Category: Russia

  • 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.

  • Pushback from Latin American leaders are putting a wrench in the works of Donald Trump’s imperial ambitions. The Summit of the Americas– the U.S.-backed conference of regional leaders– has had to be cancelled (or, officially, postponed until 2026) due to threats of a mass boycott of the event.

    Leading this revolt are Gustavo Petro of Colombia and Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico, who both declared they would skip the event in protest of the U.S. treatment of Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua. With the summit promising to be a public relations disaster, the U.S. ordered it cancelled.

    The post The New US-Russia Clash In Latin America appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • We are deeply concerned about where the United States seems to be headed in its Venezuela policy and urge you to demand that the Intelligence Community give you clear, unfiltered, “truth-to-power” analysis, as well as covert action options in Venezuela.

    Flying blind into an unprovoked war against a Latin American government, even one weakened by years of U.S. “maximum-pressure” sanctions, risks a conflagration that could draw Russia into the conflict and offers zero probability of establishing a legitimate, pro-U.S. successor government.

    We see a classic storm of politicization brewing in the Intelligence Community, to which we devoted our careers, as a result of blatant pressures that it give you the “right” answer – fabricating or exaggerating a pretext for direct military intervention in Venezuela.

    The post VIPS Memo: What Wider War In Venezuela Would Bring appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • In a conversation lasting one hour and forty minutes according to the Chinese stopwatch– “a long meeting” on President Donald Trump’s clock    —  President Xi Jinping first knocked the stuffing out of Trump’s warmaking threats, then forced him to beat a retreat behind a 12-month ceasefire with the man the Pentagon has designated its principal enemy but whom Trump praised effusively as “a great leader, great leader of a very powerful, very strong country…a tremendous leader of a very powerful country and I give great respect to him.”

    “Uh,” Trump told reporters on board his aircraft as it rocked in crosswinds flying eastward, “a lot of things we discussed in great detail. A lot of things we brought to finalization. A lot of finalization.” This was false.

    Worse for the Trump warfighting strategy, the Chinese have retained escalation dominance by making Trump’s concessions their pre-condition for China’s temporary suspension of their sanctions on rare earths exports and imports of US computer chips. For this, Xi offered to buy US soybeans slowly for $34.2 billion over four years – roughly half in tonnage, half in price over twice the interval that China had agreed to in the past.

    In General Sun Tzu’s ancient manual for warfighting, “the supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting”. The old man also confessed his limitation: “there is an intelligent way to eat a live frog – I just don’t know what it is.” Xi just demonstrated the way to do it. Trump went down smiling.

    Xi has not yet telephoned President Vladimir Putin to brief him on what happened. After Putin’s meeting with Trump in Alaska on August 6, Putin telephoned Xi on August 8. “So far,” said Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov, ”there is no such conversation in the schedule, but it can be quickly agreed upon if necessary,”

    The Russian state media have interpreted the outcome of the talks to be a “temporary ceasefire” achieved by not discussing the key economic and territorial war issues at all. “There have been no joint statements yet,” Tass noted, “and some of the most important issues of bilateral relations, such as Nvidia chips and advanced products, have remained unresolved.” Nothing was achieved, the official Moscow commentators think, in the US attempt to split Xi from Putin, and secure Chinese pressure on Russia to end the Ukraine war on US and NATO terms. “Ukraine came up, uh, very strongly,” Trump told reporters as he flew back to Washington. “We talked about it for a long time and we’re both gonna work together to see if we can get something done. Uh, we agreed the, the sides there, you know, locked in, fighting, and sometimes you have to let him fight, I guess. Crazy. But he’s gonna help us and we’re gonna work together on Ukraine.”

    The Russian state media have yet to notice that Trump is abandoning his attempt, through the Rosneft and LUKOIL oil trade sanctions of October 25, to stop China buying Russian oil. “There’s not a lot more we can do,” Trump replied to a reporter who asked if he and Xi had discussed his threat to sanction Chinese companies for buying Russian crude oil and petroleum products. “Uh, you know, he’s been buying oil from Russia for a long time. It takes care of a, a big part of China. And, you know, I, I can say India’s been very good, good on that, uh, front. Uh, but, uh, we, we didn’t really discuss the oil. We discussed working together to see if we could get that war finished. You know, it doesn’t affect China.”

