the government of Evo Morales (2006-2019). However, the defense requested a trial of responsibilities.
Maria Nela Prada, former Minister of the Presidency, denounced that “all decisions are already predetermined,” and that Court rulings presume guilt rather than innocence, thus violating constitutional principles.
The Prosecutor’s Office alleged risks of flight, obstruction of justice, and questioned his residence and employment status. Prada confirmed that Arce lived in the same building for years and continues to teach at the Higher University of San Andres (UMSA).
The former President denounced a violation of due process and characterized his imprisonment as politically motivated. He stated that it was an attempt to divert attention from national issues.
Bolivia's right-wing US puppet regime has restored diplomatic relations with the genocidal Israeli regime. Ties had been cut by previous left-wing President Luis Arce.
Meanwhile, the regime arrested Arce on bogus, political charges.
This is what the US empire calls "democracy". https://t.co/loOBqqNhWL
— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) December 11, 2025
Arce also denounced that the elimination of hydrocarbon subsidies by President Rodrigo Paz constitutes a crime against the working people. He noted that the measure directly impacts the poorest and most vulnerable families.
The former Bolivian president stated that he has always stood with the people and that his policies prioritized national interests over privileged economic groups. Arce asserted that the process violates the Constitution, which guarantees the presumption of innocence.
Arce affirmed that prison will not silence him and that he faces threats and fabricated charges. He asserted that he did not flee and that he is facing the charges because he has nothing to fear.
The judge ordered his preventive detention for five months, pending an investigation into uneconomical conduct and breach of duties. The Prosecutor’s Office maintains that he authorized disbursements for Indigenous projects that were either not executed or remained incomplete.
#FromTheSouth News Bits | Bolivia: The Federation of Neighborhood Councils (FEJUVE) of La Paz, Social Control, and a faction of the city’s trade unions marched against the 40 percent increase in the bread price. pic.twitter.com/j2OSWGPBHs
— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) December 12, 2025
teleSUR: JP
Source: EFE
From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.
2036
2037
2038
2039
It also boosts military pay, modernizes armed forces, and funds allies.
On Thursday, U.S. President Donald Trump signed a US$900 billion defense bill for fiscal year 2026. The measure was driven by broad bipartisan support in the Senate and will allow for a 3.6% pay raise for U.S. military personnel.
RELATED:
U.S. Conditions Sanctions Relief for Syria
The law seeks not only to improve salaries but also to modernize the armed forces, including the construction and acquisition of aircraft and submarines, as well as the implementation of reforms to the delivery of military equipment.
In addition, the legislation allocates US$800 million in support for Ukraine, along with additional funds for Israel, Taiwan, Iraq and other allies.
On international matters, the legislation lifts sanctions that had been imposed on the government of Bashar al-Assad, justifying the move as support for Syria’s economic recovery after more than a decade of civil war.
🇺🇸🇺🇦 Trump Signs 1 Trillion Defense Bill – Includes $800 million for Ukraine
▪️Trump approves 100s of millions in military spending for Ukraine – continuing Biden-era flow of weapons and munitions;
▪️ 10,000s of US troops to remain in Europe;
▪️And as this all continues… pic.twitter.com/kMvvi8vN2P
— Brian Berletic (@BrianJBerletic) December 19, 2025
It also contains a provision that withholds 25% of the travel budget of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth if he fails to deliver to Congress the videos and orders related to attacks in the Caribbean.
This conditions part of the budget on compliance with transparency requirements regarding the military campaign against Venezuela, which Washington has justified as part of its fight against drug trafficking.
The signing of the law reinforces the Trump administration’s national security agenda, combining military modernization, international support and legislative oversight, and consolidates the United States’ stance on defense and foreign policy for the upcoming fiscal year.
#US President Donald Trump assured the press that he does not need any authorization from #Congress to carry out military operations in #VenezuelanTerritory. pic.twitter.com/OEgVveysuK
— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) December 18, 2025
teleSUR/ JF
Source: EFE
From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.
2040
He was also responsible for the shooting of MIT physics professor Nuno Loureiro on Dec. 15.
On Thursday night, police in the state of Rhode Island identified the suspect in last week’s mass shooting at Brown University as 48-year-old Claudio Manuel Neves Valente, who was found dead. The suspect died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound inside a storage facility in Salem, New Hampshire.
RELATED:
Brown University Shooting: Authorities Continue Search for Gunman
According to authorities, investigators tracked Valente through surveillance footage and a vehicle, which led them to a car rental company in the U.S. state of Massachusetts.
Police obtained a copy of the car rental agreement bearing the suspect’s name, as well as video matching the appearance of the suspect on the Brown University campus on the day of the shooting.
U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts Leah B. Foley said that Valente was also responsible for the fatal shooting of Massachusetts Institute of Technology physics professor Nuno Loureiro at his home in Brookline, Massachusetts, on Dec. 15.
“There is video footage of him entering an apartment building in the location of the professor’s apartment,” Foley said.
ICYMI🚨: According to witnesses and court documents, a man who reportedly sleeps in the basement of Brown University's Barus and Holley building told police he spotted the suspect in the basement area earlier on the day of the shooting and followed him outside.
As the witness… pic.twitter.com/D0GYyutZ5k
— Officer Lew (@officer_Lew) December 19, 2025
“It is believed that in Lisbon that those two individuals attended the same university in Portugal,” Ted Docks, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Boston field office, said at a news conference.
Brown University President Christina Paxson said Valente enrolled in a Brown graduate physics program in 2000 and withdrew less than a year later. He had no current affiliation with the school.
Paxson noted that most physics classes at Brown University have been held in the Barus & Holley building, which was the site of the shooting.
Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha said Valente initially entered the United States on a student visa and was granted permanent resident status in 2017. Providence Police Chief Oscar Perez said Valente was a native of Portugal with a last known address in Miami.
#FromTheSouth News Bits | United States: In Providence, crowds gathered at a local park to honor the victims of the Brown University shooting. pic.twitter.com/1szGnvQe9T
— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) December 18, 2025
teleSUR/ JF
Source: Xinhua
From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.
2041
Carved into the arid plains of Peru’s southern coast, the Lines and Geoglyphs of Nazca and Pampas de Jumana stand as one of archaeology’s most breathtaking spectacles. They represent a highly symbolic, ritual landscape that manifested the magical-religious world of ancient Pre-Hispanic societies for nearly two millennia.
Created between the 8th century BC and the 8th century AD, this vast cultural landscape spans over 75,000 hectares.
The designs fall into two main categories: large-scale representational figures of animals, plants, and mythical beings; and an extensive series of straight lines, geometric shapes, and radiating centers. These figures were executed with remarkable geometric precision by removing surface gravel to expose the lighter bedrock beneath—a technique that has ensured their survival.
UNESCO recognizes the site for its Outstanding Universal Value under three criteria, acknowledging it as a unique artistic achievement, an exceptional testimony to Pre-Columbian cultures and beliefs, and a demonstration of a highly symbolic use of the land.
