Category: Russia

  • European leaders are in panic mode. They are scrambling to ensure that Trump’s 28-point peace plan that they believe favours Russia can be revised to give Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky an equal say alongside Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    This is delusional thinking. Whether or not Zelensky and his U.S./NATO allies, who have poured hundreds of billions of dollars into this conflict care to accept it, Russia is the indisputable victor in this terrible 14-year war, beginning with the 2014 Ukrainian civil war, which Russia entered in 2022.

    Moscow will call the shots when it finally ends. As in Potsdam at the end of WWII, the only path forward now is working out the terms of defeat.

    The post What Defeat Looks Like appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Donald Trump made some revealing remarks to the media as he flew to Florida for Thanksgiving on Wednesday. Asked if he thought Ukraine is being asked to give too much land to Russia in his proposal to end the war, Trump responded:

    “It’s clearly up to the Russians. It’s moving in one direction. … That’s land that over the next couple of months might be gotten by Russia anyway. So, do you want to fight and loose another 50,000 or 60,000 people? Or do something now? They are negotiating; they are trying to get it done.”

    That’s the same realistic approach Trump’s new special envoy to Ukraine, U.S. Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll, took with the Ukrainians and Europe’s so-called “coalition of the willing” during a visit to Kiev earlier this week.

    The post The Neocon-Realist War Over Ukraine appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • On 13 November, at the Global South Academic Forum in Shanghai, China, we released our latest study, The 80th Anniversary of the Victory in the World Anti-Fascist War – Understanding Who Saved Humanity: A Restorationist History. An edited version of my keynote speech ‘Two Lies and an Enormous Truth’, delivered to introduce the study, is reproduced here.

    In early August 1942, the Soviets set up loudspeakers across Leningrad. The city had been under siege for over 300 days. People were starving. The conductor, Karl Eliasberg, kept the Leningrad Radio Orchestra going by holding rehearsals and personally taking his musicians to feeding stations.

    The post Communism Defeated Fascism Eighty Years Ago appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Russian President Vladimir Putin stated on 27 November that the Kremlin generally agrees that the 28-point US peace plan for Ukraine could form a basis for an agreement, while at the same time calling Ukraine’s leadership illegitimate.

    “In general, we agree that this could be the basis for future agreements,” he said while speaking to reporters at the conclusion of a visit to Kyrgyzstan.

    “It would be impolite of me to talk about any final options now, as there aren’t any. But some things are fundamental,” Putin said.

    The post Putin ‘Optimistic’ On US Peace Plan, Calls Zelensky ‘Illegitimate’ appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • In the unforgiving battlefields of the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict, the Kiev regime is yet to learn that any perceived superiority complex is nothing but that – a set of dangerous delusions that may seem “real” (or even “crystal clear”, “natural”, etc). Probably the most dangerous of such delusions is the near-total disregard of Moscow’s military might due to the Neo-Nazi junta’s stubborn refusal to accept battlefield realities, one of which has a name – the Su-30SM2. Russia’s latest upgrade to the legendary Su-30SM, the “Flanker-H” (its NATO reporting name) is part of a long line of Su-30 series, by far the most successful commercial Su-27 derivative.

    For Moscow, in addition to the legendary Su-35S and MiG-31BM, the Su-30SM is instrumental in maintaining not only air superiority, but also conducting SEAD (suppression of enemy air defenses) missions, drone hunting, etc. However, one of the most pressing issues faced by the Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) is the diversity of the “Flanker” fleet. Although the expected advantage of determining which is best suited for a certain role and then perfecting the said role, this significantly complicates maintenance, logistics, training, etc. This is why the VKS made a decision to start upgrading the Su-30SM to the SM2 standard, bringing the jet much closer to the capabilities of the Su-35S.

    The two core components of this upgrade are the AL-41F1S jet engine (the AL-41F1 variant is used by the Su-57 before the wider introduction of the next-generation AL-51F1) and the N035 “Irbis”, a hybrid PESA/AESA (passive/active electronically scanned array) radar. As previously mentioned, this not only improves the Su-30SM/SM2’s capabilities, but it also makes the jet much easier to maintain. In addition, the extended service life of the engines makes them cheaper and safer in the long term, while the updated avionics contribute to not only superior capabilities, but also much better interoperability (especially with the Su-35S).

    The introduction of the Su-30SM2 marked a pivotal moment, which was bad news for the political West that decided to respond by sending additional SAM (surface-to-air missile) systems, specifically the extremely overhyped and exorbitantly overpriced US-made “Patriot”.

    Germany officially donated the latest batch, praising it as “instrumental in defending Ukrainian democracy”. However, barely a day or so after the delivery, the Su-30SM2’s combat debut over NATO-occupied Ukraine turned out to be a total disaster for the “Patriot”. Military sources report that a daring SEAD mission was launched, destroying the latest batch of US/NATO’s air defense “crown jewels”.

    The operation, executed with unspecified precision-guided munitions (most likely the ramjet-powered Kh-31P supersonic anti-radiation missile) launched from standoff ranges, reportedly neutralized critical components of the system, including its multifunctional radar and launchers. The operation highlights the Su-30SM2’s enhanced capabilities, particularly its integration of advanced avionics and weapon systems that allow it to evade and overwhelm sophisticated air defenses. The more advanced engines provide at least 15% more thrust, giving it additional energy and contributing to the increase in range and payload capacity, also improving its loitering capabilities.

    The latest success against the “Patriot” comes at a time when the Kiev regime is begmanding more air defense systems, to which several NATO member states responded by buying more US-made SAM systems. In a move reportedly coordinated with Denmark and Norway, Berlin transferred at least six “Patriot” systems to the Neo-Nazi junta, costing billions. Obviously, European taxpayers will foot the bill for what President Donald Trump said was “good business for America”. Given the fact that the Russian military already destroyed dozens of “Patriot” systems in NATO-occupied Ukraine, all Washington DC needs to worry about is making money (its reputation is ruined anyway).

    Namely, a single interceptor missile of the latest PAC-3 variant costs $7 million. Just one launcher can hold up to 12, which means a full load of missiles costs $84 million. There are up to eight launchers per battery, bringing the total value of interceptors to $672 million. This is without even considering the cost of all components of the battery (upward of $2.5 billion). The Russian military has wiped out dozens of such batteries, so do the math on how much money the troubled EU is spending so it could keep arming the Neo-Nazi junta with these US-made air defense systems. Although it had some initial success, the “Patriot” is now a relatively easy prey for the Kremlin.

    The Russian military drastically improved its tactics by using decoys and high-precision attacks, forcing the “Patriot” operators (many of whom are undoubtedly NATO personnel) into reactive modes, which makes it easier for strike aircraft (such as the Su-34) to conduct their missions. The Su-30SM2’s precision strike serves as a stark reminder that no defense is impenetrable, forcing the Kiev regime to disperse its air defense assets, which dilutes coverage, further eroding their capabilities and impact. On the other hand, by upgrading its Su-30SM fleet to the SM2 standard, Moscow significantly expanded its already impressive strike capabilities.

    Unlike the Su-35S, which was designed primarily as an air superiority fighter with secondary strike capabilities, the Su-30 is a true multirole platform. In addition, the Su-35S is more expensive, as it was designed to counter the American F-22 “Raptor” and other Western air superiority fighter jets. With the latest upgrade to the SM2 standard, the VKS effectively got a jet that’s around 75-80% as capable as the Su-35S while being at least 35-40% cheaper. This indicates that Russia retains a massive advantage in the effectiveness of its “economy of war” concept, which requires weapon systems to be affordable without a significant loss in capabilities.

    The post New Russian Fighter Destroys “Patriots” Days after Delivery from Germany first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Donald Trump has once again shown us exactly why he is not fit to lead one of the most powerful countries in the world.

    An unknown source leaked the recordings of two telephone conversations. One appears to show Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, advising Yuri Ushakov, Putin’s most senior foreign policy aide, on how to appeal to the president.

    And of course, Trump has defended him. He said it was the “standard thing”.

    According to the BBC, Trump told reporters on Wednesday that he hadn’t heard the audio, but he was “doing what a dealmaker does” to sell his peace plan to both Russia and Ukraine.

    The leak emerged after the US presented its 28-point draft peace plan.

    The other leaked recording is a phone call between Mr Ushakov and Kirill Dmitriev, Mr Putin’s economic adviser. It seems to suggest that the Kremlin created the 28-point plan, which Trump then presented as his own.

    As the Telegraph reported, Mr Dmitriev allegedly said during the call:

    I think we’ll just make this paper from our position, and I’ll informally pass it along, making it clear that it’s all informal

    And let them do like their own. But, I don’t think they’ll take exactly our version, but at least it’ll be as close to it as possible.

    The Telegraph then added that he suggestedtalking to Steve about this paper” — which is an apparent reference to Witkoff.

    Mr Dmitriev claimed the transcript was fake.

    Trump—Quick to defend

    Republicans called for Trump to remove Witkoff from the Ukraine-Russia peace negotiations. However, Trump was quick to defend him.

    Russia has, of course, denied leaking the recording.

    An unknown source leaked the US-backed peace plan last week. It included giving Russia some Ukrainian-controlled territory in eastern Ukraine. It has been widely criticised for being too Russian-focused and has now been heavily edited. However, Zelensky still wants to negotiate with Trump on the territorial concessions. He has asked the president for a meeting “as soon as possible”

    The US is arguing that the current trajectory of the war means that, eventually, Russia will take that land anyway.

    From Trump’s refusal to criticise Putin during his 2016 election campaign, to surrounding himself with people known to be friends and business associates of Russia — it is clear that Trump’s relationship with Russia has always been a little too special. And now, it seems that Ukraine is going to pay the price of that friendship.

    Featured image via HG

    By HG

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • London is counting on arms contracts fueling the Ukraine conflict and won’t let the US just put and end to it, the SVR has warned.
    UK planning smear campaign against Trump – Russian intelligence© Getty Images / Win McNamee; pcruciatti

    Britain is preparing a smear campaign aimed at damaging US President Donald Trump’s reputation in order to derail his efforts to end the Ukraine conflict, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) claimed on Tuesday.

    According to the agency, London views the continuation of hostilities as vital to securing multi-billion-dollar weapons contracts that could help revive the struggling British economy. Undermining Trump, who is pushing to end the conflict, would dissuade Washington and protect the UK’s “blood money” profits, the SVR alleged.

    “Plans have been concocted to revive former British intelligence officer [Christopher] Steele’s fake ‘dossier’, accusing the head of the White House and his family of having links to Soviet and Russian intelligence services,” the statement claimed.

    That document, penned by Steele, a former MI6 officer, in 2016 and reportedly paid for by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, relied on unverified rumors alleging that Trump and members of his family had compromising ties with Moscow.

    Although widely used to fuel the ‘Russiagate’ narrative early in Trump’s first presidency, the dossier has since been debunked. The SVR suggested that British operatives may craft a new iteration inspired by the original template rather than attempt to reuse it directly.