    The post China’s Ten Noes: Sun Tzu Has Swallowed the Frog and Is Keeping His Smile to Himself first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • In a conversation lasting one hour and forty minutes according to the Chinese stopwatch– “a long meeting” on President Donald Trump’s clock    —  President Xi Jinping first knocked the stuffing out of Trump’s warmaking threats, then forced him to beat a retreat behind a 12-month ceasefire with the man the Pentagon has designated its principal enemy but whom Trump praised effusively as “a great leader, great leader of a very powerful, very strong country…a tremendous leader of a very powerful country and I give great respect to him.”

    “Uh,” Trump told reporters on board his aircraft as it rocked in crosswinds flying eastward, “a lot of things we discussed in great detail. A lot of things we brought to finalization. A lot of finalization.” This was false.

    Worse for the Trump warfighting strategy, the Chinese have retained escalation dominance by making Trump’s concessions their pre-condition for China’s temporary suspension of their sanctions on rare earths exports and imports of US computer chips. For this, Xi offered to buy US soybeans slowly for $34.2 billion over four years – roughly half in tonnage, half in price over twice the interval that China had agreed to in the past.

    In General Sun Tzu’s ancient manual for warfighting, “the supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting”. The old man also confessed his limitation: “there is an intelligent way to eat a live frog – I just don’t know what it is.” Xi just demonstrated the way to do it. Trump went down smiling.

    Xi has not yet telephoned President Vladimir Putin to brief him on what happened. After Putin’s meeting with Trump in Alaska on August 6, Putin telephoned Xi on August 8. “So far,” said Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov, ”there is no such conversation in the schedule, but it can be quickly agreed upon if necessary,”

    The Russian state media have interpreted the outcome of the talks to be a “temporary ceasefire” achieved by not discussing the key economic and territorial war issues at all. “There have been no joint statements yet,” Tass noted, “and some of the most important issues of bilateral relations, such as Nvidia chips and advanced products, have remained unresolved.” Nothing was achieved, the official Moscow commentators think, in the US attempt to split Xi from Putin, and secure Chinese pressure on Russia to end the Ukraine war on US and NATO terms. “Ukraine came up, uh, very strongly,” Trump told reporters as he flew back to Washington. “We talked about it for a long time and we’re both gonna work together to see if we can get something done. Uh, we agreed the, the sides there, you know, locked in, fighting, and sometimes you have to let him fight, I guess. Crazy. But he’s gonna help us and we’re gonna work together on Ukraine.”

    The Russian state media have yet to notice that Trump is abandoning his attempt, through the Rosneft and LUKOIL oil trade sanctions of October 25, to stop China buying Russian oil. “There’s not a lot more we can do,” Trump replied to a reporter who asked if he and Xi had discussed his threat to sanction Chinese companies for buying Russian crude oil and petroleum products. “Uh, you know, he’s been buying oil from Russia for a long time. It takes care of a, a big part of China. And, you know, I, I can say India’s been very good, good on that, uh, front. Uh, but, uh, we, we didn’t really discuss the oil. We discussed working together to see if we could get that war finished. You know, it doesn’t affect China.”

    The post China’s Ten Noes: Sun Tzu Has Swallowed the Frog and Is Keeping His Smile to Himself first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • When Belarusian opposition figure Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya declared herself “President” of an alternative government in 2020, she was enthusiastically embraced – and showered with funding – by the Western governments which yearned to depose the longtime leader of her country, Alexander Lukashenko, and remove Russia’s closest regional ally from the geopolitical chessboard. The New York Times set the tone by lionizing Tsikhanouskaya as a modern-day Joan of Arc.

    However, a wave of public scandals have prompted Tsikhanouskaya’s foreign sponsors to gradually abandon her unpopular crusade to topple the government of Lukashenko. In August, it was revealed she had secretly taken thousands of euros from Minsk’s KGB in August 2020, a payoff for publicly pleading with protesters to stop their action in the streets, before she fled the country.