The integrity of the geoglyphs has been largely preserved by the extreme desert climate and minimal human impact over two millennia. Although the construction of the Pan-American Highway caused localized damage, most lines remain in fair condition. Their harmonious relationship with the surrounding landscape is virtually unaltered.
Legal protection is provided by Peruvian national law, with management under the authority of the Ministry of Culture. Ongoing documentation, research, and conservation efforts, building on work.
From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.
2042
Economists warn that reduced immigration could lead to labor shortages in agriculture and the service sector.
Since the start of his second term, U.S. President Donald Trump has stepped up deportations and enforcement against undocumented immigrants while also tightening restrictions on legal immigration, which has a far-reaching impact on American society.
RELATED:
Venezuelan Council for Sovereignty and Peace Responds to Trump’s Threats
On the one hand, they cater to “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) supporters’ hostility toward immigration — particularly illegal immigration — and fulfill Trump’s campaign promises.
On the other hand, they have triggered a number of legal challenges and a public backlash, with some Americans arguing that the government’s actions lack due process and, in certain cases, have gone too far.
In addition, economists warn that reduced immigration could lead to labor shortages in agriculture and the service sector, potentially driving up costs in some industries and, over the long term, weighing on labor force growth and the economy’s overall potential.
Trump’s ICE is going after immigrants who are VOLUNTARILY leaving the U.S. and sending them to inhumane detention centers.
Why? Just so they can funnel more money into private, for-profit prisons. The cruelty is the point. https://t.co/2p7sTqK78H
— Rep. Pramila Jayapal (@RepJayapal) December 17, 2025
HARDLINE POSITION
Since the start of Trump’s second term, the federal government has dramatically intensified arrests and deportations and tightened legal immigration through various measures.
“In First 100 days, Trump 2.0 has dramatically reshaped the U.S. Immigration System,” according to an article by the think tank Migration Policy Institute in April, which noted that the Trump administration issued a “flurry of immigration-related executive actions — at a pace sixfold greater than during the same period in the first Trump term.”
The administration’s policies go far beyond deporting illegal immigrants. They have expanded travel bans, rolled out stricter rules on the H-1B visa program, removed Temporary Protected Status for migrants from numerous countries, moved to restrict the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which offers temporary protection from deportation for certain undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children, and attempted to restrict birthright citizenship.
On Nov. 5, the White House published a summary highlighting immigration policy as a key accomplishment. “Since taking office, the Trump Administration has arrested 150,000+ illegal immigrants, deported 139,000+ illegal immigrants, and released just nine illegal immigrants into the U.S.,” the summary said.
In a prime-time national address on Wednesday night, Trump touted his administration’s efforts to tighten immigration, claiming that he had secured the border and reduced illegal migrant arrivals compared with the Biden administration.
“Starting on day one, I took immediate action to stop the invasion of our southern border. For the past seven months, zero illegal aliens have been allowed into our country, a feat which everyone said was absolutely impossible,” Trump said in the speech.
Trump’s hardline positions have been interpreted by many observers as politically calculated to maintain his base support, as analysts and polling data show that most Republican and MAGA-aligned voters support stricter immigration policies.
President Trump is once again touting his success on illegal immigration and the influx of billions of dollars means an even more aggressive strategy at the border and beyond. ICE plans to denaturalize or strip citizenship from 100-200 Americans per month. https://t.co/gLtCLObWJ3
— WLUK-TV FOX 11 (@fox11news) December 19, 2025
GROWING BACKLASH
Despite these efforts, the administration’s deportation pace fell well short of its goal of 1 million a year. Many of its policies have also faced legal challenges in federal courts, while public opinion has turned increasingly negative toward the president’s handling of immigration.
According to a Pew Research Center survey released on Monday, 53 percent of Americans say the administration is doing “too much” when it comes to deporting immigrants who are living in the United States illegally, up from 44 percent in March.
The survey found that 86 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents hold that view, an increase of 11 percentage points since March. Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, 20 percent said the administration is doing too much, up 7 points over the same period.
Americans have strong “procedural objections” to the way the Trump administration is carrying out its policies, according to an analysis by The Brookings Institution published in late July.
The article noted that many Americans believe the administration has acted too quickly and made numerous mistakes, disapprove of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents wearing masks rather than uniforms during raids, dislike the way detention facilities are being used, and support the right of immigrants to challenge their deportation in court.
“Trump’s handling of deportations is unpopular … The aggressive deportations we’ve seen, often against people without criminal records or even with legal standing to be in the United States, fall far outside what swing voters expected,” said Christopher Galdieri, a political science professor at Saint Anselm College in the northeastern state of New Hampshire.
Trump “has handled deportations in a very tough manner, and there are many images of masked agents in unmarked vehicles grabbing people off the street. This disturbs a number of people due to its brutality and cruelty,” Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Darrell West said.
✊🏽Today, in honor of the International Day of Migrants, hundreds in Los Angeles took the streets to demand full rights for immigrants, an end to the inhumane deportation machine, and an end to US intervention abroad! pic.twitter.com/qDdGObdwSL
— Party for Socialism and Liberation (@pslnational) December 18, 2025
ECONOMIC IMPACT
While some are concerned about what hardline immigration policies say about America’s openness and inclusiveness, others worry about their potential economic impact. Economists and research organizations generally conclude that Trump’s strict immigration measures, by reducing the flow of new immigrants and shrinking the workforce, are likely to slow growth and constrain the economy’s long-term potential.
“The Trump administration’s policies on illegal and legal immigration would reduce the projected number of workers in the United States by 6.8 million by 2028 and by 15.7 million by 2035 and lower the annual rate of economic growth by almost one-third, harming U.S. living standards,” said an October analysis by the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP), a non-profit policy research organization.
“If you want to have a growing economy, you need to have a growing labor force,” said Stuart Anderson, executive director of the NFAP. “The idea that you are just going to create more opportunity by having fewer workers available just doesn’t work in practice.”
Politico, a U.S. political news outlet, reported in July that the loss of foreign workers is beginning to bite the U.S. economy, particularly highlighting labor shortages in agriculture.
The report cited a June study by Oxford Economics, which warned that tightening the labor market through strict immigration enforcement “could permanently increase inflation,” noting that limited workers may lead to higher production costs and lower output.
Since the start of 2025, job growth in industries heavily reliant on undocumented labor has been weaker than the rest of the private sector, including the hotel, restaurant, construction, and health-care industries, according to an article published by the Council on Foreign Relations in early December.
The agricultural industry, in particular, could suffer as the administration’s immigration crackdown continues, said the article, adding that it could also reduce the amount of goods and services produced domestically, a major component of the gross domestic product.
In her daily morning #pressconference, the President of #Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum, condemned the criminalization of #migrants, stating that the best way to reduce mass migration is to #invest in the countries of origin. pic.twitter.com/gjFsOy90FM
— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) December 18, 2025
teleSUR/ JF
Source: Xinhua
From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.
2043
2044
The United Nations Security Council will convene an emergency session to address escalating tensions after the United States threatened to blockade Venezuela’s oil shipments, condemned as a violation of international law.