    Trump’s administration has drafted a proposal for ending the Ukraine conflict. However, Kiev and several European governments strongly oppose it due to its reportedly demanding major concessions from Ukraine. Volodymyr Zelenskyy claimed this week that US diplomats had already removed some of the 28 provisions at his government’s request.

    Moscow has kept its distance from the American initiative. President Vladimir Putin reiterated that Russia’s military position continues to strengthen and that Moscow intends to achieve its security objectives regardless of whether Kiev accepts Washington’s mediation.

    The post UK Planning Smear Campaign against Trump – Russian Intelligence first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • There are any number of reasons you may not like, or may even condemn, the 28–point peace plan the Trump regime has drafted to advance toward a settlement of the war in Ukraine.

    You may be among those many all across the Western capitals who simply cannot accept defeat on the reasoning — is this my word? — that the West never loses anything, and it certainly cannot lose anything to “Putin’s Russia.”

    You may think that President Donald Trump and those who produced this interesting document, which leaked out in the course of some days last week, have once again “caved” to the Kremlin.

    The post What? Peace In Our Time? appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • The Ukrainian government has “agreed to a peace deal” to end the nearly three-year war between Moscow and Kiev, a US official told CBS News on 25 November.

    “The Ukrainians have agreed to the peace deal. There are some minor details to be sorted out, but they have agreed to a peace deal,” the US official said.

    Ukrainian National Security Advisor Rustem Umerov also said that an understanding has been reached, expressing optimism that Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky would travel to the US by the end of November in order to finalize the deal.

    The post Ukraine Agrees To US-Sponsored Deal To End War With Russia appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • In a conversation with Jeffrey Sachs, Piers Morgan got a brutally honest response on the consequences Russia will face for invading Ukraine:

    Morgan wasn’t wrong to speak out against Russia’s actions. However, his criticism masks the double standards of the Western establishment, which conveniently glosses over its own imperial misadventures.

    The grim truth

    Morgan was speaking to the American economist and analyst Sachs when he asked:

    What happens to a country like Russia, which by common consent has committed myriad war crimes in the last three years?

    It’s targeted and killed civilians. I think that’s inarguable. It’s kidnapped a reported 20,000 Ukrainian children. There was the massacre at places like Bucha. I’ve been there. Absolutely horrific what went on down there. There have been the sexual assaults and rapes of Ukrainian women and so on. So it seems inarguable. There’s been a number of war crimes committed.

    Is it fair and just that at the end of this, assuming you’re right and this is the beginning of the end of this, that Russia emerges unpunished for any of this?

    It’s not an unfair question.

    The people who order and commit these inhumanities should be held accountable, but this seldom happens, as Sachs explained:

    Well, if the United States were punished for all its war crimes, the world would be a better place. And if all countries were punished for their war crimes; if Israel was punished for its genocide before our eyes; if the United States was punished for overthrowing so many regimes and causing so many wars; if the United States were punished for the Iraq war; if the United States were punished for the coup in Iraq, Maidan in February 2014, I’d agree with you.

    It would be great if governments were accountable. But what we like to do is say the other side is the wrong one and not to acknowledge our own sins.

    For this, Jesus had it right. Why do you always point to the moat in the other eye when you have the plank or the beam in your own eye? To my mind, this is the basic point.

    I would love to follow your line, Piers. I agree with it. We should have accountability for all the crimes that are committed. And the United States’ list is so long.

    I have been tracking it for more than 40 years professionally. It’s just one war crime after another, including complicity in a genocide in Gaza during the last two years.

    War crimes

    After WWII, it was possible to hold the Nazis accountable. Germany was completely defeated — ignoring the Nazis who went to work for the Americans, obviously.

    Nations like America, Russia, Israel, and the UK, have not been defeated. Therefore, it’s not possible to hold foreign politicians accountable in the same way.

    Of course, this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t push for accountability or demand an international response to war criminals. Our politics would be in a much better state if Blair and New Labour had been punished for invading Iraq on unfounded claims. And it goes without saying, that everyone should support the International Criminal Court’s attempts to hold Israel responsible for the genocide.

    The problem is that the mechanisms for justice and accountability are limited to waging war — which rarely works out … or sanctions — both of which make things worse.

    Morgan isn’t wrong about Russia’s crimes. The issue is that he’s selectively correct. You won’t hear mainstream journalists like him arguing that Western nations should face accountability, and that’s a massive problem.

    Featured image via Piers Morgan Uncensored

    By Willem Moore

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The next UK election is not due until 2029, and yet many have treated Reform’s recent dominance as if it were baked in. Increasingly, though, it looks like Reform are struggling to hold on to the lead they’ve enjoyed for several months:

    It’s almost like the more people see of Reform the less they like them.

    The poll truth

    With YouGov, Reform have hit highs of 29% throughout 2025:

    Poll showing Reform at 29% in September

    It isn’t just YouGov which have Reform on a downward trajectory either:

    For a party to achieve a majority, they need 326 seats. If the Opinium poll reflected the 2029 outcome, Reform would have that; if it was one of the other two, they’d need to form a government with another party. While we’re sure they’d have no problems crawling into bed with the Tories, it wouldn’t reflect well on the anti-establishment party to immediately shack up with the establishment.

    Of course, all this would depend on Reform maintaining their polling position, which they realistically might not. The way things are going, we could end up with five parties all polling in the high teens and if that happens, all manner of coalition options would be on the table.

    The pressing question is how are Reform managing to squander their lead?

    The end is Nigel

    For most of 2025, voters have been turning against Labour due to Keir Starmer’s litany of failures. Since voters haven’t forgotten about the 14 years of Tory mismanagement which preceded Starmer, the main beneficiary of Labour’s collapse has been Nigel Farage’s Reform Party. Devoid of ideas of their own, Labour tried to claw back support by mimicking their opponents. This didn’t work, of course. Whenever a centrist party attempts to shift right, it reinforces the impression that their so-called rivals are two steps ahead, prompting voters to vote for them instead.

    As a result of their poll lead, Reform have received a lot more attention. The problem is that Reform is riddled with freaks, ex-Tories, and a guy who took money to push pro-Russian propaganda.

    Here are just some of the PR nightmares that Reform have had in recent months:

    Real alternatives

    The focus on Reform isn’t the only shift in the polls. The Green Party has significantly increased its presence, at Reform’s expense.

    To varying degrees, Farage’s supporters are voting Reform because they’re not Labour or the Tories. This makes Reform vulnerable to populist-leaning parties, such as the Greens and Your Party, offering bold plans to tackle inequality at the root.

    Reform know this, too, which is why they’re now attacking Zack Polanski as much as Keir Starmer:

    Of course, a lot will happen between now and 2029, but it’s worthwhile acknowledging Reform’s weaknesses, if only to discourage those politicians who think that mimicking Nigel Farage will pave the path to victory.

    Featured image via Steve Bowbrick (Flickr)

    By Willem Moore

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Despite the documented violations and genocide committed by the Israeli occupation over two years in Gaza and the differences between this and Russia’s war on Ukraine, the most pressing question in sporting and legal circles remains: Why did FIFA rush to suspend Russia’s participation in international tournaments following its invasion of Ukraine, while not taking the same action against Israel despite allegations of widespread violations against Palestinian athletes?

    This question, which is being asked today from the streets of Gaza to the offices of international sports federations, reveals a wide gap between FIFA’s legal text and its practices on the ground.

    A swift decision against Russia by FIFA… and a complete absence of sanctions against Israel

    In February 2022, just a few days after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, FIFA and the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) announced the suspension of Russian national teams and clubs from all international competitions.

    The decision was based on ‘exceptional and unprecedented circumstances,’ as described by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which later upheld the sanction.

    In contrast, despite decades of documented violations by Israel against Palestinian athletes – preventing movement, killing athletes, destroying sports infrastructure, and involving settlement clubs – FIFA has not taken similar action.

    This discrepancy has led observers to question whether FIFA applies double standards in enforcing its regulations and whether politics plays a greater role than law in its decision-making.

    The legal basis: stronger against Israel but enforced against Russia

    Legally, FIFA has broad powers to suspend or expel any association that violates its statutes.

    Article 16 of its statutes gives the Council the right to immediately suspend any association that commits a ‘serious breach of its obligations.’ Article 3 also stipulates FIFA’s commitment to respect human rights, and Article 4 prohibits any form of discrimination.

    The Russian case

    The punishment was imposed because of an external political violation – military invasion – and not because of direct sporting practices. However, FIFA responded quickly on the basis of a “threat to the integrity and integrity of the game”.

    The Israeli case

    The evidence, on the other hand, relates to direct sporting violations:

    • Preventing Palestinian players from travelling to participate in tournaments.
    • Targeting sports stadiums and facilities and destroying hundreds of them in Gaza.
    • Killing hundreds of athletes.
    • Including clubs in illegal settlements in the Israeli league, in clear violation of Article 64 of FIFA regulations.

    Despite this, FIFA has not exercised its legal powers against Israel.

    The extent of the violations and their impact on football

    Russia

    Did not prevent international athletes from travelling and did not target foreign sports facilities.

    The punishment was more political than sporting in nature.

    Israel

    Its military policies have completely destroyed Palestinian sporting life:

    • Sports activities have completely ceased in Gaza.
    • Sports infrastructure has been destroyed.
    • Entire generations of players have been lost.

    These practices affect the very essence and fundamental structure of the game, yet they have gone unpunished by FIFA.

    Political and media pressure

    Experts in sports law confirm that FIFA acted against Russia under significant international political pressure led by Europe. The Western consensus on punishing Moscow contributed to a quick and sweeping decision.

    In contrast, Israel enjoys significant political and media support in the West, making any move against it more sensitive within international sports institutions, especially since most of the leaders of FIFA and the continental federations come from Europe and North America.

    This reality has made FIFA more cautious in the Israeli case, despite the breadth of evidence and the strength of the legal basis.

    In the 2018 Palestinian Football Association case concerning settlement clubs, the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruled that FIFA had full authority to sanction Israel, but chose not to exercise that authority. This ruling confirms that the absence of sanctions is not due to legal loopholes, but rather to a lack of will.

    As for Russia, the court immediately supported the sanctions, considering that the circumstances ‘justified the exception.’

    Two different standards, and the need for a comprehensive review of FIFA’s policies

    The fundamental difference remains that FIFA treats Russia as an external political threat, while treating Israel with flexibility despite violations that affect the very core of Palestinian football.

    This discrepancy raises new questions about FIFA’s ability to adhere to its stated principles on human rights and non-discrimination, and about the urgent need for an independent oversight mechanism to ensure that rules are applied equally, free from political pressure.

    As sporting suffering continues in Palestine, the pressing question arises: does FIFA need global pressure similar to that exerted in the case of Russia before it applies its standards to Israel?