    The post Leaks Expose Collapse Of EU/US-Backed Belarusian ‘Opposition’ appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • This past week, President Donald Trump called on the Department of Defense (DOD) to restart nuclear weapons testing “immediately,” citing false claims about other countries’ nuclear arsenals and testing. In a Truth Social post on Wednesday and an interview that aired on Sunday, Trump was vague regarding the extent of the future nuclear weapons testing, including whether he would push for…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Nuclear weapons have made the world safe for hypocrisy and unsafe in every other respect. Astride the nonsense that is nuclear apartheid – the forced separation of the states that are permitted to have nuclear weapons and those that do not – sits that rumpled, crumpled creature called the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). For decades, the nuclear club has dangled an unfulfilled promise to eventually disarm its arsenals by encouraging non-nuclear-weapon states to pursue peaceful uses of the atom.  Preference, instead, has been given to enlarging inventories and developing ever more ingenious and idiotic ways of turning humans and animal life into ash and offal.

    Little wonder that some countries have sought admission to the club via the back door, avoiding the priestly strictures and promises of the NPT. The Democratic Republic of North Korea is merely the unabashed example there, while Israel remains even less reputable for its coyness in possessing weapons it regards as both indispensable and officially “absent”. Other countries, such as Iran, have been lectured and bombed into compliance.  Again, more hypocrisy.

    On such rocky terrain, the US President’s instruction to his newly named Department of War to resume nuclear testing is almost prosaic, if characteristically inaccurate. On social media, Donald Trump declared, “Because of other countries’ testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis. That process will begin immediately.” Strictly speaking, North Korea remains the black sheep of an otherwise unprincipled flock to consistently test nuclear weapons since the late 1990s, while 187 states have added signatures to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

    Other streaky details included the assertion that the US had a nuclear weapons inventory larger than that of any other state, something “accomplished” through “a complete update and renovation of existing weapons” during Trump’s first term.

    The announcement did cause a titter among the nuclear chatting classes. “For both technical and political reasons,” remarked Heather Williams, Director of the Project on Nuclear Issues and a Senior Fellow in the Defense and Security Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, “the United States is unlikely to return to nuclear explosive testing any time soon”.  She did concede that Trump’s post pointed “to increasing nuclear competition between the United States, Russia, and China.” Whatever the bluster, and however many bipartisan calls to do so, the current administration had been “slow to seriously invest in this nuclear competition.”

    This line of reasoning is telling. The issue for Williams is not to decry the resumption of a type of testing – the explosive, high-yield variety – but to chide the President for not taking a serious interest in joining the great game of nuclear modernization with other powers. “Nuclear testing is not the best step forward in that competition, but it should raise alarm within the administration about the state of the United States’ nuclear enterprise and the urgency of investing in nuclear modernization.” And there you have it.

    Rebeccah L. Heinrichs of the Hudson Institute does some speculative gardening around the announcement with the same sentiment. Trump might have meant, she writes in the Wall Street Journal, “conducting flight tests of delivery systems.” Maybe he was referring to explosive yield-producing tests. And those naughty Russians and Chinese were simply not behaving in terms of keeping their nuclear arsenals splendidly inert. With the familiar nuclear hawkishness that occupies the world of stubborn lunacy, Heinrichs is unequivocal about what the administration should do: “Whatever Mr. Trump means by ‘testing,’ the US should work urgently to improve and adapt its nuclear deterrent. To do this, Mr. Trump should let the last arms-control treaty between the US and Russia – the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or New Start – expire in February.” This, it seems, counts for good sense.

    Other commentators tended to fall into the literal school of Trump interpretation. There is no room for allegory, symbolism, or fleeting suggestion there. Tilman Ruff, affiliated with the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, among other groups, offers his concerns. “If Trump is referring to the resumption of explosive nuclear testing, this would be an extremely unfortunate, regrettable step by the United States,” he fears, writing in that blandest of fora, The Conversation. “It would almost inevitably be followed by tit-for-tat reciprocal announcements by other nuclear-armed states, particularly Russia and China, and cement an accelerating arms race that puts us all in great jeopardy.”

    Ruff points out the obvious dangers of such a resumption: the risks of global radioactive fallout; the risk, even if the tests were conducted underground, of “the possible release and venting of radioactive materials, as well as the potential leakage into groundwater.” Gloomy stuff indeed.

