Who facilitated the Venezuela coup?

David Montoute
January 5, 2026

The abduction of Nicolás Maduro, and his wife Cilia Flores on January 3rd was carried out with incredible speed—reportedly taking 2.5 hours—with nearly no resistance from the Venezuelan army, except for some damage to a fixed-wing aircraft and several US helicopters. Unofficial statements claim over 80 people dead, including all of Maduro Cuban escorts and bodyguards, who were killed in cold blood, according to Venezuela's Defence Minister.

The ease with which Washington captured and removed its principal enemy in the Western Hemisphere has fueled speculation and hypotheses about what really happened behind the scenes of the operation. Most pointedly, several analysts see a betrayal of Maduro by his own inner circle and the heads of the Venezuelan military. 

In conversation with Andrew Napolitano, former UN arms inspector Scott Ritter laid out just such a case, observing that American troops

“...don’t go in with two troops of Delta Force into a hostile capital city and launch an assault of this nature unless everything was cleared in advance. That’s the quickest way to lose 35 Delta troops. No. They went in, it was cleared, hot to go in, it was a permissive environment, they got their made-for-TV moment, and then they left.” 

Other analysts have pointed out that a portable anti-aircraft system, like a MANPAD, could have shot down any of the Apaches used in the operation, whilst the types of rotary-wing aviation that spirited the President away are so easy to detect by radar that Venezuela's radars and its long-, medium-, and short-range air defenses must all have been turned off. Otherwise, wrote Patricia Marins “[i]t is practically impossible for dozens of highly trained presidential security personnel, holding defensive positions in facilities they know intimately, with an extremely experienced guard force that was already anticipating a possible attack, to be completely wiped out without the attackers suffering a single casualty.” 

A confidential source from inside Venezuela spoke to the You Tube channel 'The Mexican Family' and leaked what they claim to have been the actual scenario: As the aerial attack unfolded, the source claimed, members of the presidential guard took Maduro and his wife aboard a helicopter towards a safe bunker. The helicopter then deviated from its proper course towards a frigate off the coast of Caracas where the couple was delivered to US forces.

So, how plausible is this account? Was an agreement reached with the Venezuelan army, allowing only Maduro and his wife to be extracted whilst granting Trump access to oil though an 'acceptable' transition government, whilst keeping the Venezuelan state intact?

What is striking is that only one day after the operation, Venezuela's interim leader Delcy Rodriguez suddenly toned down her criticism of the foreign kidnappers and, on Telegram, declared the country ready to ‘work with the US’:

“We consider it a priority to move towards a balanced and respectful relationship between the US and Venezuela...We extend an invitation to the US government to work together on an agenda for cooperation that is aimed towards shared development.” 

In fact, in the months before this operation, we find various media outlets openly discussing an almost perfect template for the current change of power. On October 16 of last year, the Miami Herald published a report claiming that high-ranking government officials in Caracas offered the United States a political transition plan without Nicolás Maduro. The proposals were allegedly presented by Delcy Rodríguez and her brother Jorge, who is president of the National Assembly, and were said to have gone through intermediaries in Qatar. The ultimate aim was to reduce tensions with Washington.

The report, later confirmed by the Associated Press, stated that the Venezuelan government had proposed a scenario in which Maduro would resign in three years and power would pass to Delcy Rodríguez. But the vicepresident shot back at the paper, calling the Miami Herald's report "false" and "fake" and part of a "psychological warfare" campaign. 

The Rodríguez siblings allegedly presented two proposals to the Trump administration. The first, in April, included Maduro's resignation and his continued residence in Venezuela. The second one in September, proposed that the vice president lead a provisional government alongside retired General Miguel Rodríguez Torres, while Maduro went into exile in Turkey or Qatar.

The Herald quoted a former Trump administration official who confirmed the existence of the talks, noting that "the idea was a 'Madurismo without Maduro' formula to facilitate a peaceful transition in the country."

According to the paper, however, the White House rejected both proposals, as both would maintain the Chavista power structures intact under a new guise.  