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Alaa Shamali

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Earlier this week, the ex-head of Reform Wales was sentenced to ten years in prison for taking bribes from pro-Russian backers. In the aftermath, Keir Starmer called for an ‘inquiry’ into Reform’s links to Russia. As it turns out, however, there are multiple problems with Starmer’s intervention:

    From Russia, with cash

    Reform’s ex Wales head Nathan Gill was paid £40,000 to talk glowingly about Russia in the European Parliament. Knowing this, it’s amazing to think he was a Brexiteer – clearly the EU was very lucrative for him.

    In response to Gill’s conviction, Reform said:

    Mr Gill’s actions were reprehensible, treasonous and unforgivable.

    We are glad that justice has been served and fully welcome the sentence Nathan Gill has received.

    Among those who doubt Reform’s honesty is investigative reporter Carole Cadwalladr:

    As noted in her tweet at the top, Cadwalladr has been involved in a case to force the UK government to investigate Russian interference. As the Citizens wrote in 2022:

    A cross-party group of MPs and peers is going to the European Court of Human Rights to challenge the UK Government’s failure to investigate Russian interference in UK electoral processes. The landmark legal action has been launched in response to the government’s failure to act on the findings of the Russia Report, published by the Intelligence and Security Committee in July 2020, which reported credible evidence of attempts by Russia to interfere with the UK’s electoral processes.

    The parliamentary group which is bringing the action includes Ben Bradshaw MP, Caroline Lucas MP, Alyn Smith MP, Lord Strasburger and Baroness Wheatcroft. They claim the government is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 3, Protocol 1) which requires regular, free, secret-ballot elections which “ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people”.

    You may be thinking ‘why would Starmer call for an inquiry into Russian interference while fighting against launching an inquiry into Russian interference?

    The answer is because he has no intention of launching an inquiry – a fact which he made clear in his own words.

    Half measures from Starmer

    As reported by Sky News:

    Speaking to Sky News’ political editor Beth Rigby at the G20 summit in South Africa, the prime minister said Nigel Farage “needs to launch an investigation into his party to understand how that happened”.

    So there we have it.

    Starmer suspects Russia has infiltrated the Reform Party, and his solution is for Reform to investigate itself.

    Seriously?

    Why stop there – why not commission Vladimir Putin to do it?

    To be fair, Labour have elsewhere clarified that the investigation should be ‘independent’:


    Again, though, it would be on Reform to arrange for such an inquiry.

    The problem for Starmer is that when you’re talking about something as serious as potential treason – and you’re literally the government – it doesn’t look good to say ‘so maybe you guys should investigate if you’ve betrayed the country‘.

    Sky News additionally reported that Starmer:

    said a probe should also consider “what other links are there between Reform and Russia”.

    “[Nigel Farage] needs to deal with this pro-Russian bribery. It’s not just a serious criminal offence, it undermines our country.

    “It’s serious. The first duty of a prime minister, of a leader, is to keep our country safe. So, he needs to launch that investigation.”

    In that last bit, he seems to have said ‘duty of a prime minister’ by accident – either because he didn’t want to suggest he should have any responsibility or because he forgot Farage isn’t running the country.

    The Manchurian idiot

    While it’s certainly worrying that senior British politicians have taken bribes to promote foreign powers, it’s arguably more worrying that we have politicians like Starmer who are breaking the country for free.

    Featured image via Heute / Gage Skidmore (Flickr)

    By Willem Moore

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Why did the United Nations Security Council vote to give authority over Gaza to a genocidal demolition squad called the Board of Peace, headed by Donald Trump?

    This question has several dimensions. The resolution itself was drafted by the US, and more specifically the Trump administration, in close consultation with the Netanyahu government in Israel. This explains why it is perfectly consistent with a continuing genocide and progressive elimination of the existing population of Gaza, totally Palestinian, but now estimated to be considerably less than two million, compared to 2.2-2.3 million two years ago. Up to half a million, almost entirely civilian and mostly women and children, have died, due to direct murder by Israeli forces as well as vast numbers of equally but differently murdered victims of starvation, malnutrition, disease, exposure and lack of medical resources, a result of the Israeli policy of denying the means of survival. A smaller minority have escaped despite their reluctance to leave and the unwillingness of most countries to accept them. The intention behind the plan is to replace the Palestinians with Zionist settlers and lucrative resorts, as well as to exploit the large oil and gas deposits off the coast for Israeli and western investors rather than for the benefit of the Palestinian population.

    This explains the resolution, but not the votes that passed it, including Algeria and Pakistan, and the abstentions of Russia and China. Russia had in fact drafted an alternative resolution, but did not submit it, due to passage of the US version. Why did Algeria and Pakistan vote in favor? This can probably be attributed to intense inducements from the US, and the fact that governments generally put their own interests first. But then why did Russia and China not veto the US proposal and submit their own? Alon Mizrahi provides a very coherent explanation, amounting to having no Arab partners to support them – not even the UN representative of Palestine, which, as we know, serves at the pleasure of Israel. The loss of Syria is keenly felt at such times.

    Is the United Nations a useful organization if it cannot uphold international law – or worse, if it passes resolutions that are in direct contradiction to international law? The fact is that the UN was designed to recognize and reflect the international power structure, not to alter it. This is why veto power exists in the Security Council. It is, in effect, a recognition that the most powerful countries have veto power over anything the UN might decide, whether the UN recognizes it or not. After WWII, the countries that signed the UN charter – especially the most powerful – also decided what constituted international law and agreed to abide by it. Although adherence has been inconsistent and violated many times, there has been general agreement on what constitutes this body of law.

    Until now. We seem to have transitioned into the era of “rules-based order.” What is that? What are the rules? Where is the order? It is an empty phrase meaning no more than the arbitrary and sometimes contrary decision making of an absolute monarch. The UN was formed by a treaty whereby all the signers agreed to give up some small measure of sovereignty in order to establish a minimal degree of security and welfare for all concerned, even if some benefitted more than others.

    In the era of the sole remaining superpower, such cooperation for mutual benefit appears to be withering away. But then, so does the superpower, as well as its Zionist appendage. It seems that we will have to be patient and steadfast, much like Palestinians, and to resist the abuses of those who rule us, also like the Palestinians.

    The post The UNSC vote to gift Gaza to its enemies first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • In fascist lockstep, the entire British media, broadcast and print, corporate and state, is leading with a Ministry of Defence press release about a “Russian spy ship” inside “British waters.” No British media appears to have been able to speak to anybody who knows the first thing about the Law of the Sea.

    Here are the facts.

    The Exclusive Economic Zone extends 200 miles from the coastal baselines. The Continental Shelf can extend still further, as a fact of geology, not an imposed maximum.

    On the Continental Shelf the coastal state is entitled to the mineral resources. In the Exclusive Economic Zone the coastal state is entitled to the fisheries and mineral resources.

    The post The Beat Of UK War Drums appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • The US is requesting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to accept a US-drafted deal to end the war with Russia that includes Kiev giving up “territory and some weapons,” Reuters reported on 19 November. Citing two anonymous sources familiar with the matter, the news agency stated that the proposals included reducing the size of the Ukrainian military, among other things.

    US President Donald Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, is leading the US effort to draft the plan and is working closely with Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev, a US official stated.

    The post US Calls On Ukraine To Make Concessions For Peace With Russia appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Former Reform UK in Wales leader Nathan Gill has today been sentenced to ten and a half years in prison after admitting taking bribes to make positive statements about Russia.

    The judge said:

    When you say what someone has paid you to say, you are not speaking with sincerity. If it was your genuine opinion, you would not need to be paid for saying it.

    Allowing money to corrupt your moral compass constitutes a grave betrayal of the trust vested in you by the electorate.

    Your misconduct has ramifications beyond personal honour, which is now irretrievably damaged.

    Gill pled guilty to the charges. And, the judge also added:

    The offending was persistent, rather an isolated lapse of judgement.

    If only those ‘incentivised’ by Israel to defend genocide and apartheid were held to the same standard.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Skwawkbox

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • COMMENTARY: By Ramzy Baroud

    UNSC Resolution 2803 is unequivocally rejected. It is a direct contravention of international law itself, imposed by the United States with the full knowledge and collaboration of Arab and Muslim states.

    These regimes brutally turned their backs on the Palestinians throughout the genocide, with some actively helping Israel cope with the economic fallout of its multi-frontal wars.

    The resolution is a pathetic attempt to achieve through political decree what the US and Israel decisively failed to achieve through brute force and war.

    It is doomed to fail, but not before it further exposes the bizarre, corrupted nature of international law under US political hegemony. The very country that has bankrolled and sustained the genocide of the Palestinians is the same country now taking ownership of Gaza’s fate.

    It is a sad testimony of current affairs that China and Russia maintained a far stronger, more principled position in support of Palestine than the so-called Arab and Muslim “brothers.”

    The time for expecting salvation from Arab and Muslim states is over; enough is enough.

    Even more tragic is Russia’s explanation for its abstention as a defence of the Palestinian Authority, while the PA itself welcomed the vote. The word treason is far too kind for this despicable, self-serving leadership.

    Recipe for disaster
    If implemented and enforced against the will of the Palestinians in Gaza, this resolution is a recipe for disaster: expect mass protests in Gaza, which will inevitably be suppressed by US-led lackeys, working hand-in-glove with Israel, all in the cynical name of enforcing “international law”.

    Anyone with an ounce of knowledge about the history of Palestine knows that Res 2803 has hurled us decades back, resurrecting the dark days of the British Mandate over Palestine.

    Another historical lesson is due: those who believe they are writing the final, conclusive chapter of Palestine will be shocked and surprised, for they have merely infuriated history.

    The story is far from over. The lasting shame is that Arab states are now fully and openly involved in the suppression of the Palestinians.

    Dr Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of The Last Earth: A Palestinian Story (Pluto Press, London). He has a PhD in Palestine Studies from the University of Exeter (2015) and was a Non-Resident Scholar at Orfalea Center for Global and International Studies, University of California Santa Barbara. This commentary is republished from his Facebook page.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • The situation in Ukraine is becoming even more complicated.

    The war on the frontline is going bad for Ukraine as is the war on infrastructure deep behind the contact line.

    A corruption scandal is used to neuter President Zelenski. New power structures are set to evolve to further the execution of the war. President Trump is attempting to impose another peace effort while Europe finds that it lacks the money to finance Ukraine and the war.

    There are at least seven cities which are falling or are destined to fall within the next few month.

    The post Power Play In Kiev And Chaos At The Front appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • The United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 2803 this week, after permanent members Russia and China chose to abstain instead of using their veto power. In addition to giving a framework for Gaza that would put Israel and the U.S. in control, the language of the motion is extremely vague, and it gives no guarantee that there will be an end to the genocide.

    Craig Mokhiber, an international human rights lawyer and former senior United Nations human rights official, noted that: “the ceasefire is a lie. The idea that there is a peace process is a lie. What we have here in this resolution is a betrayal of historic proportions.”