The United Nations Security Council will convene an emergency session on December, 23 to address escalating tensions with Venezuela, following a U.S. threat to blockade the country’s oil shipments.
The meeting was called at the direct request of the Venezuelan Government, which condemns the potential blockade as an act of coercion that violates international law and threatens regional stability.
RELATED: U.S. Blockade of Venezuela Violates International Law: Gen. Gerasimov
The session, confirmed by Slovenia’s presidency of the Council, responds to recent statements from U.S. President Donald Trump targeting sanctioned Venezuelan oil tankers. Caracas argues this move constitutes an unlawful threat to its national energy trade and maritime transport.
Donald J. Trump Truth Social Post 06:46 PM EST 12/16/25 pic.twitter.com/2no43HzSGt
— Commentary Donald J. Trump Posts From Truth Social (@TrumpDailyPosts) December 17, 2025
Caracas’ Stance
In a formal address to the UN, Venezuela’s Permanent Representative, Samuel Moncada, rejected U.S. assertions regarding the country’s natural resources and warned that threats of a naval and aerial blockade undermine widely recognized international norms.
President Nicolas Maduro further escalated the diplomatic response, revealing he had discussed the crisis directly with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and describing the U.S. position as reflecting a “colonialist vision” and expressed grave concern for regional peace.
From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.
2045
1
Imperialist Realism, Functional Sovereignty, and the Structural Encirclement of Venezuela
(orinocotribune.com)
By Diego Sequera and Ernesto Cazal – Dec 15, 2025
The United States’ National Security Strategy 2025, published last week but dated November, is a text that transcends the imprint of a technical manual or a diplomatic wish list.
It is, rather, a political act at a turning point: the first official US document that starts, albeit in a veiled way, from the somewhat less veiled awareness of US decline as a starting point.
However, the document attempts to manage the fragments of decline, to gather them around a doctrine for hemispheric reaffirmation where its “backyard” is proclaimed as the region of its power.
The security strategy does so through a double operation: on the one hand, by redefining the rules of the game in the Western Hemisphere; on the other, by carrying out a coercive reterritorialization of the global order where the economic becomes inseparable from the strategic and where the former conceals the necessary levels of violence that cannot be expressed in writing.
According to the text, the new strategy seeks to secure what the US considers its sovereign right over the Americas in order to benefit its own interests. Within that framework, the US redefines the rules of the geopolitical game, although it does not have the necessary cards to win.
The visible currents
As has been the hallmark of the Trump years, and especially in this second chapter, the publication of the 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) combines the grandiosity of another event that is supposed to be a turning point, along with, once the uproar has passed, a scrutiny that offers its vulnerabilities, inconsistencies, and unfeasibility.
In that sense, as a historical document—which it is, including its contradictory nature—three currents visibly converge, perfectly linked to the disordered and heterogeneous character of the elite in command of the unstable empire.
Throughout the 33 pages, four parts and 16 sections coexist. They are cohesive but not without contradictions, and the following trends are revealed:
• A narcissism and exaltation that has Trump as its center and object–the “miraculous” emperor president–of the alleged turnaround;
• An anti-elitist simulation that goes beyond the MAGA spirit, reaching the new neo-conservative mutation that allows it to operate within the first noted current;
• A fundamental reformulation of a strategy with overtones clearly based on a realism that is more aware of the current limits of the US but, despite the visible modifications with the same imperialist goals, synthesized in the dominant presence of Elbridge Colby, the assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, responsible for the “renewing” elements of the new foreign perspective of the current administration.
The impression of consistency in the document fails to conceal the internal ideological contradictions.
More importantly, despite the fact that this awareness must remain unstated, the NSS is the first official document that articulates, in a sotto voce, awareness of US decline.
A combination of incurable superficiality is coupled with the anxiety to update immediate, even peremptory, lines of action to reshape the US’s place in the world as the sole and “formidable” superpower on the planet.
It is not accidental that the NSS’s first premise focuses on the drift in which the country finds itself, both internally and externally, as a consequence of the lethargy to which “the elites,” as the document ironically states (p. 1), have caused: a loss of strategic direction that is dissipating US strength and effectiveness.
The “foreign policy elites,” states the NSS, “convinced themselves that permanent world domination was to the benefit of our country.”
A miscalculation plagued the bipartisan foreign policy establishment, leading it to assume the cost of “eternal global burdens,” accentuating and making unavoidable the disconnect between that “responsibility” to the world and US “national interests.”
Along the way, the economic and commercial counterpart of this, the neoliberal free market, undermined and dismantled the middle class and the industrial base “on which the economic and military preeminence of the US depended,” continues the NSS.
Of course, the new formulation represented by the NSS is a “welcomed and necessary correction,” a power exclusive to President Trump.
This dimension, the apparent return to a nativist urgency that focuses on the vindication of the US as a republic, centers on “protecting this country, its people, its territory, its economy, and its way of life” from military dangers, threatening outsiders, and “predatory economic practices.” These dangers are summarized in the deregulation of migration and the consequent threat of invasion, particularly in the form of “narco-terrorist” infiltration within US borders: “No adversary or danger should be able to expose the US to risks” (p. 2).
For its defense, it is urgent that the US must possess the most “powerful, lethal, and technologically advanced” army to “protect our interests” and, in case of war, to win quickly without a significant human cost.
Despite admitting their mistakes, the exceptionalist dream/nightmare remains the essential basis of the US role in the world: “what we want” is the operative concept, and “what we want” operates, fundamentally, in opposition to “what we have,” even though they are sometimes mixed up.
What the US wants, according to the NSS, is the most “robust, modern, and credible” nuclear deterrent; as the foundation of US military power, “we want” the strongest, most dynamic, innovative, and advanced economy; “we want the most robust industrial base in the world”; “we want” the most robust energy sector; “we want to remain” at the forefront of science and technology; “we want” our “unrivaled soft power,” with which “positive influence” is exerted, to remain strong; and, finally, “we want” a restoration of “cultural and spiritual health” that will lead to the “new golden age.”
With this indirect admission of the state of emergency, and with the imperative of a resurgent effort, the first point of distancing is marked from what have been the ways that the empire has represented itself so far, if we take as a contrasting reference the 2022 National Security Strategy of the Biden administration, in which all of these weighted elements continued to be recognizable, unalterable, and unquestionable.
The shift, both rhetorical and operational, becomes more pronounced in the “strategic principles” (p. 5) concerning what the US “wants in and from the world” and concerning the risk, it is claimed, of ignoring the “core and vital” interests.