    Others did the inevitable and, in Trump’s case, inconsequential thing of trying to correct America’s highest magistrate by appealing to hard-boiled facts. “Nothing [in the announcement] is correct,” grumbled Tom Nichols from The Atlantic. “Trump did not create a larger stockpile by ‘updating’ in his first term.  No nation except North Korea has tested nuclear weapons since the 1990s.”

    At The New York Times, W. J. Hennigan took some relish in pointing out that the province of nuclear testing lay not with the Pentagon but the Energy Department.  But then came the jitters. “The president’s ambiguity is worrisome not only because America’s public can’t know what he means, but because America’s adversaries don’t.”

    The problem goes deeper than that, and Hennigan admits that the breaking of the moratorium on nuclear testing is always something peaking around the corner. The US, for instance, is constructing the means of conducting “subcritical nuclear tests, or underground experiments that test nuclear components of a warhead but stop short of creating a nuclear chain reaction, and therefore, a full weapons test.”

    Even if the Trump announcement was to be taken seriously – and there is much to suggest that it be confined to a moment of loose thinking in cerebral twilight – dangers of any resumption of full testing will only marginally endanger the planet more than matters stand. The nuclear club, with its Armageddon fanciers and Doomsday flirters, remains snobbishly determined to keep the world in permanent danger. An arms race is already taking place, however euphemized it might be.

    The post Teasing the Armageddon Fanciers: Trump’s Announcement on Nuclear Testing first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Nuclear weapons have made the world safe for hypocrisy and unsafe in every other respect. Astride the nonsense that is nuclear apartheid – the forced separation of the states that are permitted to have nuclear weapons and those that do not – sits that rumpled, crumpled creature called the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). For decades, the nuclear club has dangled an unfulfilled promise to eventually disarm its arsenals by encouraging non-nuclear-weapon states to pursue peaceful uses of the atom.  Preference, instead, has been given to enlarging inventories and developing ever more ingenious and idiotic ways of turning humans and animal life into ash and offal.

    Little wonder that some countries have sought admission to the club via the back door, avoiding the priestly strictures and promises of the NPT. The Democratic Republic of North Korea is merely the unabashed example there, while Israel remains even less reputable for its coyness in possessing weapons it regards as both indispensable and officially “absent”. Other countries, such as Iran, have been lectured and bombed into compliance.  Again, more hypocrisy.

    On such rocky terrain, the US President’s instruction to his newly named Department of War to resume nuclear testing is almost prosaic, if characteristically inaccurate. On social media, Donald Trump declared, “Because of other countries’ testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis. That process will begin immediately.” Strictly speaking, North Korea remains the black sheep of an otherwise unprincipled flock to consistently test nuclear weapons since the late 1990s, while 187 states have added signatures to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

    Other streaky details included the assertion that the US had a nuclear weapons inventory larger than that of any other state, something “accomplished” through “a complete update and renovation of existing weapons” during Trump’s first term.

    The announcement did cause a titter among the nuclear chatting classes. “For both technical and political reasons,” remarked Heather Williams, Director of the Project on Nuclear Issues and a Senior Fellow in the Defense and Security Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, “the United States is unlikely to return to nuclear explosive testing any time soon”.  She did concede that Trump’s post pointed “to increasing nuclear competition between the United States, Russia, and China.” Whatever the bluster, and however many bipartisan calls to do so, the current administration had been “slow to seriously invest in this nuclear competition.”

    This line of reasoning is telling. The issue for Williams is not to decry the resumption of a type of testing – the explosive, high-yield variety – but to chide the President for not taking a serious interest in joining the great game of nuclear modernization with other powers. “Nuclear testing is not the best step forward in that competition, but it should raise alarm within the administration about the state of the United States’ nuclear enterprise and the urgency of investing in nuclear modernization.” And there you have it.