Trump's official position was that his administration would not negotiate with sanctioned officials. Yet neither Delcy Rodríguez nor her brother has ever been officially indicted or named in the US president's spurious drug-trafficking charges. This fact alone may indicate that Washington does in fact view the siblings as a more 'acceptable face' of Chavismo. Trump's brazen claim on Saturday that he will now 'run' Venezuela in conjunction with a local team does seem to point in that direction. 

Now, even Colombia's former vice-president has added his voice to the chorus, telling the Daily Mail he is “absolutely certain” that Delcy Rodriguez handed Maduro over to the US.

Dark Clouds Ahead 

A newly submissive government in Caracas will surely bode ill for Venezuela's social programmes, as well as it strategic and economic relationships abroad. China has extended a total of around $60 billion in “oil-for-loans” financing to Venezuela since 2007, with an estimated $17-19 billion in principal outstanding as of early 2026. Bilateral cooperation on energy and other sectors has continued in the years since, the most recent in July 2025. Under the Caracas government's new US tutelage, the indebted nation can be expected to prioritise US creditors over Chinese ones, with Chinese banks seeing significant losses. It's obviously no small part in why China has led with the most strident denunciations of Trump's illegal raid on Saturday.

Despite sitting on the world's largest proven oil reserves, Venezuela's production has fallen precipitously over the last two decades. Al Jazeera explains the US' economic strangulation strategy, which went into high gear as Maduro began his second term:

The sanctions were aimed at forcing a change in Venezuela’s government. Their core mechanism was to sever the state’s oil income by closing a critical loophole – oil-for-debt swaps – that triggered the final, steep collapse of the country’s economy and oil industry.

The US also imposed a full embargo on all transactions with the PDVSA, Venezuela’s state oil company, threatening secondary sanctions on any foreign entity doing business with it. The sanctions halted oil exports to Venezuela’s key remaining markets like India and the European Union, and prevented the import of diluent chemicals needed to process Venezuela’s heavy crude.

So when the Venezuelan government was starved of its source of hard currency, it resorted to having the central bank print more money, triggering a wave of hyperinflation that obliterated salaries and savings. The ensuing humanitarian crisis was a primary driver behind the mass exodus of nearly 8 million Venezuelans that began in 2019.

Theoretically, the lifting of sanctions could ameliorate the country's suffering. But the US plan to restore oil production will require massive and immediate investment from US oil companies, two of which—ExxonMobil and ConocoPhilips—are still seeking billions in compensation from the expropriation of their assets in the 2000s. It is in this context that Trump ludicrously claims that Venezuela's oil somehow really belong to the US and its companies. It is clear that the Venezuelan people will be the lowest of priorities in this proposed transformation. 

Moreover, access to Venezuela's oil will undoubtedly help the US to stabilise markets in the event of a renewed Israel-Iran war, the portents of which are everywhere, from official statements to armed rioters on the streets of Teheran. Iran's key deterrant to sustained US or Israeli aggression is its ability to close the Strait of Hormuz. This would halt the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf, and large new reserves from a place like Venezuela would have to be brought online to offset the economic chaos generated by such a move. 

Moreover, a foreseeable weakening or rupture or in diplomatic, economic and military ties between Iran and Venezuela will certainly embolden Israel's blood-crazed elites for a new phase of their regional expansion project. 

That is why this liminal moment in Venezuela is crucial. Whether or not a genuine anti-imperialist stance can be maintained going forward will have enormous consequences for the wider world, and what remains of its stability. 

As the host of The Mexican Family concluded, “if Maduro was handed over from within, then Chavismo no longer exists as a solid structure. That is, there are traitors inside of it, and Venezuela, therefore, was not conquered but rather negotiated...”.

For Spanish journalist Cristina Martín Jiménez, the truth can be seen in the Venezuelan leadership's revealing calm. It is “[t]he calm of someone who already knows they won't fall into the abyss. The calm of someone who has received guarantees.”  As she noted on X:

When a president is arrested and there's no internal chaos or visible fracture within the leadership, when there's no military hysteria or bloodshed in the streets, we're witnessing a controlled operation. Real revolutions are noisy. Negotiated transitions are silent.