• That technological standards in AI, biotechnology, and quantum computing “drive the world forward”;
• The end of “endless wars” is avoided while preventing an antagonistic power from dominating oil and gas supplies in the “Middle East” along with critical transit points without having to resort to “endless wars,” an undeclared reference to Iran;
• That the ongoing damage inflicted by foreign “actors” be reversed by maintaining freedom of navigation in the “Indo-Pacific” and securing supply chains that, as with technology, are references to China and its southern sea;
• Support for US allies while reversing the state of decline in Europe and its “Western identity”;
• The most important and dramatic shift is that “we [the US] want to ensure that the Western Hemisphere remains reasonably stable and well governed enough to prevent and discourage mass migration to the US; we want a hemisphere whose governments cooperate with us against narco-terrorists, cartels, and other transnational criminal organizations; we want a hemisphere that remains free from hostile foreign incursions or ownership of key assets and that supports critical supply chains; and we want to ensure our continued access to essential strategic locations.” Thus, the Monroe Doctrine is updated with its “Trump Corollary” as a continuation of the Roosevelt Corollary, as will be seen later.
This effort must be the result of the distribution of burdens and responsibilities among “partners and allies” because the days when the US held up the world “like Atlas” are over (p. 12).
It is official, then, that the bill is not to be paid solely by Washington, and everyone has to contribute. However, this forces us to recognize, therefore, that “the fundamental political unit of the world is and will continue to be the nation-state” (p. 9).
Where, the NSS asserts, “sovereign rights” are supported, the US, acting from its own interests, will “encourage” others to do the same against the remaining institutions that must be reformed. This alludes, once again implicitly, to multilateral organizations that must be “reformed” (p. 9).
This claim, however, if we limit ourselves exclusively to the document, criticizes the dissolving vision of the borders of “globalism” with its unrestricted migration to ensure its own passage to the reindustrialization and reinvigoration of the military industrial base, the direct control of supply chains, and energy and financial dominance.
Once again, in the use of adjectives and rhetorical devices, the cracks and fissures are visible: “Preserving and growing our (financial) dominance entails leveraging our dynamic free market system and our leadership in digital finance and innovation to ensure that our markets continue to be the most dynamic, liquid, and secure while remaining the envy of the world” (p. 15).
The constant declaration of the “great shift” and an apparent relocation of efforts, an act that should embody an exercise in self-examination, recognition of one’s place, and therefore, some humility, is overlaid with a narcissism that clouds its supposed internal reform of interests and strategies.
The high-flown rhetoric that permeates the postulated principles and the strategic considerations that presuppose the “turnaround” fails to hide, precisely, the alleged Copernican shift in the US vision.
The combination of the miraculous arrival of the president-emperor, the admission of the failure of the liberal order, and the urgencies of a nuanced realism fail to synthesize that image if subjected to proper examination.
Nostalgia for grandeur leaves unaltered the essential basis which has been the continuity of hegemonic aspiration, to which is added the caveat of being at that limit which is not fully admitted, leaving intact the geopolitical hallucination of the neoconservatives, resulting in the new strategic “thinking” being an accumulation of “tactics” where the superior goal does not differ substantially from that of any previous government that has occupied the White House.
“Flexible” and imperialist realism and the alleged “great turn”
“President Trump’s foreign policy is pragmatic without being ‘pragmatist,’ realistic without being ‘realistic,’ principled without being ‘idealistic,’ muscular without being ‘militaristic,’ and moderate without being ‘pacifist.’ It is not based on traditional political ideology. It is motivated primarily by what serves the US, or, in two words: ‘America First’” (p. 8), the NSS states.
In contrast to both the 2018 and 2022 National Security Strategies, the new NSS ceases to acknowledge that the US is in an era of intense competition with other emerging global powers.
On the contrary, through euphemistic devices and effort, wherever possible, it emphatically strives not to mention the other competitors.
However, it is a recognized and public fact, the author and main force behind the document is, as mentioned, Elbridge Colby, a think tanker with a well-furnished brain and a recognized anti-China hawk.
Despite all the omissions and the apparent admissions of external threats and their internal impact, the guiding principle remains the same: the focus is claimed to be national, America First; it’s not about China, when in reality it is all about China—the only competitor that truly threatens, according to Colby, US dominance.
“In order to remain superpowered, the US may, temporarily, need to stop superpowering,” wrote The Atlantic in a recent piece about Colby.
A “consummate institutionalist” of official Washington, as the article also points out, Colby, grandson of William Colby, the former director of the CIA and creator of the Phoenix Program (the model of disappearance and extermination that plagues us to this day), is a staffer who has collaborated with different administrations and think tanks in the capital.
Colby was also one of the central authors of the 2018 National Defense Strategy, which marked a departure from continuity and recognized the rise of other powers as strategic rivals.
But in 2021, there was a turning point with the publication of his book The Strategy of Denial: American Defense in an Age of Great Power Conflict.
Following a historical review of the evolution of defense strategies, the book essentially argues that the US must prioritize, first and foremost, the rise of what it considers its only serious competitor or rival: the People’s Republic of China.
“The plain reality is that China is too powerful for the US to simply make it stop fighting; the US and any of its allies and partners therefore need to persuade it not to” (p. 185), Colby argues within the scenario of a military conflict surrounding Taiwan.
This is the central nerve of his strategy both in the book and in the NSS itself, the latter starting from the premise that the Taiwan geographically and defensively divides the island chains in the western Pacific that constitute a natural barrier between China and the western flank of the US empire.
Being unable to confront the People’s Republic directly and exclusively, lacking the economic, financial, logistical, and technological resources to do so, three pillars are needed: investment in naval and air technology, a network of allies, and denying the possibility of victory in a conflict in which the cost is greater than the benefits for Beijing.
This, in turn, implies, as has been more or less distilled so far, abandoning other “priorities” corresponding to the globalist vision in order to concentrate all efforts on these three points and a single adversary/enemy.
However, this also involves a scenario in which partners and allies are willing not only to accept part of the burden of that effort but also the human and military costs that this could entail in order to achieve a higher goal that, if successful, would ensure control of the western Pacific as a pillar of global dominance.
There is, therefore, an explicit admission that the US is not in a position or condition to achieve those goals today and, thus, is threatened.
Hence the need for a “cessation of hostilities” (pp. 25-26) in Ukraine that would reduce attention on Russia and lead it to a point of “strategic stability” (p. 27). However, this cessation of hostilities would not constitute the end of the war but a momentary pause.
To regain a hypothetical leading position in military industry and technology, time needs to be bought; and to buy time, a system of diplomatic, military, regional, and economic alliances in East Asia in particular, and in the rest of the world in general, is indispensable.
There is no other way that the US can block the ascendancy of the People’s Republic of China in terms of its political, commercial, and cooperation mechanisms throughout the planet.
Yet, the scenario in which the battle for Taiwan is fought involves a complex game of public perception, the action of meticulously functional and well-oiled alliances, along with the impact that air and naval superiority should entail.
It is Colby’s concern, he states in his book (p. 302), that the US public considers it worth “the sacrifice and risk involved” in containing a “hegemonic” state at a significant distance from its problems.
Therefore, it can be inferred that going against this idea of preeminence is comparable to a political heresy that must be persecuted; thus, it must be understood that internal dissent to this postulate is one of the main threats to national security.
Colby has publicly stated that the US is not prepared for a hypothetical World War III, and the only way to avoid it is to prepare for it.