    Rebeccah L. Heinrichs of the Hudson Institute does some speculative gardening around the announcement with the same sentiment. Trump might have meant, she writes in the Wall Street Journal, “conducting flight tests of delivery systems.” Maybe he was referring to explosive yield-producing tests. And those naughty Russians and Chinese were simply not behaving in terms of keeping their nuclear arsenals splendidly inert. With the familiar nuclear hawkishness that occupies the world of stubborn lunacy, Heinrichs is unequivocal about what the administration should do: “Whatever Mr. Trump means by ‘testing,’ the US should work urgently to improve and adapt its nuclear deterrent. To do this, Mr. Trump should let the last arms-control treaty between the US and Russia – the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or New Start – expire in February.” This, it seems, counts for good sense.

    Other commentators tended to fall into the literal school of Trump interpretation. There is no room for allegory, symbolism, or fleeting suggestion there. Tilman Ruff, affiliated with the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, among other groups, offers his concerns. “If Trump is referring to the resumption of explosive nuclear testing, this would be an extremely unfortunate, regrettable step by the United States,” he fears, writing in that blandest of fora, The Conversation. “It would almost inevitably be followed by tit-for-tat reciprocal announcements by other nuclear-armed states, particularly Russia and China, and cement an accelerating arms race that puts us all in great jeopardy.”

    Ruff points out the obvious dangers of such a resumption: the risks of global radioactive fallout; the risk, even if the tests were conducted underground, of “the possible release and venting of radioactive materials, as well as the potential leakage into groundwater.” Gloomy stuff indeed.

    Others did the inevitable and, in Trump’s case, inconsequential thing of trying to correct America’s highest magistrate by appealing to hard-boiled facts. “Nothing [in the announcement] is correct,” grumbled Tom Nichols from The Atlantic. “Trump did not create a larger stockpile by ‘updating’ in his first term.  No nation except North Korea has tested nuclear weapons since the 1990s.”

    At The New York Times, W. J. Hennigan took some relish in pointing out that the province of nuclear testing lay not with the Pentagon but the Energy Department.  But then came the jitters. “The president’s ambiguity is worrisome not only because America’s public can’t know what he means, but because America’s adversaries don’t.”

    The problem goes deeper than that, and Hennigan admits that the breaking of the moratorium on nuclear testing is always something peaking around the corner. The US, for instance, is constructing the means of conducting “subcritical nuclear tests, or underground experiments that test nuclear components of a warhead but stop short of creating a nuclear chain reaction, and therefore, a full weapons test.”

    Even if the Trump announcement was to be taken seriously – and there is much to suggest that it be confined to a moment of loose thinking in cerebral twilight – dangers of any resumption of full testing will only marginally endanger the planet more than matters stand. The nuclear club, with its Armageddon fanciers and Doomsday flirters, remains snobbishly determined to keep the world in permanent danger. An arms race is already taking place, however euphemized it might be.

    The post Teasing the Armageddon Fanciers: Trump’s Announcement on Nuclear Testing first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Freedom House Logo - Torch next to words Freedom House

    On this International Day of Political Prisoners, the NGOs mentioned below stand together to affirm a simple truth: no one should be imprisoned for exercising their fundamental rights or for peacefully expressing their beliefs. Yet around the world, there are an estimated one million political prisoners, who are unjustly detained for political reasons. These individuals—journalists, human rights defenders, democratic opposition leaders, religious leaders, artists, and ordinary citizens—represent the conscience of their societies. Their imprisonment is an assault not only on their freedom, but on the shared principles of human dignity and justice.

    The International Day of Political Prisoners originated in the Soviet Union in 1974, when  political prisoners collectively held a one-day hunger strike. Soviet prisoners of conscience repeated this protest every October 30, supported by demonstrations of solidarity in major cities. In response to Vladimir Putin’s ongoing and deepening repression, Russian political prisoners rekindled the tradition in 2021. In the years since, it has become an international day of solidarity with political prisoners worldwide.

    Political imprisonment corrodes the rule of law, silences dissent, undermines press freedom, and weakens the foundations of democracy. Authoritarian governments use it to suppress opposition, instill fear, and consolidate control. Each unjust detention sends a chilling message to others who seek to speak truth to power.

    We, as organizations who advocate on behalf of those unjustly detained around the world, call on democratic governments to continue to make the release of political prisoners a global priority—to raise these cases consistently in bilateral and multilateral forums, to request information and specific actions be taken on the prisoners’ behalf, to support accountability mechanisms, and to continue to provide support to organizations that advocate on behalf of those unjustly detained and provide legal and humanitarian assistance to them and their families. Solidarity with the unjustly detained must be sustained, coordinated, and visible.