    He also said that while Russia and China may be going off of the Palestinian Authority’s support for the resolution, we have to remember that the PA operates “under occupation,” and “under the thumb of of the Americans.” And when it comes to the language that was passed: “this resolution doesn’t even demand the unfettered flow of aid. All it does is use some rhetorical language that underscores the importance of humanitarian aid.”

    The post “Historic Betrayal”: UNSC Approves US Plan to Control Gaza as Russia, China Abstain first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.


  • “The Throne of Peace is Now Empty and the UN Cancelled” • AI-generated image by Jan Oberg

    The UN Security Council adopted a U.S.-drafted resolution on November 17, 2025, endorsing Donald Trump’s Gaza peace plan. It authorised an International Stabilisation Force (ISF), backed a transitional governing body called the “Board of Peace”, and declared that conditions may now exist for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and eventual statehood. The vote passed 13–0, with Russia and China abstaining. This is UN SC Resolution 2803.

    This goes against everything the UN stands for. Of course, China and Russia wisely abstained. They want no involvement and co-responsibility with this fake peace plan and are smart enough to see that it will never lead to true peace.

    I ask myself – did the Trump Regime give the UN its death knell yesterday? It remains to be seen, but the consequences will be devastating and, tragically, associated with the name of its otherwise decent S-G, who has been completely outmanoeuvred.

    On October 14, the China Academy and its editor, Mimi, of “China Roughly” conducted the interview below with me, which begins with my harsh criticism of this nonsensical, absurd, and unacceptable way of making peace.”Peace.” No wonder the video title: “Trump’s Gaza Ceasefire Plan Was Hilarious from the StartBest US Joke Ever.”

    I call it a joke, and I will add that, if this has anything to do with peace, there is no need for political satire anymore. This is a satire on peace, intellectualism, international law and political ethics.

    Quick and simple reasons for that:

    • A party to a conflict can not be a mediator or peacemaker; it has to be a neutral third party. The US has been on the side of Israel all the time and is the leading enabler of its genocide.
    • A war criminal and habitual international law-violator cannot be a mediator or lead a peace process; Trump and his suggested “peace” board member, Tony Blair, both have that status, albeit being non-convicted.
    • The conflicts that lie under and cause the unspeakable violence in Gaza, characterised by words such as apartheid, historical injustices, asymmetry, nuclearism, occupation and Zionism, as well as Hamas militancy, are not analysed or addressed. The underlying conflict, not the surface violence, is the key to solving a conflict. This “peace” plan is pure symptom treatment.
    • The larger conflicts in the Middle East region that this conflict is part of are not addressed.
    • The whole project smacks of contemporary colonialism – we Westerners put ourselves up as those who shall run Gaza, and we have decided that it shall be demilitarised while we say nothing about Israeli militarism, occupation and nuclearism.
    • There is no understanding of this particular type of a-symmetric conflict which requires different approaches from symmetric conflicts.
    • All involved parties have not been addressed with three simple but fundamental questions: What do you think this conflict is about? What do you fear most and what future would you prefer or accept to live with – from which a mediator begins to look at possible arrangements and various possible futures.
    • There is no idea about consultations leading to a negotiation table. It is all done from outside by an incompetent, impossible “mediator” who has snatched the conflict from the weaker party.
    • Professional peace-making would build economic and other relations into a plan in such a way that the parties to a conflict would see it as more advantageous to cooperate than to fight each other in the future. There is no mention of anything like that, and of course, there will be more violence and no peace.
    • Professional peace-making would have utilised the world’s most experienced peace-making machinery, namely the United Nations. Instead of experienced, principled, trained and neutral UN peacekeepers and other UN elements drawn from around the world, this plan will deploy personnel from countries with a special political and/or economic interest that have no training in peacekeeping – perhaps, God forbid, even NATO countries.
    • A professional peace-making would have focused on post-violence processes and institutions such as forgiveness and reconciliation, a truth commission, security sector reform, de-militarising all sides, and discussing how schoolbooks, culture and cooperative projects could help the parties to live with what has happened and, slowly but surely, become partners in a process leading eventually to peace, stability and cooperation among all parties.

    One could go on and on.

    The fact that the UN Security Council has passed this cynical, miserable humbug “peace” resolution and virtually all parties and media call this a peace plan speaks volumes of the world’s peace illiteracy, of its peace and overwhelming endorsement of militarism.

    That the UN Secretary-General goes along with this sidelining of his organisation and the defilement of everything the UN stands for only adds to the tragedy.

    *****

    And why is true peace, as predictably as tragically, now dead?

    Because people of low intelligence and/or being uneducated in conflict understanding prefer violence to non-violence.

    Because we have no peace education, no peace academies, no university-level peace research and public education. Because media, politics and research have cancelled, tabooed and disappeared peace, by and large, since the fall of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of Yugoslavia – that is, the ravaging of the US-led unipolar world that is now coming to its end, also with this resolution.

    Because not a single government leader has an adviser who knows the slightest about alternatives to militarist “solutions” – knows about mediation, peace-making and reconciliation – as a science and an art.

    Because kakistocrats and the MIMAC – the Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex – see all problems as something to use a hammer on because they only have a hammer in the toolbox.

    Because peace requires creativity, knowledge and empathy – which are no longer characteristic of, or needed in, foreign policy- and security policy-making.

    I am sure that with this Las VeGaza “peace” plan, Trump will be a high-ranking candidate for the 2026 NATO-aligned Nobel Peace Prize – that is, if it doesn’t finally decide to give it posthumously to Adolf Hitler…

    PS The countries of the Security Council that made this fatal decision are: The US, Russia, China, France, the UK (all permanent members) + Algeria, Denmark, Greece, Guyana, Pakistan, Panama, Republic of Korea, Sierra Leone, Slovenia and Somalia – in other words, mostly countries that will follow orders from Washington. As mentioned, China and Russia abstained.

    *****

    The post Trump’s Gaza “Peace” Plan: A Cruel Joke in a Conflict and Peace Illiterate World first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The UK has joined the US and other western nations in voting against a United Nations resolution pledging to fight the rise of Nazi ideology and other forms of racism.

    The motion, titled “Combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism & other practices that contribute to fueling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia & related intolerance“, was opposed by almost the whole West and supported by Russia as well as almost every Asian, African and South American nation.

    As journalist Alan MacLeod noted:

    UN vote on Nazism throws open Ukraine issue

    The vote was also a tacit admission that Ukraine is infested by Nazi’s – something that was freely discussed by Western media and politicians before Russia invaded part of it, but quickly airbrushed out after it became inconvenient to admit, with the BBC’s Ros Atkins making a farcical ‘report‘ in March 2022, shortly after the invasion, dismissing Ukrainian Nazism that still remains online three and a half years later:

    The following day, the BBC ran a report showing its correspondent Jeremy Bowen reporting from Ukraine surrounded by troops wearing Nazi insignia. It was quickly deleted from the broadcaster’s ‘iPlayer’ but can still be viewed here.

    As journalist Alan MacLeod noted:

    Western countries feel that the resolution undermines their support for Ukraine, and that the bill is a thinly-veiled Russian attempt to smear their ally. The resolution has been voted on every year since 2012, where it overwhelmingly passed 129-3, with only the US, Canada and Palau voting against it.

    The US remains the only country to vote “no” to the resolution every time since 2012. The West’s overwhelming rejection of anti-fascism as an ideology, coupled with the rise in far-right sentiment, hints at a very dark future.

    Featured image via X/Alan MacLeod

    By Skwawkbox

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • On 14 November 2025, Scilla Alecci of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, Inc. (ICIJ) wrote about a parliamentary report which identified China and other authoritarian regimes as harassing and attacking dissidents abroad, echoing findings from ICIJ’s China Targets.

    European Parliament in Brussels, Belgium.

    The European Parliament has adopted a resolution urging member states to confront efforts by authoritarian regimes to coerce, control or silence political opponents and dissidents living in Europe. “Human rights defenders are a key pillar of democracy and the rule of law, and they are insufficiently protected,” a statement from the parliament said.

    The resolution, adopted with a majority of 512 votes (to 76 against and 52 abstentions), called for targeted sanctions against perpetrators, market surveillance of spyware and better coordination among European authorities to counter what lawmakers labeled “transnational repression.”

    “For the first time, the European Union will call this phenomenon by its name,” rapporteur Chloe told reporters ahead of the Nov. 13 vote. [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2024/03/19/transnational-repression-human-rights-watch-and-other-reports/]

    The resolution is not legally binding but signals that European lawmakers want to take a clear position on the issue and draw attention to it, Elodie Laborie, a spokesperson for the Parliament’s Subcommittee on Human Rights, told the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists in an email.

    The parliamentary report identifies China, Egypt and Russia among 10 countries whose governments are responsible for nearly 80% of known cases, which include targeted killings, abductions, harassment and the misuse of international policing tools such as Interpol’s red notice system.

    It confirms findings by ICIJ’s China Targets investigation, which revealed how Beijing continues to use surveillance, hacking and threats against Chinese and Hong Kong dissidents, Uyghur and Tibetan advocates and their families to quash any criticism of the regime abroad.

    See also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2025/04/28/chinas-tactics-to-block-voices-of-human-rights-defenders-at-the-un-major-report/

    https://www.icij.org/investigations/china-targets/european-parliament-pledges-to-tackle-transnational-repression-against-human-rights-defenders

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • The US, under Trump, is unapologetically an empire operating without pretense. International law is for losers. A newly minted War Department, deploying the most lethal killing machine in world history, need not hide behind the sham of promoting democracy.

    Recall that in 2023, Trump boasted: “When I left, Venezuela was ready to collapse. We would have taken it over; we would have gotten all that oil.” As CEO of the capitalist bloc, Trump’s mission is not about to be restrained by respect for sovereignty. There is only one inviolate global sovereign; all others are subalterns.

    Venezuela – with our oil under its soil – is now in the crosshairs of the empire. Not only does Venezuela possess the largest petroleum reserves, but it also has major gold, coltan, bauxite, and nickel deposits. Of course, the world’s hegemon would like to get its hands on all that mineral wealth.

    But it would be simplistic to think that it is driven only by narrow economic motives. Leverage over energy flows is central to maintaining global influence. Washington requires control of strategic resources to preserve its position as the global hegemon, guided by its official policy of “full spectrum dominance.”

    For Venezuela, revenues derived from these resources enable it to act with some degree of sovereign independence. Most gallingly, Venezuela nationalized its oil, instead of gifting it to private entrepreneurs – and then used it to fund social programs and to assist allies abroad like Cuba. All this is anathema to the hegemon.

    Further pushing the envelope is Venezuela’s “all-weather strategic partnership” with China. With Russia, its most consequential defense ally, Venezuela ratified a strategic partnership agreement. Similarly, Venezuela has a strong anti-imperialist alliance with Iran. All three partners have come to Caracas’s defense, along with regional allies such as Colombia, Brazil, and Mexico.