Seen in this way, and here, perhaps, in the crazy terms of late imperialism, lies the vision and lucidity of Colby and his supporters. The texts of 2018 and 2022 assume and reveal this external threat. They operated within a vicious maximalist vision, while the new NSS claims that what is necessary is strategic sequencing or a sum of cohesive tactics to deny the expansionist continuation of China.
This explains the apparent abandonment of self-destructive Europe and the reduction of Africa and the Middle East to a network of public–private partnerships where US companies and state contracts are favored while centrally, the absolute control of the Western Hemisphere is consolidated as a power base capable of revitalizing and strengthening, through extractive control, private initiative. In this sense, multipolar states must be expelled from Latin America and the Caribbean, denying Beijing a “sphere of influence” in the region.
This expulsion must begin, of course, with the main proponent of the multipolar approach in the region: namely, Venezuela. For Washington, the American continent is no longer a neighborhood but, as mentioned before, a matter of strictly domestic politics.
Contrary to and in opposition to many traditional strategists and commentators, Colby’s vision centers on the need to reduce the over-extension of the empire as a way to revitalize the empire.
In that sense, it is a transitional and provisional text: once Washington is “recovered,” it can reclaim its former power. At this point in history, the highway of domination is counterproductive, and a major detour is needed to achieve that higher goal: the US needs to defeat China, but for now, it depends on the old road.
This constitutes imperial realism and a manifestly and internally extreme situation.
The Trump Corollary: functional sovereignty and reconfiguration of the hemispheric order
The 2025 National Security Strategy proposes a fundamental shift in what constitutes sovereignty in the Western Hemisphere, the operational core of which is the so-called “Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine” (p. 5). However, it is not limited to updating US foreign policy; it is not a mere tactical adjustment. It consists of a redefinition of the rules of the game: which decisions by other countries are acceptable and which, although legal and sovereign, are treated as threats.
Within this framework, we can consider three moments of sovereignty that are recognized by historical development and systematic application of imperial reasoning.
An early 20th-century political cartoon depicts Uncle Sam riding across the Americas while brandishing a large club inscribed “Monroe Doctrine 1824-1905.” Photo: Bettmann Archive/Getty Images.
The
The US Monroe Doctrine (formulated in 1823) explicitly recognized the sovereignty of the new Latin American states and limited itself to prohibiting European intervention in the affairs of the Hemisphere. Its logic was one of non-interference: “America for the Americans… and the Americans are free and independent.”
The Roosevelt Corollary (1904), on the other hand, introduced conditional sovereignty in the event that a country in the Americas failed to meet its international obligations; in such a scenario, the US would be obliged to exercise, at least temporarily, the functions of “international police.” Here, sovereignty could be delegated or revoked if the state did not comply with external standards: fiscal, moral, civilizational, etc.
However, the Trump Corollary does not suspend sovereignty: it redefines it from its very foundation. The question is no longer whether a state is sovereign or not but what kind of sovereignty counts as legitimate for hemispheric order.
Legitimacy no longer depends on the internal regime or compliance with international norms but on its compatibility with the US value chain.
The NSS formulates it with technical clarity and hegemonic rhetoric:
• “We will deny non-hemispheric competitors the ability to position threatening forces or other capabilities, or to own or control strategically vital assets, in our Hemisphere” (p.15).
• “The terms of our agreements, especially with those countries that depend most on us and over which we therefore have the greatest influence, must be single-source contracts for our companies” (p.19).
• “We must do everything possible to expel foreign companies that build infrastructure in the region” (p.19).
This implies that the sovereignty of others is measured by their ability not to interfere with—and preferably, to facilitate—the vital interests of the US.
It is striking (and reveals a deeper structural continuity than the rhetorical differences) that both the Roosevelt Corollary (1904) and the Trump Corollary (2025) use Venezuela as an exemplary case to justify their hemispheric doctrine.
In 1902-1903, the European naval blockade against Venezuela for non-payment of debts served Roosevelt as a casus belli to assert that the US, and only the US, had the right to intervene in the hemisphere when an “incapable” state threatened regional stability.
Today, Venezuela’s alliance with non-hemispheric actors—China, Russia, and Iran—and its resistance to integrating into the US value chain play an analogous role: its autonomous capacity makes it the perfect example of deviation from the new order to be imposed.
In both cases, Venezuela is a pretext: its existence allows the establishment of a general doctrine—that of conditional sovereignty in 1904, that of functional sovereignty in 2025—which is then applied to the entire hemisphere.
The aim is to use Venezuela as a model to redefine what counts as a legitimate order and who decides when that order has been violated.
Three structural displacements
- From legal sovereignty to functional sovereignty.
In the Westphalian tradition, sovereignty is a status: the legitimate monopoly of coercion within a recognized territory.
In the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy, sovereignty is an operational capability: that of aligning with the infrastructure, logistics, and standards that sustain the reproduction of US capital.
A state may be fully recognized by the UN, hold elections, and have territorial control, but if it allows a Chinese company to build a port, a mine or a 5G network, its sovereignty becomes functionally illegitimate in the terms of the Corollary.
Here, the structural validity of governments within the region, conceived as a space of US preeminence, is questioned.
- From territorial control to infrastructural control.
Classical domination was exercised over the state: invasion, occupation, regime change. Now, in a different way, functional domination is sought over the means of production of sovereignty itself: energy, logistics, data, critical minerals, technical standards.
According to the new Corollary, controlling access to refineries and oil technology (CITGO, Chevron) will be adequate; financing will be conditioned on the reversal of contracts with Russia, Iran, or China; “aid” will be offered in exchange for “single-source contracts” for US companies.
Power lies in the control of the nodes that make any government possible: energy, infrastructure, minerals, etc.
- From sovereignty as a right to sovereignty as a coercive offer.
In the liberal and republican tradition, sovereignty is an inalienable right founded on self-determination. In the 2025 National Security Strategy, sovereignty is presented as a service offering: the US “invites” integration into a system where prosperity and stability are guaranteed provided that the conditions are accepted.
“The choice that all countries must face is whether they want to live in a US-led world of sovereign countries and free economies or in a parallel one in which they are influenced by countries on the other side of the world” (p. 18).
Is it a free choice? The answer is undoubtedly no. It is structurally incentivized and coercively framed. Sovereignty is what the US certifies as compatible with the new hemispheric order.
The Trump Corollary refuses to deny the existence of state sovereignty but frames it as the capacity for functional alignment. A sovereign state, in this order, is one that makes itself available to the US value chain through coercion via an institutional, financial, and technological design.
Exceptionalism and the Venezuelan borderline case
The Trump Corollary aims to function as an architecture of the new order, introducing a change in the framework of what is possible in the Hemisphere: what was once a sovereign decision—choosing with whom to trade, with whom to ally—now becomes a sign of risk or destabilization.
Its strength lies in making deviation unthinkable: those who deviate will be punished.
It is no longer a question of whether Venezuela can partner with China: rather, the NSS insists that if Venezuela does, it ceases to be a legitimate interlocutor, and therefore, any action against it (sanctions, isolation, military and diplomatic pressure) becomes reasonable and even necessary.