    We also stand in solidarity with the families, lawyers, and civil-society organizations who continue to advocate for freedom in the face of repression. Their courage reminds us that the defense of liberty is a collective responsibility.

    On this day, and every day, we reaffirm our shared commitment to the universal right to freedom of thought, expression, association, and belief. The world’s political prisoners must not be forgotten—and their freedom must remain a global cause.

    Signed:

    1. Freedom House
    2. Free Russia Foundation
    3. McCain Institute
    4. National Endowment for Democracy
    5. Abdorrahman Boroumand Center for Human Rights in Iran
    6. Al-Tahreer Association for Development (TAD)
    7. Amnesty International
    8. Center for Civil Liberties
    9. Committee to Protect Journalists
    10. Freedom Now
    11. George W. Bush Institute
    12. Global Magnitsky Justice Campaign
    13. Human Rights Center Viasna
    14. Human Rights Defense Center Memorial
    15. Human Rights First
    16. Human Rights Foundation
    17. Human Rights Watch
    18. International Republican Institute
    19. James W. Foley Legacy Foundation
    20. Lantos Foundation for Human Rights & Justice
    21. Oma Organization for Human Rights and Democracy Promotion
    22. Organization for Community Civic Engagement
    23. OVD-Info
    24. Political and Governance Development Academy
    25. Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP)
    26. The 30 October Foundation
    27. The Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights
    28. Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation
    29. World Liberty Congress

    https://freedomhouse.org/article/joint-statement-international-day-political-prisoners

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

  • Russian President Vladimir Putin visited a military hospital in Moscow on Wednesday, meeting servicemen wounded in the Ukraine conflict. The president spoke about the frontline situation, namely the encirclement of Kiev’s troops in two critical locations, as well as the testing of new cutting-edge nuclear-powered weaponry, including the unlimited-range Burevestnik cruise missile and the massive Poseidon underwater drone.

    Here are the key takeaways from Putin’s speech:

    Moscow ready for pause in fighting

    The frontline situation has been developing

    The president floated the idea of briefly pausing fighting in the two locations to allow Western and Ukrainian journalists in. The proposal has already been discussed with military commanders and Russian Defense Minister Andrey Belousov, Putin added.

    The journalists would be able to “check on the state of the encircled Ukrainian troops so that Ukraine’s political leadership can make appropriate decisions regarding the fate of its citizens and military personnel,” the president said. The trickiest part about the proposal is ensuring the safety of the journalists and preventing a potential provocation by Kiev, he said.

    Cruise missile of unlimited range

    The Russian president talked about the new unlimited-range nuclear-powered Burevestnik cruise missile. The weapon was successfully tested last week, when the projectile reportedly traveled more than 14,000km.

    Putin revealed details about the missile’s nuclear-powered turbojet engine, stating that its power unit “is comparable in output with the reactor of a nuclear-propelled submarine, but it’s 1,000 times smaller.”

    “The key thing is that while a conventional nuclear reactor starts up in hours, days, or even weeks, this nuclear reactor starts up in minutes or seconds. That’s a giant achievement,” the president said.

    The nuclear-powered propulsion system could potentially see civilian application, apart from military use, Putin noted. For instance, it could be applied in the future to “address energy security in the Arctic, and we’ll use it in the lunar program,” he said.

    Poseidon underwater drone tested successfully

    Russia successfully tested a nuclear-powered underwater Poseidon drone on Tuesday, Putin revealed. The development of the massive torpedo-shaped nuclear-capable drone was first announced in 2018, but had been shrouded in mystery ever since.

    “For the first time, we succeeded not only in launching it from a carrier submarine using a booster engine but also in starting its nuclear power unit, which propelled the drone for a certain amount of time,” Putin stated.

    The device is unrivaled by any other weapon “anywhere in the world when it comes to speed and depth,” the president stressed, adding that an analogous weapon is unlikely to be fielded by any other nation soon. The power of Poseidon greatly surpasses the characteristics of Russia’s upcoming Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), Putin stated, apparently referring to the yield of its nuclear payload.