    The US has subjected Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution to incessant regime-change aggression for its entire quarter-century of existence. In 2015, Barack Obama codified what economist Jeffrey Sachs calls a remarkable “legal fiction.”  His executive order designated Venezuela as an “extraordinary threat” to US national security. Renewed by each succeeding president, the executive order is really an implicit recognition of Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution as a counter-hegemonic alternative that challenges Washington’s world order.

    The latest US belligerence testifies to the success of the Venezuelan resistance. The effects of asphyxiating US-led sanctions, which had crashed the economy, have been partly reversed with a return to economic growth, leaving the empire with little alternative but to escalate its antagonism through military means.

    The AFP reports “tensions between Washington and Caracas have dramatically risen” as if the one-sided aggression were a tit-for-tat. Venezuela seeks peace, but has a gun held to its head.

    Reuters blames the victim, claiming that the Venezuelan government “is planning to…sow chaos in the event of a US air or ground attack.” In fact, President Nicolás Maduro has pledged “prolonged resistance” to Washington’s unprovoked assaults rather than meekly conceding defeat.

    The death toll from US strikes on alleged small drug boats off Venezuela, in the Pacific off Colombia and Ecuador, and as far north as Mexico now exceeds 75 and continues to rise. But not an ounce of narcotics has been confiscated. In contrast, Venezuela has seized 64 tons of drugs this year without killing anyone, as the Orinoco Tribune observes.

    Russian Foreign Ministry’s María Zakharova quipped: “now that the US has suddenly remembered, at this historic moment, that drugs are an evil, perhaps it is worth it for the US to go after the criminals within its own elite.”

    On November 11, the world’s largest aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, and its accompanying warships arrived in the Caribbean. They join an armada of US destroyers, fighter jets, drones, and troops that have been building since August.

    In a breathtaking understatement, the Washington Post allowed: “The breadth of firepower…would seem excessive” for drug interdiction in what it glowingly describes as a “stunning military presence.”

    Venezuela is now on maximum military alert with a threatening flotilla off its coast and some 15,000 US troops standing by.  Millions of Venezuelans have joined the militia, and international brigades have been welcomed to join the defense. President Maduro issued a decree of “external commotion,” granting special powers in the event of an invasion.

    The populace has united around its Chavista leadership. The far-right opposition, which has called for a military invasion of its own country, is more isolated than ever. Only 3% support such a call.

    Their US-designated leader, María Corina Machado, has gone bonkers, saying “no doubt” that Maduro rigged the 2020 US election against Trump. According to the rabidly anti-Chavista Caracas Chronicles, the so-called Iron Lady “is not simply betting Venezuela’s future on Trump, she is betting her existence.”

    The legal eagles at The Washington Post now find that “the Trump administration’s approach is illegal.” United Nations experts warn that these unprovoked lethal strikes against vessels at sea “amount to international crimes.”

    Even high-ranking Democrats “remain unconvinced” by the administration’s legal arguments. They’re miffed about being left out of the administration’s briefings and not getting to see full videos of the extrajudicial murders.

    The Democrats unite with the Republicans in demonizing Maduro to achieve regime change in Venezuela, but wish it could be done by legal means. The so-called opposition party unanimously voted to confirm Marco Rubio as secretary of state, fully aware of the program that he now spearheads.

    The corporate press has been complicit in regime change in its endless demonization of Maduro. They report that Trump authorized covert CIA operations as if that was a scoop rather than business as usual. What is new is a US administration overtly flaunting supposedly covert machinations. This is part of Washington’s full-press psychological pressure campaign on Venezuela, in which the follow-the-flag media have been its eager handmaiden.

    The AP reports that Jack Keane, when he served as a US Army general, instructed staff to “see reporters as a conduit” for the Pentagon. This was cited as a criticism of Trump after a few dozen embedded reporters turned in their Pentagon badges. Trump has called out the Washington press corps as “very disruptive in terms of world peace,” proving the adage that even a blind dog can sometimes find a bone.

    The Wall Street Journal opines: “Nobody in the [Trump] administration seems prepared to ask the hard questions about what happens if they do destabilize the [Venezuelan] regime but fail to topple it.” Political analysts Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies suggest the answer is carnage and chaos  – based on Washington’s past performances in Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan, Haiti, Libya, Syria, and Yemen, to mention a few.

    Foreign Policy’s perspective – aligned with the Washington establishment – is that regional fragmentation is at its highest level in the last half-century. Regional organizations have become dysfunctional –  UNASUR has been “destroyed,” CELAC is “useless,” and the OAS canceled its summit. The factionalism, Responsible Statecraft agrees, “marks one of the lowest moments for regional relations in decades.” Bilateral “deals” with the US are replacing regional cohesion.

    This is Latin America under the beneficence of Trump’s “Monroe Doctrine.” The alternative vision, represented by Venezuela, is CELAC’s Zone of Peace and ALBA-TCP’s development for mutual benefit.

    The post Chaos: The Trump Doctrine for Latin America first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • A new series by Drop Site News looks at Jeffrey Epstein’s ties to Israeli intelligence and how he secretly brokered numerous deals for Israeli intelligence. Drop Site revealed that Epstein had played a role in brokering a security agreement between Israel and Mongolia and setting up a backchannel between Israel and Russia during the Syrian civil war. Epstein had an “extensive relationship…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A Royal Air Force (RAF) team will deploy to Belgium after suspected Russian drones shut down an airport. The deployment comes as the US government looks to massively expand unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) production. The new head of the military, Air Chief Marshal Richard Knighton, announced the deployment during a Remembrance Day interview.

    The Belgium deployment comes after suspected Russian drones were seen near an airbase. The Belgian defence authorities said the two-phased ‘attack’ on 1 November was aimed at testing defences. The Kleine Brogel base is home to US nuclear weapons.  The Belgian defence minister Theo Francken said the Belgian drone jammer:

    didn’t work because they tested our radio frequency, and they changed frequency.

    He explained that:

    They have their own frequencies. An amateur doesn’t know how to do that.

    Asked why the drones weren’t shot down, Francken said:

    When they’re over a military base we can shoot the drones down. When it’s nearby, we have to be very careful because they can fall on a house, a car, a person. That’s completely different.

    RAF drone deployment

    Air Marshal Knighton told Sky News:

    I had my Belgian opposite number – the chief of the defence staff – in touch with me this week, seeking our help to track and potentially defeat the drones.

    We agreed with the defence secretary on Friday that we would send our people and our equipment into Belgium to help them with the current problem they have got there.

    The Ministry of Defence recently announced new laws would be brought into effect which would allow the military to shoot down drones near bases:

    Against the backdrop of Ukraine, where drones have proven critical on the battlefields, Western militaries are expanding their own UAV capacities. And the US government announced it would buy up to a million drones.

    US military publication Task and Purpose called it “the most concrete shift in the Army’s overhaul for the drone age. And, they said:

    One major part of that was building out soldiers’ use of drones and systems to counter enemy uncrewed aerial systems. Hegseth ordered every Army division to use drones in at least some capacity by the end of next year.

    British drones

    But while the UK might not be buying a million drones but it has intensively tested both airborne and maritime unmanned vehicles. Two models of UAV were tested in an 18 day trial in Kenya. Rattler sea drones were tested off the west coast of Scotland in late October. The latter were reported to have autonomous capacity.

    However, as Drone Wars director Chris Cole told the Canary:

    The notion that we should consider the introduction of military autonomous drones into the maritime domain is as nonsensical as it is short-sighted. A decade ago the same politicians and commentators were hailing the advent of aerial drones only for the technology now to be recognised for what it is, a threat to us all.

    British air force counter-drone experts also deployed to Denmark in October, after similar reports of unidentified drones overflying military installations.

    Featured image via YouTube screenshot/Sky News

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Children play on the beach during a security deployment in Anzoátegui, Venezuela, 19 September 2025. Credit: Rosana Silva R.

    Since early September, the United States has given every indication that it could be preparing for a military assault on Venezuela. Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research partnered with ALBA Movimientos, the International Peoples’ AssemblyNo Cold War, and the Simón Bolívar Institute to produce red alert no. 20, ‘The Empire’s Dogs Are Barking at Venezuela’, on the potential scenarios and implications of US intervention.

    In February 2006, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez travelled to Havana to receive the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation’s José Martí Prize from Fidel Castro. In his speech, he likened Washington’s threats against Venezuela to dogs barking, saying, ‘Let the dogs bark, because it is a sign that we are on the move. ’ Chávez added, ‘Let the dogs of the empire bark. That is their role: to bark. Our role is to fight to achieve in this century – now, at last – the true liberation of our people.’ Almost two decades later, the empire’s dogs continue to bark. But will they bite? That is the question that this red alert seeks to answer.

    The Sound of Barking

    In February 2025, the US State Department designated a criminal network called Tren de Aragua (Aragua Train) as a ‘foreign terrorist organisation’. Then, in July, the US Treasury Department added the so-called Cartel de los Soles (Cartel of the Suns) to the Office of Foreign Assets Control’s sanctions list as a ‘transnational terrorist group’. No previous US government report, either from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) or the State Department, had identified these organisations as a threat, and no publicly verifiable evidence has been offered to substantiate the claimed scale or coordination of either group. There is no evidence that Tren de Aragua is a coherent international operation. As for the Cartel de los Soles, the first time the name appeared was in 1993 in Venezuelan reporting on investigations of two National Guard generals – a reference to the ‘sun’ insignia on their uniforms – years before Hugo Chávez’s 1998 presidential victory. The Trump administration has alleged that these groups, working with Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s government, are the primary traffickers of drugs into the US – while providing zero evidence for the connection. Moreover, reports from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the DEA itself have consistently found Venezuelan groups to be marginal in global drug trafficking. Even so, the US State Department has offered a $50 million reward for information leading to Maduro’s arrest – the largest in the programme’s history.

    Members of the first cohort of the Tactical Method of Revolutionary Resistance (Método Táctico de Resistencia Revolucionaria, MTRR) course smile after completing training at the Commando Actions Group in Caracas, Venezuela, October 2025—credit: Miguel Ángel García Ojeda.

    The US has revived the blunt instrument of the ‘War on Drugs’ to pressure countries that are not yielding to its threats or that stubbornly refuse to elect right-wing governments. Recently, Trump has targeted Mexico and Colombia and has invoked their difficulties with the narcotics trade to attack their presidents. Though Venezuela does not have a significant domestic drug problem, that has not stopped Trump from attacking Maduro’s government with much more venom. In October 2025, the Venezuelan politician María Corina Machado of the Vente Venezuela (Come Venezuela) movement won the Nobel Peace Prize. Machado was ineligible to run for president in 2024 largely because she had made a series of treasonous statements, accepted a diplomatic post from another country in order to plead for intervention in Venezuela (in violation of Article 149 of the Constitution), and supported guarimbas (violent street actions in which people were beaten, burned alive, and beheaded). She has also championed unilateral US sanctions that have devastated the economy. The Nobel Prize was secured through the work of the Inspire America Foundation (based in Miami, Florida, and led by Cuban American lawyer Marcell Felipe) and by the intervention of four US politicians, three of whom are Cuban Americans (Marco Rubio, María Elvira Salazar, and Mario Díaz-Balart). The Cuban American connection is key, showing how this political network that is focused on the overthrow by any means of the Cuban Revolution now sees a US military intervention in Venezuela as a way to advance regime change in Cuba. This is, therefore, not just an intervention against Venezuela, but one against all those governments that the US would like to overthrow.