This status is analogous to the homo sacer conceptualized by the Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben: Venezuela can be sanctioned (blocked, isolated, militarily pressured) without this constituting a “violation of sovereignty” because, in the language of the Corollary, it is not exercising legitimate sovereignty. However, neither can it be integrated into the US-led order, because its very existence—autonomous, non-functional—perverts the coherence of the system.
In this structural vacuum, any measure against Venezuela becomes legitimate: sanctions, therefore, are containment measures; the financial blockade consists of a restoration of the minimum conditions of stability; and military pressure does not constitute an “aggression” but a prevention of threats.
Within the framework of the US military deployment in the Caribbean, coercive measures against Venezuela appear as technical risk-management operations. The US military has intensified naval and air patrols in waters near Venezuela under the formal label of “anti-drug operations,” with the explicit use of lethal force against civilian vessels or those involved in commercial (oil) operations and non-military logistics networks, something that the 2025 National Security Strategy authorizes as a replacement for the “exclusively police-based strategy of recent decades” (p. 16).
In this context, sanctions are presented as preventive containment measures: the “forced sale” of CITGO, for example, is justified as an impediment to strategic assets remaining under the control of a government that maintains alliances with actors described as “adversaries” in the strategy (p. 17).
The financial blockade—exclusion from the Swift finance system, prohibition of dollar transactions, etc.—is framed as a restoration of minimum conditions of stability, according to the Treasury Department’s discourse, which repeats, point by point, the NSS’s warning about the “hidden costs in espionage, cybersecurity, and debt traps” of cooperation with non-hemispheric powers (p.18).
Furthermore, military pressure is described as threat prevention based on the mandate to “deny non-hemispheric competitors the ability to control strategically vital assets” (p.15).
In this framework, all coercive action shifts from the political register to the technical one, based on a calculation of functionality.
Venezuela embodies the ultimate challenge to this doctrine: it is the extreme case. It maintains strategic alliances with China, Russia, and Iran; it controls critical resources without surrendering their management to aligned capital; and it has developed exchange mechanisms that circumvent the dollar and US value chains.
In this sense, the Trump Corollary frankly acknowledges: “Some influences will be difficult to reverse, given the political alignment between certain Latin American governments and certain foreign actors” (p.17).
Venezuela serves as a precedent, as it demonstrates that it is possible to maintain an autonomous foreign policy even under prolonged coercive pressure.
In light of the analyzed document, we can confirm that the encirclement of Venezuela seeks not only a change of government. Above all, it aims to exterminate Venezuela’s political and econimic model in favor of one of “American exceptionalism”: to prove that no country can survive outside the order of selective sovereignty established by the new doctrine. Regional change following regime change.
The Trump Corollary is a technology for producing the excludable: it introduces a new way of measuring legitimacy based on alignment with the US value chain.
The US reserves the right to decide which assets are “strategically vital”, which alliances constitute “systemic risk”, and which governments, although sovereign, should be treated as anomalies.
The real novelty is not that the US imposes its will on others—that is already known. It is that the US unilaterally decides which decisions by other countries count as legitimate, and which countries, even if sovereign, are treated as threats. This constitutes blatant imperialist extortion.
It’s the economy, dummy (again)
While the US exceptionalist policy will gain new momentum with the redefinition of sovereignty and “legitimacy” within a hemispheric order that only prioritizes the interests of power in Washington, its rhetorical approach must be understood within the context of the economic offensive that apparently interests Trump.
Thus, the document treats the Western Hemisphere as a space of strategic opportunity: a market in formation, a potential industrial base, a network of supply chains, and the closest thing to a tax haven with lax labor laws that, if governed from Washington, can drastically reduce US dependence on Asia and Europe after decades of rampant neoliberal globalization.
To achieve this, the strategy is divided into two complementary moves: recruiting partners who are already aligned and expanding influence toward those who are not yet integrated.
The text makes it clear that “trade diplomacy” is the strategic backbone of the “America First” foreign policy: “The United States will prioritize trade diplomacy to strengthen our own economy and industries, using tariffs and reciprocal trade agreements as powerful tools” (p. 16).
Thus, the NSS positions the US as the epicenter of a purported coordinated hemispheric reindustrialization: it seeks to have its partners “strengthen their national economies” because a more prosperous hemisphere becomes “an increasingly attractive market for US trade and investment.”
While the partners gain access to technology, financing, and markets, the US gains systemic resilience. The mutual benefit is not mutual but asymmetrical:
“Strengthening critical supply chains in this hemisphere will reduce dependencies and increase American economic resilience” (p. 17).
This means that minerals used in batteries, medical components, agricultural inputs, and even low-complexity chips could be produced in any Latin American country—and not in China—under US standards, patents, and contracts. Geographical proximity thus becomes a strategic advantage in terms of logistics and control.
Although the focus is economic, the Corollary does not separate trade from security: “And even as we give priority to trade diplomacy, we will work to strengthen our security partnerships, from arms sales to intelligence sharing and joint exercises” (p. 17).
The sale of fighter jets, drones, or coastal surveillance systems provides a functional anchor within a security framework. Each military contract creates technical dependence, standardizes protocols, and opens the door to civilian contracts (in energy, telecommunications, or logistics) that solidify alignment.
The second move—expansion—operates where alliances are not automatic. There, the US does not compete on a level playing field. Therefore, the NSS proposes a structurally advantageous alternative and delegitimizes its competitors due to systemic risk.
“The United States has succeeded in reducing external influence in the Western Hemisphere by demonstrating, with specificity, how many hidden costs—in espionage, cybersecurity, debt traps, and other forms—are implicit in so-called ‘low-cost’ foreign aid” (p. 18).
The US distorts the policies of multipolar actors: China does not offer south–south cooperation, claims the NSS, it offers covert dependency. Russia does not build ports; it establishes surveillance points and logistical access points. Iran does not refinance oil; it introduces uncertifiable technologies into global markets. The psychopolitical projection in this case is remarkable, with symptoms of a factitious disorder imposed on another in the field of US foreign policy.
In contrast, the US presents itself as the partner of real sovereignty: “[US] American products, services, and technologies are a much better long-term purchase because they are of higher quality and do not come with the same conditions as aid from other countries” (p. 18).
However, the new Corollary is not content with preaching: it announces the correction of its own bureaucracy in order to compete: “We will reform our own system to streamline approvals and licenses, once again, to become the partner of first choice” (p. 18).
This implies concrete decisions: reducing the terms of the International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) from 18 to 6 months, making the Millennium Challenge Corporation’s (MCC) environmental requirements for energy projects more flexible, or allowing the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) to finance “single-source” contracts with US companies, as required by the document (p. 19).
This is a coercive incentive structure: whoever chooses the “multipolar world” will be excluded from the financial, technological, and logistical systems that define contemporary prosperity.
In this context, the economy is intrinsically linked to security. It is the main stronghold of the new hemispheric hegemony, and Venezuela, due to its resistance to integrating into this US-led order, represents a political exception that must be neutralized for the model to be sustained.