    Sarmat ICBM to be fielded soon 

    The Sarmat ICBM itself is expected to enter active duty shortly, the president stated. The missile was first approved for military duty in September 2023, and is set to replace the aging R-36M family of silo-based nuclear-armed ballistic missiles.

    The Sarmat reportedly has an estimated range of 11,000 miles (about 18,000 kilometers), with a ten-ton payload.

    “There is no other [missile] like the Sarmat in the world, and we don’t have one on duty yet – it will be on duty soon,” Putin said.

    The post Nuclear-powered Missile, Underwater Drone, and Proposed Pause in Ukraine Conflict first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • U.S. President Donald Trump has seemingly shifted gear in the U.S. strategy to stop Russia on its tracks from creating new facts on the ground in Ukraine.

    Russian forces have the upper hand all along the 1250-kilometer Ukrainian frontline stretching Kiev’s defences and resources, which no amount of Western military help can hope to reverse in a foreseeable future. Trump is compelling Russia to seek a military victory in Ukraine.

    Trump so far put on the air of a statesman in great anguish over the humanitarian aspects of the conflict. Moscow tolerated the theatrical show to pamper Trump’s egoistic personality — that is, until Russian President Vladimir Putin shattered the myth to expose that Trump actually holds the record as the American president who sanctioned Russia the most number of times, exceeding even his predecessor Joe Biden’s tally.

    The post Trump, Russian Oil And Tomahawk Missiles appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Russian forces in recent weeks have been increasingly encircling the cities of Pokrovsk in central Donetsk while approaching Lyman and Siversk further to the north. Looking at various live mapping projects tracking the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, nascent pincers appear to be emerging in what some analysts believe could be a large-scale encirclement of what remains of Ukraine’s “fortress belt” in the Donbass region.

    Comprising a number of heavily-defended built-up urban centers from Kostiantynovka and extending northward toward Kramatorsk and Slovyansk closer to Lyman, Ukraine’s remaining fortress belt likely comprises thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of Ukrainian forces.

    The post Future Global Order Pivots On Ukraine Proxy War appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • United States President Donald Trump styles himself as a peacemaker. In his rhetoric, he claims credit for his efforts to end the wars in Gaza and Ukraine. Yet beneath the grandstanding lies an absence of substance, at least to date.

    The problem is not Trump’s lack of effort, but his lack of proper concepts. Trump confuses “peace” with “ceasefires,” which sooner or later revert to war (typically sooner). In fact, American presidents from Lyndon Johnson onward have been subservient to the military-industrial complex, which profits from endless war. Trump is merely following in that line by avoiding a genuine resolution to the wars in Gaza and Ukraine.

    Peace is not a ceasefire. Lasting peace is achieved by resolving the underlying political disputes that led to the war. This requires grappling with history, international law and political interests that fuel conflicts. Without addressing the root causes of war, ceasefires are a mere intermission between rounds of slaughter.

    Trump has proposed what he calls a “peace plan” for Gaza. However, what he outlines amounts to nothing more than a ceasefire. His plan fails to address the core political issue of Palestinian statehood. A true peace plan would tie together four outcomes: the end of Israel’s genocide, Hamas’s disarmament, Palestine’s membership in the United Nations, and the normalisation of diplomatic ties with Israel and Palestine throughout the world. These foundational principles are absent from Trump’s plan, which is why no country has signed off on it despite White House insinuations to the contrary.  At most, some countries have backed the “Declaration for Enduring Peace and Prosperity,” a temporising gesture.

    Trump’s peace plan was presented to Arab and Muslim countries to deflect attention from the global momentum for Palestinian statehood. The US plan is designed to undercut that momentum, allowing Israel to continue its de facto annexation of the West Bank and its ongoing bombardment of Gaza and restrictions of emergency relief under the ruse of security. Israel’s ambitions are to eradicate the possibility of a Palestinian state, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made explicit at the UN in September.  So far, Trump and his associates have simply been advancing Netanyahu’s agenda.

    Trump’s “plan” is already unravelling, much like the Oslo Accords, the Camp David Summit, and every other “peace process” that treated Palestinian statehood as a distant aspiration rather than the solution to the conflict.  If Trump really wants to end the war – a somewhat doubtful proposition – he’d have to break with Big Tech and the rest of the military-industrial complex (recipients of vast arms contracts funded by the US).  Since October 2023, the US has spent $21.7bn on military aid to Israel, much of it returning to Silicon Valley.