    A woman holds a rifle during a security deployment in the Petare neighbourhood of Caracas, Venezuela, 15 October 2025. Credit: Rosana Silva R.

    The Bite

    In August 2025, the US military began to amass naval forces in the southern Caribbean, including Aegis-class destroyers and nuclear-powered attack submarines. In September, it began a campaign of extrajudicial strikes on small motorboats in Caribbean waters, bombing at least thirteen vessels and killing at least fifty-seven people – without offering evidence of any drug trafficking links. By mid-October, the US had deployed more than four thousand troops off Venezuela’s coast and five thousand on standby in Puerto Rico (including F-35 fighter jets and MQ-9 Reaper drones), authorised covert operations inside the country, and flown B-52 ‘demonstration missions’ over Caracas. In late October, the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group was deployed to the region. Meanwhile, Venezuela’s government has mobilised the population to defend the country.

    A woman from the Peasant Militia (Milicia Campesina) holds a machete during her graduation as a combatant from the MTRR course, October 2025. Credit: Rosana Silva R.

    Five Scenarios for US Intervention

    Scenario no. 1: the Brother Sam option. In 1964, the US deployed several warships off the coast of Brazil. Their presence emboldened General Humberto de Alencar Castelo Branco, chief of the Army General Staff, and his allies to stage a coup that ushered in a twenty-one-year dictatorship. But Venezuela is a different terrain. In his first term, Chávez strengthened political education in the military academies and anchored officer training in defence of the 1999 Constitution. A Castelo Branco figure is therefore unlikely to save the day for Washington.

    Scenario no. 2: the Panama option. In 1989, the US bombed Panama City and sent in special operations troops to capture Manuel Noriega, Panama’s military leader, and bring him to a US prison while US-backed politicians took over the country. Such an operation would be harder to replicate in Venezuela: its military is far stronger, trained for protracted, asymmetric conflicts, and the country boasts sophisticated air defence systems (notably the Russian S-300VM and Buk-M2E surface-to-air systems). Any US air campaign would face sustained defence, making the prospect of downed aircraft – a major loss of face – one Washington is unlikely to risk.

    Scenario no. 3: the Iraq option. A ‘Shock and Awe’ bombing campaign against Caracas and other cities to rattle the population and demoralise the state and military, followed by attempts to assassinate senior Venezuelan leadership and seize key infrastructure. After such an assault, Nobel Peace Prize winner Machado would likely declare herself ready to take charge and align Venezuela closely with the US. The inadequacy of this manoeuvre is that the Bolivarian leadership runs deep: the roots of the defence of the Bolivarian project run through working-class barrios, and the military would not be immediately demoralised – unlike in Iraq. As the interior minister of Venezuela, Diosdado Cabello, recently noted, ‘Anyone who wants to can remember Vietnam… when a small but united people with an iron will were able to teach US imperialism a lesson’.

    The commander general of the Bolivarian National Police, Brigadier General Rubén Santiago, holds a rifle with a sticker of Chávez’s eyes during a security deployment in Petare. Credit: Rosana Silva R.

    Scenario no. 4: the Gulf of Tonkin option. In 1964, the US escalated its military engagement in the Vietnam War after an incident framed as an unprovoked attack on US destroyers off the country’s coast. Later disclosures revealed that the National Security Agency (NSA) fabricated intelligence to manufacture a pretext for escalation. The US claims it is now conducting naval and air ‘training exercises’ near Venezuelan territorial waters and airspace. On 26 October, the Venezuelan government said it had received information about a covert CIA plan to stage a false-flag attack on US vessels near Trinidad and Tobago to elicit a US response. Venezuelan authorities warned of US manoeuvres and said they will not give in to provocations or intimidation.

    Scenario no. 5: the Qasem Soleimani option. In January 2020, a US drone strike ordered by Trump killed Major General Qasem Soleimani, head of Iran’s Quds Force. Soleimani was one of Iran’s most senior officials and was responsible for its regional defence strategy across Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, and Afghanistan. In an interview on 60 Minutes, former US chargé d’affaires for Venezuela James Story said, ‘The assets are there to do everything up to and including decapitation of [the] government’ – a plain statement of intent to assassinate the president. After the death of President Hugo Chávez in 2013, US officials predicted that the project would collapse. Twelve years have now passed, and Venezuela continues along the path set forth under Chávez, advancing its communal model whose resilience rests not only on the revolution’s collective leadership but also on strong popular organisation. The Bolivarian project has never been a one-person show.

    China and Russia are unlikely to permit a strike on Venezuela without pressing for immediate UN Security Council resolutions, and both routinely operate in the Caribbean, including joint exercises with Cuba and global missions such as China’s Mission Harmony 2025.

    A member of the Juventud Socialista de Venezuela (Socialist Youth of Venezuela) shows a coin given to graduates of the MTRR course during a security deployment in La Guaira, Venezuela, October 2025. Based on the methods of Vietnamese General Võ Nguyên Giáp, the MTRR course is designed to train people with no prior military experience for possible guerrilla warfare. Credit: Rosana Silva R.

    We hope that none of these scenarios come to pass and that the United States takes its military options off the table. But hope alone is not enough – we must work to expand the camp of peace.

    Originally published on  Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research

    The post The United States Continues Its Attempt to Overthrow Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Children play on the beach during a security deployment in Anzoátegui, Venezuela, 19 September 2025. Credit: Rosana Silva R.

    Since early September, the United States has given every indication that it could be preparing for a military assault on Venezuela. Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research partnered with ALBA Movimientos, the International Peoples’ AssemblyNo Cold War, and the Simón Bolívar Institute to produce red alert no. 20, ‘The Empire’s Dogs Are Barking at Venezuela’, on the potential scenarios and implications of US intervention.

    In February 2006, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez travelled to Havana to receive the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation’s José Martí Prize from Fidel Castro. In his speech, he likened Washington’s threats against Venezuela to dogs barking, saying, ‘Let the dogs bark, because it is a sign that we are on the move. ’ Chávez added, ‘Let the dogs of the empire bark. That is their role: to bark. Our role is to fight to achieve in this century – now, at last – the true liberation of our people.’ Almost two decades later, the empire’s dogs continue to bark. But will they bite? That is the question that this red alert seeks to answer.

    The Sound of Barking

    In February 2025, the US State Department designated a criminal network called Tren de Aragua (Aragua Train) as a ‘foreign terrorist organisation’. Then, in July, the US Treasury Department added the so-called Cartel de los Soles (Cartel of the Suns) to the Office of Foreign Assets Control’s sanctions list as a ‘transnational terrorist group’. No previous US government report, either from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) or the State Department, had identified these organisations as a threat, and no publicly verifiable evidence has been offered to substantiate the claimed scale or coordination of either group. There is no evidence that Tren de Aragua is a coherent international operation. As for the Cartel de los Soles, the first time the name appeared was in 1993 in Venezuelan reporting on investigations of two National Guard generals – a reference to the ‘sun’ insignia on their uniforms – years before Hugo Chávez’s 1998 presidential victory. The Trump administration has alleged that these groups, working with Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s government, are the primary traffickers of drugs into the US – while providing zero evidence for the connection. Moreover, reports from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the DEA itself have consistently found Venezuelan groups to be marginal in global drug trafficking. Even so, the US State Department has offered a $50 million reward for information leading to Maduro’s arrest – the largest in the programme’s history.

    Members of the first cohort of the Tactical Method of Revolutionary Resistance (Método Táctico de Resistencia Revolucionaria, MTRR) course smile after completing training at the Commando Actions Group in Caracas, Venezuela, October 2025—credit: Miguel Ángel García Ojeda.

    The US has revived the blunt instrument of the ‘War on Drugs’ to pressure countries that are not yielding to its threats or that stubbornly refuse to elect right-wing governments. Recently, Trump has targeted Mexico and Colombia and has invoked their difficulties with the narcotics trade to attack their presidents. Though Venezuela does not have a significant domestic drug problem, that has not stopped Trump from attacking Maduro’s government with much more venom. In October 2025, the Venezuelan politician María Corina Machado of the Vente Venezuela (Come Venezuela) movement won the Nobel Peace Prize. Machado was ineligible to run for president in 2024 largely because she had made a series of treasonous statements, accepted a diplomatic post from another country in order to plead for intervention in Venezuela (in violation of Article 149 of the Constitution), and supported guarimbas (violent street actions in which people were beaten, burned alive, and beheaded). She has also championed unilateral US sanctions that have devastated the economy. The Nobel Prize was secured through the work of the Inspire America Foundation (based in Miami, Florida, and led by Cuban American lawyer Marcell Felipe) and by the intervention of four US politicians, three of whom are Cuban Americans (Marco Rubio, María Elvira Salazar, and Mario Díaz-Balart). The Cuban American connection is key, showing how this political network that is focused on the overthrow by any means of the Cuban Revolution now sees a US military intervention in Venezuela as a way to advance regime change in Cuba. This is, therefore, not just an intervention against Venezuela, but one against all those governments that the US would like to overthrow.

    A woman holds a rifle during a security deployment in the Petare neighbourhood of Caracas, Venezuela, 15 October 2025. Credit: Rosana Silva R.

    The Bite

    In August 2025, the US military began to amass naval forces in the southern Caribbean, including Aegis-class destroyers and nuclear-powered attack submarines. In September, it began a campaign of extrajudicial strikes on small motorboats in Caribbean waters, bombing at least thirteen vessels and killing at least fifty-seven people – without offering evidence of any drug trafficking links. By mid-October, the US had deployed more than four thousand troops off Venezuela’s coast and five thousand on standby in Puerto Rico (including F-35 fighter jets and MQ-9 Reaper drones), authorised covert operations inside the country, and flown B-52 ‘demonstration missions’ over Caracas. In late October, the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group was deployed to the region. Meanwhile, Venezuela’s government has mobilised the population to defend the country.

    A woman from the Peasant Militia (Milicia Campesina) holds a machete during her graduation as a combatant from the MTRR course, October 2025. Credit: Rosana Silva R.

    Five Scenarios for US Intervention

    Scenario no. 1: the Brother Sam option. In 1964, the US deployed several warships off the coast of Brazil. Their presence emboldened General Humberto de Alencar Castelo Branco, chief of the Army General Staff, and his allies to stage a coup that ushered in a twenty-one-year dictatorship. But Venezuela is a different terrain. In his first term, Chávez strengthened political education in the military academies and anchored officer training in defence of the 1999 Constitution. A Castelo Branco figure is therefore unlikely to save the day for Washington.