Belated and retroactive vindication of the nation-state: the trade deficit
Thus, imperialist realism collapses when, while claiming to have everything under control, it conversely admits a dramatic loss of ground that forces it to relinquish a global responsibility that, by its own sustained undermining, is a mistake. All the while, it asserts that the mission persists and has only been temporarily redirected.
Apparently, “the US retains enormous assets—the world’s strongest economy and military, unsurpassed innovation, unrivaled ‘soft power,’ and a historical track record of benefiting our partners and allies—which makes it easier for us to compete successfully” (p. 19). In short, according to the NSS, the US needs to take a step back in order to recover the superiority that it claims to already possess.
“The America First brand diplomacy seeks to rebalance global trade relations. We have made it clear to our allies that the current deficit in the US accounts is unsustainable,” states the NSS, and it demands that “other prominent nations,” including Europe, Japan, Korea, Canada, and Mexico, “adopt trade policies that help rebalance the Chinese economy toward domestic consumption” because regions such as Southeast Asia, Latin America, and West Asia alone “cannot absorb the enormous surplus capacity” of the People’s Republic (p. 22).
However, the NSS also admits, pejoratively, that “The US and its allies have not yet formulated, much less implemented, a joint plan for the so-called ‘Global South’” (p. 22), but it still intends to assume that leading role, notwithstanding the new definitions of “sovereignty” and “nation-state” reviewed so far.
But for Emmanuel Todd, whose aim has not failed him so far, a trade deficit, whether of the US or of a western European country, entails the possibility of being able to say definitively that “in the West, the nation-state does not exist” (The Defeat of the West, p. 15).
As Todd argues: “A systematic deficit renders the concept of the nation-state obsolete, since the territorial entity in question can only survive by receiving a tax or a privilege from abroad, without any counterpart” (p. 16).
It is a structure that, in order to function, needs a middle class that acts as the “center of gravity” and “nervous system” of a minimally homogeneous nation under certain parameters.
The NSS acknowledges the need, as seen, to rebuild the middle class given the oligarchic fragmentation caused by the sustained unrestricted movement of capital from the bottom up due to accumulation by dispossession, which also leads to fierce competition among the elite.
This characteristic, deeply investigated by numerous economists, is a sign of crisis, which for Todd signifies national disintegration. Recent US employment reports are far from encouraging, and alongside all this, a technological and cloud-based oligarchy, driven by finance and the speculative economy, is extensively assuming control throughout the US federal government apparatus.
Through this filter, a document that, while claiming to represent the middle class, appeals to this same corporate constellation, that of the “tech bros,” to collaborate in surveillance tasks begins, algorithmically, by monitoring and controlling the domestic population itself, precisely that middle class that this administration claims to defend (p. 21).
Whether in its adjustment of global vision or in its local dimension, of all the races it aspires to run, the empire should be careful about which of these two it will lose first, even more so when the mechanistic logic with which it outlines its strategy prevents its planners from calculating the reactions and consequences of this readjustment.
Hegemony as the administration of decline
The announcement of a disciplined management of the retreat draws its impetus from the urgency: the certainty that the US can no longer simultaneously sustain financial globalization, military interventionism, and the multilateral consensus it built after 1945.
Faced with this impossibility, the document proposes a radical solution: to retreat in order to rearm. It rejects any kind of abandonment of hegemony and instead seeks to relocate it. The Western Hemisphere is the laboratory for this operation.
Here, it is not seeking to restore the imperial ruins of past decades. It is proposing something strategically new: a functional order with symptoms of geopolitical rheumatism.
In this sense, Venezuela is the mirror in which the US sees itself reflected: a state that insists on deciding its own destiny even when the cost is isolation, financial sanctions, and constant military pressure. Venezuela’s persistence poses an unusual and extraordinary threat to the US narrative of inevitability.
Therefore, the blockade and piracy have their imperialist justification as long as Venezuela remains the precedent of an alternative possibility. However, at the heart of this logic lies a lethal paradox: the more the US demands that others be “functional,” the more evident its own dysfunction becomes.
The US economy is burdened by unsustainable deficits. Its middle class, on which its internal stability depends, is decimated. Its political cohesion is fractured by a technocratic oligarchy that governs through algorithms and investment funds, and its “America First” rhetoric reveals, at its core, a deep insecurity: it is the voice of those who fear losing control without realizing that the power to govern has been decentralized outside of their “backyard.”
The future of the hemisphere will not be decided in the Pacific but in the politics that now appear disguised as technical management and incentive coercion—where the most decisive battle of the century is being fought for the new definitions of power.
In the vast expanse of this arena, which can be considered civilizational, as long as Venezuela continues to exist—not as a power, but as a possibility—the functional order of the declining empire will not be complete, for it heralds a world in which everything is yet to be written.
Translation: Orinoco Tribune
OT/JRE/SL
From Orinoco Tribune – News and opinion pieces about Venezuela and beyond via This RSS Feed.
2046
2047
The European Union (EU) vote on the Mercosur trade agreement, scheduled for Friday, has been delayed until early January. The postponement follows opposition from France and Italy, which has prevented the formation of a qualified majority needed for the deal’s approval.
President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen confirmed during a dinner of European leaders dedicated to geoeconomics and competitiveness that the pact will not be signed in Brazil this weekend, as originally planned.
RELATED: European Farmers Rally in Brussels Against EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement
This decision responds, in particular, to a request from the Italian Government, which requires more time to analyze the content of the agreement in the face of internal pressure from its agricultural sector.
The EU has been negotiating an agreement with the Mercosur countries for 25 years. If the agreement now falls through because of 200g of beef per European citizen in relation to a 35% tariff reduction, the EU will lose credibility, raw materials, and access to markets. pic.twitter.com/urXWdyamt4
— Johann Sollgruber (@JohanSollgruber) December 17, 2025
Italia’s Agenda
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni informed Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva on Thursday that she is “willing” to sign the pact “as soon as the necessary responses are provided to the farmers” and requested “a few days” to finalize her official position.
For its part, the Brazilian government, which currently holds the pro tempore presidency of Mercosur, firmly warned about the consequences of a new delay.
On Wednesday, President Lula stated that if the agreement was not signed on Saturday, December 20, “there will be no more agreement,” at least while he remains in charge of the country.
Nevertheless, diplomatic sources indicated that MERCOSUR would consider a postponement until January “acceptable”, provided the signing is finalized within that timeframe.
VIDEO: 🇪🇺 🇧🇪 'No to Mercosur': Farmers, police clash in Brussels during protest against trade deal
Hundreds of tractors clogged the streets of Brussels on Thursday as European farmers protested against EU plans for a trade deal with South American bloc Mercosur pic.twitter.com/orgtaz4a38
— AFP News Agency (@AFP) December 18, 2025
EU and Mercosur Relationship
In this context, Uruguayan Foreign Minister Mario Lubetkin emphasized that the European Union needs the agreement as much as MERCOSUR and noted that, so far, they have not received formal communication from Brussels about the cancellation of the event. “I believe they will ultimately find the formula that allows them to finalize the agreement”, he considers.