    Trump would also have to break with his donor-in-chief, Miriam Adelson, and the Zionist lobby.  In doing so, he would at least represent the American people (who support a state of Palestine) and uphold American strategic interests. The US would join the overwhelming global consensus, which endorses the implementation of the two-state solution, rooted in UN Security Council resolutions and ICJ opinions.

    The same failure of Trump’s peacemaking holds in Ukraine. Trump repeatedly claimed during the campaign that he could end the war “in 24 hours”. Yet what he has been proposing is a ceasefire, not a political solution. The war continues.

    The cause of the Ukraine war is no mystery – if one looks beyond the pablum of the mainstream media. The casus belli was the push by the US military-industrial complex for NATO’s endless expansion, including to Ukraine and Georgia, and the US-backed coup in Kyiv in February 2014 to bring to power a pro-NATO regime, which ignited the war. The key to peace in Ukraine, then and now, was for Ukraine to maintain its neutrality as a bridge between Russia and NATO.

    In March-April 2022, when Turkiye mediated a peace agreement in the Istanbul Process, based on Ukraine’s return to neutrality, the Americans and the British pushed the Ukrainians to walk out of the talks. Until the US clearly renounces NATO’s expansion to Ukraine, there can be no sustainable peace. The only way forward is a negotiated settlement based on Ukraine’s neutrality in the context of mutual security of Russia, Ukraine, and the NATO countries.

    Military theorist Carl von Clausewitz famously characterised war as the continuation of politics with other means. He was right. Yet it is more accurate to say that war is the failure of politics that leads to conflict. When political problems are deferred or denied, and governments fail to negotiate over essential political issues, war too often ensues.  Real peace requires the courage and capacity to engage in politics, and to face down the war profiteers.

    No president since John F Kennedy has really tried to make peace. Many close observers of Washington believe that it was Kennedy’s assassination that irrevocably put the military-industrial complex in the seat of power. In addition, the US arrogance of power already noted by J William Fulbright in the 1960s (in reference to the misguided Vietnam War) is another culprit. Trump, like his predecessors, believes that US bullying, misdirection, financial pressures, coercive sanctions and propaganda will be enough to force Putin to submit to NATO, and the Muslim world to submit to Israel’s permanent rule over Palestine.

    Trump and the rest of the Washington political establishment, beholden to the military-industrial complex, will not on their own account move beyond these ongoing delusions. Despite decades of Israeli occupation of Palestine and more than a decade of war in Ukraine (which started with the 2014 coup), the wars continue despite the ongoing attempts by the US to assert its will. In the meantime, the money pours into the coffers of the war machine.

    Nonetheless, there is still a glimmer of hope, since reality is a stubborn thing.

    When Trump soon arrives in Budapest to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin, his deeply knowledgeable and realistic host, Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban, can help Trump to grasp a fundamental truth: NATO enlargement must end to bring peace to Ukraine. Similarly, Trump’s trusted counterparts in the Islamic world –  Turkiye’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, and Indonesia’s President Prabowo Subianto – can explain to Trump the utter necessity of Palestine as a UN member state now, as the very precondition of Hamas’s disarmament and peace, not as a vague promise for the end of history.

    Trump can bring peace if he reverts to diplomacy. Yes, he would have to face down the military-industrial complex, the Zionist lobby and the warmongers, but he would have the world and the American people on his side.

    The post From Illusion to Real Peace: Trump’s Test in Gaza and Ukraine first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • It there any politician who is less reliable than U.S. President Donald Trump?

    At the August summit in Anchorage with President Vladimir Putin of Russia Trump had aimed at a ceasefire along the frontline in Ukraine. But Putin made clear that the war required a long term solution of the underlying problem, NATO enlargement, and that a preliminary ceasefire would not be helpful in that regard. Russia also demanded full control of the Donbas and other regions.

    Trump did agree to that and announced it as the brilliant result of the talks. This was his first turn on the issue.

    The post Trump Fails To End His Proxy War With Russia appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.