There are no heroics or epics here. There's cold negotiation. And the negotiation isn't with the people; it's with the elite who guarantee order. Anyone who believes that the United States—or the structure that sets the agenda—is seeking justice, democracy, or historical redress hasn't understood how power works. What they're seeking is stability, access to resources, and the end of an uncomfortable cycle. Everything else is just window dressing.

That's why I insist: the key element is the functional betrayal of Maduro's inner circle. Not ideological, not moral: functional. The betrayal that occurs when it becomes clear that the regime has already fallen and that it's better to reposition oneself than to resist. That's where specific names come in, not because of conspiracy, but because of the logic of power: Delcy Rodríguez, Diosdado Cabello, Vladimir Padrino López. Not as saviors or demons, but as the architects of the transition.

Israeli TV: Venezuela Was An "..Economic And Logistical Lifeline" To Iran and Hezbollah—Detailed Report On What A US Controlled Venezuela Would Mean For Israel

 

While Outraged Over Rodriguez' "Zionist Tinge" Comment

 

Celia Farber

Jan 05, 2026

I have been reviewing some clips from Israeli TV, about Venezuela.

Israel is outraged, of course, over Darcy Rodriguez’ charge that the capture of Maduro and his wife had a “Zionist tinge.”

But if you watch even the first 4 minutes of the report, it methodically blasts Venezuela as the very nation outside the Middle East propping up Iran and Hezbollah.

From the report:

”Israeli and Western intelligence have long warned that Venezuela provided Iran with an economic and logistical lifeline, including oil cooperation, financial channels and sanctions evasion….There have also been serious concerns about Iranian and Hezbollah fundraising and intelligence activity in Latin America.”

The report is not subtle. Its title is: “Venezuela Regime Falls—Iran Next?”

Never a dull moment. 

 

Source: https://celiafarber.substack.com/p/what-israeli-tv-is-saying-about-venezuela?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=257742&post_id=183513408&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=wm70y&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

CDC Will Offer Contract to Investigate Link Between Autism and Vaccination

 

Natasha Hobley  
January 2, 2026 

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) intends to award a contract to Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) to investigate links between autism prevalence and vaccination according to a notice on the federal website. The notice, posted in September 2025, indicated that the CDC planned to issue the fixed-price contract to the New York private research university based on its unique capability to study the intended group.¹

“The vendor has unique ability to link children to maternal cohorts using proprietary databases and de-identified data sets, enabling advanced statistical analyses within the project’s timeframe,” stated the CDC.¹

The CDC asked for a response to the application by Sept. 26, but there has been no further reporting on the status. A spokesperson for RPI said the institute is “is aware of and appreciates the  DC’s intent to award the grant.”²

Juergen Hahn, PhD, would be the principal investigator if the contract is rewarded, the spokesperson said. Dr. Hahn is an RPI professor of biomedical engineering who has done extensive research surrounding autism. His work includes an experimental blood test that he says can detect autism in 96 percent of children. He also authored a 2017 paper that found statistical associations between heavy metals and autism.²

Hahn’s extensive research has also linked autism to having a biological sibling with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), maternal use of antidepressant medication, a mother’s surgical procedures and radiology exposure while pregnant, urinary tract infections while pregnant, and second term preterm delivery.²

“He is renowned for the quality and rigor of his research. If this project is awarded, he intends to publish the results of his work at the conclusion of the project,” an RPI spokesperson said.²

In an interview with RPI’s school newspaper The Polytechnic, Hahn explained that the project will build on previous studies that examined connections between ASD and co-occurring physiological conditions, as well as verification studies from previous research. Hahn stated that the CDC’s interest in RPI in particular stems from his group’s access to proprietary datasets through Optum Labs, a subsidiary of the medical healthcare giant UnitedHealth Group. These datasets also allow for access to complete childhood medical records linked to maternal data which provides for a level of detail unavailable in other studies.³

Meta-Analysis Finds Childhood Vaccination as “Most Dominant Modifiable Risk Factor” for Autism