Furthermore, Lubetkin reflected on the need to modernize MERCOSUR in the face of new global challenges: “We cannot maintain a MERCOSUR with commercial parameters from many years ago… it is clear that we lack answers regarding what it should be like. What is also clear is that no one wants to leave MERCOSUR .”
From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.
2048
The United Nations has reported that over 1,000 civilians were killed by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in an April attack on a displacement camp in Darfur, Sudan, prompting international calls for a ceasefire.
The UN report released this Thursday by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights detailed the deaths of more than 1,000 civilians at the hands of the Rapid Support Forces when they seized a displaced persons camp in Darfur, Sudan.
RELATED: Sudan and South Sudan Agree to Deepen Economic Cooperation
The incident occurred last April, with approximately one-third of the victims subjected to summary executions. The UN report indicates that the Rapid Support Forces had systematically obstructed the entry of food and essential supplies to the Zamzam camp for several months leading up to the attack. This camp, located in Sudan’s western Darfur region, provides shelter to nearly 500,000 individuals displaced by the ongoing civil war.
According to the UN report, the Rapid Support Forces prevented for several months before the 11-13 April attack the entry of food and supplies into the Zamzam camp in the Darfur region of western Sudan, Home to nearly half a million people displaced by the civil war.
#Sudan: Our report out today details horrific violations by the Rapid Support Forces when they took over Zamzam IDP camp in April.
Perpetrators need to be held to account. The cycle of atrocities and violence must end. https://t.co/zf5ZQsJ4IW pic.twitter.com/KGqBdc64GV
— Volker Türk (@volker_turk) December 18, 2025
The report noted that “The Rapid Support Forces launched attacks on civilians during the operation to take over the camp, and survivors reported large-scale killings, rapes, tortures and abductions, with at least 319 people executed inside the camp or while attempting to flee”.
The report, comprising 18 pages, is based on extensive interviews conducted in July 2025, with a total of 155 survivors and witnesses, who managed to escape the bloodshed and find refuge in neighboring Chad, provided their testimonies.
War Crimes Allegations Mount
Volker Türk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, issued a declaration accompanying the report, asserting that “the deliberate killing of civilians or persons not participating in hostilities may constitute a war crime of murder.” This strong statement underscores the gravity of the findings and the potential for legal accountability for those responsible.
The international community is closely watching the developments, with the United States and other nations having already called for an immediate cessation of hostilities in the region. The violence extends beyond Darfur.
The people of Sudan are enduring unimaginable horrors amid the ongoing war.
Civilians are being killed and displaced, hunger is soaring, and widespread sexual violence has been documented.
The UN is delivering life-saving aid — but above all, the devastating violence must stop. pic.twitter.com/WmqFfo1Io1
— United Nations (@UN) December 6, 2025
Separately, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights announced this past Tuesday that drone attacks in Sudan’s Kordofan region resulted in the deaths of over 100 civilians during the current month. This highlights the pervasive and escalating nature of the conflict across Sudan, impacting multiple civilian populations. The repeated targeting of non-combatants emphasizes the urgent need for international intervention and protection for those caught in the crossfire.
Nearly three years of war in Sudan has displaced 14 million people and left 21 million facing acute hunger, creating one of the world’s fastest-growing man-made humanitarian crises https://t.co/O4QubQNkXE pic.twitter.com/CmL0sLjJu9
— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) December 16, 2025
From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.
2049
1
Argentinian Supreme Court Upholds Ankle Monitor and Restrictive Visits for Cristina Kirchner
(www.telesurenglish.net)
Argentina’s Supreme Court of Justice has rejected appeals from former President Cristina Ferna dendez de Kirchner (CFK) regarding the electronic ankle monitor imposed on her and a severely restrictive visiting regime at her residence.
CFK’s legal team, Carlos Alberto Beraldi and Ary Llernovoy, had argued that the ankle bracelet was superfluous given that, as a former president, she is under constant guard by the Federal Police, eliminating any flight risk. This, alongside her high public profile, made the measure unnecessary, they contended.
RELATED: Police Repress Pensioner Protest Outside Argentina’s Congress Amid Crucial Budget Debate
Similarly, the justices declined to review the appeal against a unique visiting regimen imposed on CFK, which requires her to seek judicial authorization for visits—a condition not applied to any other person under house arrest in the country. Visits are currently limited to twice a week, for two hours, with a maximum of three people at a time.
Cristina’s Political Persecution
The restrictive measures originate from Judge Jorge Gorini, head of Criminal Enforcement, who recently reaffirmed the conditions. This followed media attention generated in November when CFK received a visit from a group of eleven young economists who presented an alternative economic plan to that of Milei’s far-right administration.
After a photo of the meeting circulated, Judge Gorini issued the ruling limiting visits, beyond those from lawyers, doctors, and family, which do not require authorization.
En el Día del Militante, recibimos en San José 1111 a un grupo de economistas que en representación de más de 80 profesionales me entregaron y presentaron consideraciones y propuestas sobre un modelo económico nacional de crecimiento productivo y federal para el siglo XXI.
Todos… pic.twitter.com/l1AvAjadNI
— Cristina Kirchner (@CFKArgentina) November 17, 2025
The defense and CFK’s supporters argue that these judicial measures are part of a political persecution aimed at cracking down on the opposition. They point to a judicial, media, and political offensive—aligned with the Milei–Macri alliance—that seeks to isolate the former President and obstruct her contacts with her supporters.
This critic is fueled by statements from President Javier Milei, who has twice boasted about having “put Cristina in prison.” Additionally, the unusual pace of the Supreme Court’s original ruling in December 2022—signed in just six weeks, compared to typical year-long delays—has been cited by her lawyers as evidence of irregular judicial pressure.
From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.
2050
Photos by Jay Watts.
Coordinadora Mexicana de Solidaridad con Venezuela organized a quick rally, held outside the new US embassy in Mexico City, protesting US President Donald Trump’s growing aggression against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and its people. Speakers expressed solidarity from the Mexican people and demanded respect for Venezuela’s sovereignty, an end to US imperialism’s militarization of the Caribbean and regional peace.
-
Trump, Hands Off Venezuela Rally
December 18, 2025December 18, 2025
Mexicans rallied outside the new US embassy in Mexico City, expressing solidarity with Venezuelans and demanding US President Donald Trump cease his aggression against the Bolivarian Republic.
-
600k in Mexico’s Zócalo for Seven Years of the Fourth Transformation
December 6, 2025December 6, 2025
Photos of the anniversary commemorating the Mexican party Morena & social movement the Fourth Transformation forming government.
-
Labor | News Briefs | Photos | Uncategorized
Mexico City Mobilizes on 2nd Anniversary of Al-Aqsa Flood, Against Genocide of Palestinians
October 7, 2025October 8, 2025
Thousands marched in support of Palestinian national liberation, demanding Mexico break relations with the genocidal state of israel.
The post Trump, Hands Off Venezuela Rally appeared first on Mexico Solidarity Media.
From Mexico Solidarity Media via This RSS Feed.