    Scenario no. 2: the Panama option. In 1989, the US bombed Panama City and sent in special operations troops to capture Manuel Noriega, Panama’s military leader, and bring him to a US prison while US-backed politicians took over the country. Such an operation would be harder to replicate in Venezuela: its military is far stronger, trained for protracted, asymmetric conflicts, and the country boasts sophisticated air defence systems (notably the Russian S-300VM and Buk-M2E surface-to-air systems). Any US air campaign would face sustained defence, making the prospect of downed aircraft – a major loss of face – one Washington is unlikely to risk.

    Scenario no. 3: the Iraq option. A ‘Shock and Awe’ bombing campaign against Caracas and other cities to rattle the population and demoralise the state and military, followed by attempts to assassinate senior Venezuelan leadership and seize key infrastructure. After such an assault, Nobel Peace Prize winner Machado would likely declare herself ready to take charge and align Venezuela closely with the US. The inadequacy of this manoeuvre is that the Bolivarian leadership runs deep: the roots of the defence of the Bolivarian project run through working-class barrios, and the military would not be immediately demoralised – unlike in Iraq. As the interior minister of Venezuela, Diosdado Cabello, recently noted, ‘Anyone who wants to can remember Vietnam… when a small but united people with an iron will were able to teach US imperialism a lesson’.

    The commander general of the Bolivarian National Police, Brigadier General Rubén Santiago, holds a rifle with a sticker of Chávez’s eyes during a security deployment in Petare. Credit: Rosana Silva R.

    Scenario no. 4: the Gulf of Tonkin option. In 1964, the US escalated its military engagement in the Vietnam War after an incident framed as an unprovoked attack on US destroyers off the country’s coast. Later disclosures revealed that the National Security Agency (NSA) fabricated intelligence to manufacture a pretext for escalation. The US claims it is now conducting naval and air ‘training exercises’ near Venezuelan territorial waters and airspace. On 26 October, the Venezuelan government said it had received information about a covert CIA plan to stage a false-flag attack on US vessels near Trinidad and Tobago to elicit a US response. Venezuelan authorities warned of US manoeuvres and said they will not give in to provocations or intimidation.

    Scenario no. 5: the Qasem Soleimani option. In January 2020, a US drone strike ordered by Trump killed Major General Qasem Soleimani, head of Iran’s Quds Force. Soleimani was one of Iran’s most senior officials and was responsible for its regional defence strategy across Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, and Afghanistan. In an interview on 60 Minutes, former US chargé d’affaires for Venezuela James Story said, ‘The assets are there to do everything up to and including decapitation of [the] government’ – a plain statement of intent to assassinate the president. After the death of President Hugo Chávez in 2013, US officials predicted that the project would collapse. Twelve years have now passed, and Venezuela continues along the path set forth under Chávez, advancing its communal model whose resilience rests not only on the revolution’s collective leadership but also on strong popular organisation. The Bolivarian project has never been a one-person show.

    China and Russia are unlikely to permit a strike on Venezuela without pressing for immediate UN Security Council resolutions, and both routinely operate in the Caribbean, including joint exercises with Cuba and global missions such as China’s Mission Harmony 2025.

    A member of the Juventud Socialista de Venezuela (Socialist Youth of Venezuela) shows a coin given to graduates of the MTRR course during a security deployment in La Guaira, Venezuela, October 2025. Based on the methods of Vietnamese General Võ Nguyên Giáp, the MTRR course is designed to train people with no prior military experience for possible guerrilla warfare. Credit: Rosana Silva R.

    We hope that none of these scenarios come to pass and that the United States takes its military options off the table. But hope alone is not enough – we must work to expand the camp of peace.

    Originally published on  Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research

    The post The United States Continues Its Attempt to Overthrow Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Children play on the beach during a security deployment in Anzoátegui, Venezuela, 19 September 2025. Credit: Rosana Silva R.

    Since early September, the United States has given every indication that it could be preparing for a military assault on Venezuela. Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research partnered with ALBA Movimientos, the International Peoples’ AssemblyNo Cold War, and the Simón Bolívar Institute to produce red alert no. 20, ‘The Empire’s Dogs Are Barking at Venezuela’, on the potential scenarios and implications of US intervention.

    In February 2006, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez travelled to Havana to receive the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation’s José Martí Prize from Fidel Castro. In his speech, he likened Washington’s threats against Venezuela to dogs barking, saying, ‘Let the dogs bark, because it is a sign that we are on the move. ’ Chávez added, ‘Let the dogs of the empire bark. That is their role: to bark. Our role is to fight to achieve in this century – now, at last – the true liberation of our people.’ Almost two decades later, the empire’s dogs continue to bark. But will they bite? That is the question that this red alert seeks to answer.

    The Sound of Barking

    In February 2025, the US State Department designated a criminal network called Tren de Aragua (Aragua Train) as a ‘foreign terrorist organisation’. Then, in July, the US Treasury Department added the so-called Cartel de los Soles (Cartel of the Suns) to the Office of Foreign Assets Control’s sanctions list as a ‘transnational terrorist group’. No previous US government report, either from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) or the State Department, had identified these organisations as a threat, and no publicly verifiable evidence has been offered to substantiate the claimed scale or coordination of either group. There is no evidence that Tren de Aragua is a coherent international operation. As for the Cartel de los Soles, the first time the name appeared was in 1993 in Venezuelan reporting on investigations of two National Guard generals – a reference to the ‘sun’ insignia on their uniforms – years before Hugo Chávez’s 1998 presidential victory. The Trump administration has alleged that these groups, working with Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s government, are the primary traffickers of drugs into the US – while providing zero evidence for the connection. Moreover, reports from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the DEA itself have consistently found Venezuelan groups to be marginal in global drug trafficking. Even so, the US State Department has offered a $50 million reward for information leading to Maduro’s arrest – the largest in the programme’s history.

    Members of the first cohort of the Tactical Method of Revolutionary Resistance (Método Táctico de Resistencia Revolucionaria, MTRR) course smile after completing training at the Commando Actions Group in Caracas, Venezuela, October 2025—credit: Miguel Ángel García Ojeda.

    The US has revived the blunt instrument of the ‘War on Drugs’ to pressure countries that are not yielding to its threats or that stubbornly refuse to elect right-wing governments. Recently, Trump has targeted Mexico and Colombia and has invoked their difficulties with the narcotics trade to attack their presidents. Though Venezuela does not have a significant domestic drug problem, that has not stopped Trump from attacking Maduro’s government with much more venom. In October 2025, the Venezuelan politician María Corina Machado of the Vente Venezuela (Come Venezuela) movement won the Nobel Peace Prize. Machado was ineligible to run for president in 2024 largely because she had made a series of treasonous statements, accepted a diplomatic post from another country in order to plead for intervention in Venezuela (in violation of Article 149 of the Constitution), and supported guarimbas (violent street actions in which people were beaten, burned alive, and beheaded). She has also championed unilateral US sanctions that have devastated the economy. The Nobel Prize was secured through the work of the Inspire America Foundation (based in Miami, Florida, and led by Cuban American lawyer Marcell Felipe) and by the intervention of four US politicians, three of whom are Cuban Americans (Marco Rubio, María Elvira Salazar, and Mario Díaz-Balart). The Cuban American connection is key, showing how this political network that is focused on the overthrow by any means of the Cuban Revolution now sees a US military intervention in Venezuela as a way to advance regime change in Cuba. This is, therefore, not just an intervention against Venezuela, but one against all those governments that the US would like to overthrow.

    A woman holds a rifle during a security deployment in the Petare neighbourhood of Caracas, Venezuela, 15 October 2025. Credit: Rosana Silva R.

    The Bite

    In August 2025, the US military began to amass naval forces in the southern Caribbean, including Aegis-class destroyers and nuclear-powered attack submarines. In September, it began a campaign of extrajudicial strikes on small motorboats in Caribbean waters, bombing at least thirteen vessels and killing at least fifty-seven people – without offering evidence of any drug trafficking links. By mid-October, the US had deployed more than four thousand troops off Venezuela’s coast and five thousand on standby in Puerto Rico (including F-35 fighter jets and MQ-9 Reaper drones), authorised covert operations inside the country, and flown B-52 ‘demonstration missions’ over Caracas. In late October, the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group was deployed to the region. Meanwhile, Venezuela’s government has mobilised the population to defend the country.

    A woman from the Peasant Militia (Milicia Campesina) holds a machete during her graduation as a combatant from the MTRR course, October 2025. Credit: Rosana Silva R.

    Five Scenarios for US Intervention

    Scenario no. 1: the Brother Sam option. In 1964, the US deployed several warships off the coast of Brazil. Their presence emboldened General Humberto de Alencar Castelo Branco, chief of the Army General Staff, and his allies to stage a coup that ushered in a twenty-one-year dictatorship. But Venezuela is a different terrain. In his first term, Chávez strengthened political education in the military academies and anchored officer training in defence of the 1999 Constitution. A Castelo Branco figure is therefore unlikely to save the day for Washington.

    Scenario no. 2: the Panama option. In 1989, the US bombed Panama City and sent in special operations troops to capture Manuel Noriega, Panama’s military leader, and bring him to a US prison while US-backed politicians took over the country. Such an operation would be harder to replicate in Venezuela: its military is far stronger, trained for protracted, asymmetric conflicts, and the country boasts sophisticated air defence systems (notably the Russian S-300VM and Buk-M2E surface-to-air systems). Any US air campaign would face sustained defence, making the prospect of downed aircraft – a major loss of face – one Washington is unlikely to risk.

    Scenario no. 3: the Iraq option. A ‘Shock and Awe’ bombing campaign against Caracas and other cities to rattle the population and demoralise the state and military, followed by attempts to assassinate senior Venezuelan leadership and seize key infrastructure. After such an assault, Nobel Peace Prize winner Machado would likely declare herself ready to take charge and align Venezuela closely with the US. The inadequacy of this manoeuvre is that the Bolivarian leadership runs deep: the roots of the defence of the Bolivarian project run through working-class barrios, and the military would not be immediately demoralised – unlike in Iraq. As the interior minister of Venezuela, Diosdado Cabello, recently noted, ‘Anyone who wants to can remember Vietnam… when a small but united people with an iron will were able to teach US imperialism a lesson’.

    The commander general of the Bolivarian National Police, Brigadier General Rubén Santiago, holds a rifle with a sticker of Chávez’s eyes during a security deployment in Petare. Credit: Rosana Silva R.