A meta-analysis report recently run by the McCullough Foundation and published in October identified routine childhood vaccination as the “most dominant modifiable risk factor” for autism spectrum disorder. The report drew from more than 300 peer-reviewed studies.⁴

“Virtually every child receives a battery of vaccines, and the number increases every year,” said Peter McCullough, MD, MPH and lead author of the report.⁴

He continued: “What we saw were these patterns, which appear to be post-vaccination patterns. It’s not just autism—it’s ADHD, it’s seizures, and tics. This, to me, looks like a post-encephalitic pattern of brain inflammation after vaccines. It’s no specific vaccine or vaccine ingredient, but it’s the sum total effect in a susceptible child. And it is modifiable because we can modify the vaccines that are given.”⁴

WHO Rejects Link Between Autism and Vaccination

Last month, the World Health Organization (WHO) reaffirmed its stance that vaccines do not cause autism and that the “most robust scientific evidence consistently rejects a causal link between vaccines and ASD.”⁵

The WHO statement, which can be found on their website, also called on all national authorities to “rely on the latest science and ensure vaccines policies are grounded in the strongest available evidence.” The WHO also called for global efforts to ensure equitable access to safe vaccines, particularly in low and middle-income countries.⁵

Cumulative Vaccine Schedule Has Never Been Studied in its Entirety

As the WHO calls on countries to utilize the strongest available science, it is important to note that the entire CDC immunization schedule has never been studied in its entirety. Two former physicians have filed a lawsuit against the CDC for recommending the vaccine schedule without proving safety. The CDC currently recommends that children receive over 70 doses of more than a dozen vaccines, beginning at birth.⁶

The physicians acting as plaintiffs in the lawsuit are requesting that the cumulative childhood vaccine schedule be revised until it is proven safe. They also request that all vaccines be placed under an individual or “shared decision making” category, rather than a federally “recommended” category.⁶

References: 

¹ MSN. CDC to offer contract to study link between vaccines and autism. Sept. 12, 2025.
² Aboulenein A., Respaut R, Steenhuysen J. US CDC to award research contract on vaccines and autism. Reuters Sept. 12, 2025.
³ Randeria M. Dr. Hahn sheds light on CDC contract and autism research. The Polytechnic Oct. 9, 2025.
⁴ Baker A, Hobley N. Study: receipt of multiple childhood vaccines ‘most dominant modifiable risk factor’ for autism. The Vaccine Reaction Nov. 16, 2025.
⁵ World Health Organization. WHO expert group’s new analysis reaffirms there is no link between vaccines and autism. Dec. 11, 2025.
⁶ Hendler C. CDC sued for untested childhood vaccine schedule. The Vaccine Reaction Sept. 2, 2025.

Dr Suzanne Humphries: what DTaP, Polio & Hib vaccines do to babies:  

Source: https://thevaccinereaction.org/2026/01/cdc-will-offer-contract-to-investigate-link-between-autism-and-vaccination/

Mexico is ARMING itself to the teeth

Contra información 
December 25th (leer en español)

There is a new player on the American military chessboard, and it's right on our own border. Mexico has just announced a decision that is shaking the foundations of continental geopolitics: the construction of anti-aircraft and ballistic missile bases in its main border areas—Tijuana, Ciudad Juárez, Matamoros—names that until now evoked commerce, migration, or public safety, but which could soon become synonymous with strategic military power. 

The announcement was significant. The Ministry of National Defense itself confirmed that these new facilities will be equipped with state-of-the-art air defense systems, short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, and underground control centers with immediate response capabilities.

But why now? At a time when the world is facing an arms race unprecedented since the Cold War, Mexico seems to be drawing a very clear line: protecting its sovereignty with its own force. And this step is not symbolic; it is operational. There is already talk of military structures that will rival the most modern in the hemisphere.

The move has sparked immediate concern north of the Rio Grande. From the United States, former President Donald Trump raised his voice with harsh statements, accusing Mexico of unnecessarily provoking Mexico and even questioning whether these missiles might contain Russian technology. The question is not only whether Mexico is arming itself.