    Scenario no. 4: the Gulf of Tonkin option. In 1964, the US escalated its military engagement in the Vietnam War after an incident framed as an unprovoked attack on US destroyers off the country’s coast. Later disclosures revealed that the National Security Agency (NSA) fabricated intelligence to manufacture a pretext for escalation. The US claims it is now conducting naval and air ‘training exercises’ near Venezuelan territorial waters and airspace. On 26 October, the Venezuelan government said it had received information about a covert CIA plan to stage a false-flag attack on US vessels near Trinidad and Tobago to elicit a US response. Venezuelan authorities warned of US manoeuvres and said they will not give in to provocations or intimidation.

    Scenario no. 5: the Qasem Soleimani option. In January 2020, a US drone strike ordered by Trump killed Major General Qasem Soleimani, head of Iran’s Quds Force. Soleimani was one of Iran’s most senior officials and was responsible for its regional defence strategy across Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, and Afghanistan. In an interview on 60 Minutes, former US chargé d’affaires for Venezuela James Story said, ‘The assets are there to do everything up to and including decapitation of [the] government’ – a plain statement of intent to assassinate the president. After the death of President Hugo Chávez in 2013, US officials predicted that the project would collapse. Twelve years have now passed, and Venezuela continues along the path set forth under Chávez, advancing its communal model whose resilience rests not only on the revolution’s collective leadership but also on strong popular organisation. The Bolivarian project has never been a one-person show.

    China and Russia are unlikely to permit a strike on Venezuela without pressing for immediate UN Security Council resolutions, and both routinely operate in the Caribbean, including joint exercises with Cuba and global missions such as China’s Mission Harmony 2025.

    A member of the Juventud Socialista de Venezuela (Socialist Youth of Venezuela) shows a coin given to graduates of the MTRR course during a security deployment in La Guaira, Venezuela, October 2025. Based on the methods of Vietnamese General Võ Nguyên Giáp, the MTRR course is designed to train people with no prior military experience for possible guerrilla warfare. Credit: Rosana Silva R.

    We hope that none of these scenarios come to pass and that the United States takes its military options off the table. But hope alone is not enough – we must work to expand the camp of peace.

    Originally published on  Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research

    The post The United States Continues Its Attempt to Overthrow Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Children play on the beach during a security deployment in Anzoátegui, Venezuela, 19 September 2025. Credit: Rosana Silva R.

    Since early September, the United States has given every indication that it could be preparing for a military assault on Venezuela. Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research partnered with ALBA Movimientos, the International Peoples’ AssemblyNo Cold War, and the Simón Bolívar Institute to produce red alert no. 20, ‘The Empire’s Dogs Are Barking at Venezuela’, on the potential scenarios and implications of US intervention.

    In February 2006, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez travelled to Havana to receive the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation’s José Martí Prize from Fidel Castro. In his speech, he likened Washington’s threats against Venezuela to dogs barking, saying, ‘Let the dogs bark, because it is a sign that we are on the move. ’ Chávez added, ‘Let the dogs of the empire bark. That is their role: to bark. Our role is to fight to achieve in this century – now, at last – the true liberation of our people.’ Almost two decades later, the empire’s dogs continue to bark. But will they bite? That is the question that this red alert seeks to answer.

    The Sound of Barking

    In February 2025, the US State Department designated a criminal network called Tren de Aragua (Aragua Train) as a ‘foreign terrorist organisation’. Then, in July, the US Treasury Department added the so-called Cartel de los Soles (Cartel of the Suns) to the Office of Foreign Assets Control’s sanctions list as a ‘transnational terrorist group’. No previous US government report, either from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) or the State Department, had identified these organisations as a threat, and no publicly verifiable evidence has been offered to substantiate the claimed scale or coordination of either group. There is no evidence that Tren de Aragua is a coherent international operation. As for the Cartel de los Soles, the first time the name appeared was in 1993 in Venezuelan reporting on investigations of two National Guard generals – a reference to the ‘sun’ insignia on their uniforms – years before Hugo Chávez’s 1998 presidential victory. The Trump administration has alleged that these groups, working with Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s government, are the primary traffickers of drugs into the US – while providing zero evidence for the connection. Moreover, reports from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the DEA itself have consistently found Venezuelan groups to be marginal in global drug trafficking. Even so, the US State Department has offered a $50 million reward for information leading to Maduro’s arrest – the largest in the programme’s history.

    Members of the first cohort of the Tactical Method of Revolutionary Resistance (Método Táctico de Resistencia Revolucionaria, MTRR) course smile after completing training at the Commando Actions Group in Caracas, Venezuela, October 2025—credit: Miguel Ángel García Ojeda.

    The US has revived the blunt instrument of the ‘War on Drugs’ to pressure countries that are not yielding to its threats or that stubbornly refuse to elect right-wing governments. Recently, Trump has targeted Mexico and Colombia and has invoked their difficulties with the narcotics trade to attack their presidents. Though Venezuela does not have a significant domestic drug problem, that has not stopped Trump from attacking Maduro’s government with much more venom. In October 2025, the Venezuelan politician María Corina Machado of the Vente Venezuela (Come Venezuela) movement won the Nobel Peace Prize. Machado was ineligible to run for president in 2024 largely because she had made a series of treasonous statements, accepted a diplomatic post from another country in order to plead for intervention in Venezuela (in violation of Article 149 of the Constitution), and supported guarimbas (violent street actions in which people were beaten, burned alive, and beheaded). She has also championed unilateral US sanctions that have devastated the economy. The Nobel Prize was secured through the work of the Inspire America Foundation (based in Miami, Florida, and led by Cuban American lawyer Marcell Felipe) and by the intervention of four US politicians, three of whom are Cuban Americans (Marco Rubio, María Elvira Salazar, and Mario Díaz-Balart). The Cuban American connection is key, showing how this political network that is focused on the overthrow by any means of the Cuban Revolution now sees a US military intervention in Venezuela as a way to advance regime change in Cuba. This is, therefore, not just an intervention against Venezuela, but one against all those governments that the US would like to overthrow.

    A woman holds a rifle during a security deployment in the Petare neighbourhood of Caracas, Venezuela, 15 October 2025. Credit: Rosana Silva R.

    The Bite

    In August 2025, the US military began to amass naval forces in the southern Caribbean, including Aegis-class destroyers and nuclear-powered attack submarines. In September, it began a campaign of extrajudicial strikes on small motorboats in Caribbean waters, bombing at least thirteen vessels and killing at least fifty-seven people – without offering evidence of any drug trafficking links. By mid-October, the US had deployed more than four thousand troops off Venezuela’s coast and five thousand on standby in Puerto Rico (including F-35 fighter jets and MQ-9 Reaper drones), authorised covert operations inside the country, and flown B-52 ‘demonstration missions’ over Caracas. In late October, the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group was deployed to the region. Meanwhile, Venezuela’s government has mobilised the population to defend the country.

    A woman from the Peasant Militia (Milicia Campesina) holds a machete during her graduation as a combatant from the MTRR course, October 2025. Credit: Rosana Silva R.

    Five Scenarios for US Intervention

    Scenario no. 1: the Brother Sam option. In 1964, the US deployed several warships off the coast of Brazil. Their presence emboldened General Humberto de Alencar Castelo Branco, chief of the Army General Staff, and his allies to stage a coup that ushered in a twenty-one-year dictatorship. But Venezuela is a different terrain. In his first term, Chávez strengthened political education in the military academies and anchored officer training in defence of the 1999 Constitution. A Castelo Branco figure is therefore unlikely to save the day for Washington.

    Scenario no. 2: the Panama option. In 1989, the US bombed Panama City and sent in special operations troops to capture Manuel Noriega, Panama’s military leader, and bring him to a US prison while US-backed politicians took over the country. Such an operation would be harder to replicate in Venezuela: its military is far stronger, trained for protracted, asymmetric conflicts, and the country boasts sophisticated air defence systems (notably the Russian S-300VM and Buk-M2E surface-to-air systems). Any US air campaign would face sustained defence, making the prospect of downed aircraft – a major loss of face – one Washington is unlikely to risk.

    Scenario no. 3: the Iraq option. A ‘Shock and Awe’ bombing campaign against Caracas and other cities to rattle the population and demoralise the state and military, followed by attempts to assassinate senior Venezuelan leadership and seize key infrastructure. After such an assault, Nobel Peace Prize winner Machado would likely declare herself ready to take charge and align Venezuela closely with the US. The inadequacy of this manoeuvre is that the Bolivarian leadership runs deep: the roots of the defence of the Bolivarian project run through working-class barrios, and the military would not be immediately demoralised – unlike in Iraq. As the interior minister of Venezuela, Diosdado Cabello, recently noted, ‘Anyone who wants to can remember Vietnam… when a small but united people with an iron will were able to teach US imperialism a lesson’.

    The commander general of the Bolivarian National Police, Brigadier General Rubén Santiago, holds a rifle with a sticker of Chávez’s eyes during a security deployment in Petare. Credit: Rosana Silva R.

    Scenario no. 4: the Gulf of Tonkin option. In 1964, the US escalated its military engagement in the Vietnam War after an incident framed as an unprovoked attack on US destroyers off the country’s coast. Later disclosures revealed that the National Security Agency (NSA) fabricated intelligence to manufacture a pretext for escalation. The US claims it is now conducting naval and air ‘training exercises’ near Venezuelan territorial waters and airspace. On 26 October, the Venezuelan government said it had received information about a covert CIA plan to stage a false-flag attack on US vessels near Trinidad and Tobago to elicit a US response. Venezuelan authorities warned of US manoeuvres and said they will not give in to provocations or intimidation.

    Scenario no. 5: the Qasem Soleimani option. In January 2020, a US drone strike ordered by Trump killed Major General Qasem Soleimani, head of Iran’s Quds Force. Soleimani was one of Iran’s most senior officials and was responsible for its regional defence strategy across Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, and Afghanistan. In an interview on 60 Minutes, former US chargé d’affaires for Venezuela James Story said, ‘The assets are there to do everything up to and including decapitation of [the] government’ – a plain statement of intent to assassinate the president. After the death of President Hugo Chávez in 2013, US officials predicted that the project would collapse. Twelve years have now passed, and Venezuela continues along the path set forth under Chávez, advancing its communal model whose resilience rests not only on the revolution’s collective leadership but also on strong popular organisation. The Bolivarian project has never been a one-person show.

    China and Russia are unlikely to permit a strike on Venezuela without pressing for immediate UN Security Council resolutions, and both routinely operate in the Caribbean, including joint exercises with Cuba and global missions such as China’s Mission Harmony 2025.

    A member of the Juventud Socialista de Venezuela (Socialist Youth of Venezuela) shows a coin given to graduates of the MTRR course during a security deployment in La Guaira, Venezuela, October 2025. Based on the methods of Vietnamese General Võ Nguyên Giáp, the MTRR course is designed to train people with no prior military experience for possible guerrilla warfare. Credit: Rosana Silva R.

    We hope that none of these scenarios come to pass and that the United States takes its military options off the table. But hope alone is not enough – we must work to expand the camp of peace.

    Originally published on  Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research

    The post The United States Continues Its Attempt to Overthrow Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.