The real question is, where is its foreign and defense policy headed? Are we witnessing the birth of a new Mexican military doctrine? Is this the beginning of a period of real autonomy from U.S. power? And what implications might this have for the balance of power in Latin America? The truth is that, for the first time in a long time, Mexican defense is no longer relying solely on rhetoric and is now materializing in bases, missiles, and territorial sovereignty.

And everything indicates that this is just the beginning. For decades, Mexico's defense strategy has been marked by an unwritten premise: non-intervention and military neutrality. Unlike other regional powers, Mexico has never projected an image of an armed or belligerent nation. Its foreign policy has traditionally been based on respect for sovereignty and the principle of non-alignment.

But times are changing, and so is the country. Growing global tensions, regional conflicts, and the constant threat of organized crime have forced a rethinking of the model. It is no longer enough to have armed forces dedicated to internal operations. Today, Mexico is looking toward its borders with a new mindset.

If the world changes, so do we. In recent years, the country has strengthened its defense budget, modernized part of its air fleet, and begun producing weapons under domestic license. But the announcement of new missile bases marks a turning point. This is not a simple tactical improvement; it is a strategic shift, and like any shift, it has brought consequences.

The reaction from Washington was swift. Donald Trump did not hesitate to label the Mexican plan a provocation. "Mexico does not need missiles. If they are buying Russian technology, that is a very serious problem for us," he declared publicly. The suspicion that Mexico may be acquiring military technology from Russia not only generates concern but also triggers diplomatic alerts.

Although there is no confirmed evidence, the mere rumor is enough to strain relations, especially when it involves bases located very close to U.S. territory. The problem is not just the technology or the weaponry. The problem is the symbol this move represents. An autonomous Mexico, capable of making military decisions without asking Washington's permission, fits easily into the region's historical narrative.

And in this context, an inevitable question arises: Is Mexico challenging U.S. military hegemony in North America? Because if the border was once a monitored line, today it can become a line defended with force, technology, and missiles. For many analysts, the key lies not in what Mexico is building, but in where it is building it.

Tijuana, Ciudad Juárez, Matamoros. Three names that evoke not only border cities, but also areas historically marked by violence, drug trafficking, and migration. And now, for the first time, also by the presence of underground missiles. The contrast is striking. While the United States maintains more than 800 military bases worldwide, many of them in countries that don't even share a border, Mexico is only just beginning to define an external military strategy.

And yet, Washington reacts as if it were a direct threat. Why so much unease? The problem is twofold. On the one hand, these bases represent a clear form of asserting sovereignty. They are not offensive structures designed to attack, but defensive ones intended to shield Mexican airspace, yet they still break with a historical dynamic of dependence and their geostrategic mission.

On the other hand, there's the Russia factor. Although the Mexican government hasn't confirmed any direct purchases from Moscow, the mere fact that Russian systems are cheaper, more effective in certain areas, and available without diplomatic strings attached is unsettling. And here another contrast comes into play.

While the United States has maintained military training camps on Mexican territory for decades, supposedly to combat drug trafficking, now that Mexico has decided to inspect them and establish its own bases, the tone changes. There's talk of a threat, a provocation, a rupture. Isn't that a double standard? Claudia Sheinbaum's government is clear on this.

The oversight of the U.S. camps and the construction of Mexican missiles are part of the same narrative: regaining control of the territory, military decisions, and foreign policy. It's no longer about pleasing Washington, but about protecting national interests. And that's what's most troubling, because for the first time in a long time, a Latin American country is demonstrating, through actions and not just rhetoric, that it can forge its own path. And if that requires building missiles on the border, it will do so, even if it upsets those who have historically considered themselves the owners of their own backyard. What few expected was this: Mexico as the architect of its own defense strategy, leading a military transformation that goes far beyond missiles. Because these bases are not simply an arms buildup; they are the starting point of a renewed national military doctrine that seeks independence, sovereignty, and a strong presence.

The solution Mexico proposes is not offensive; it doesn't seek to declare war or intimidate. What it proposes is to reconfigure its security from within, building a defense network that doesn't depend exclusively on foreign powers or secret agreements. In other words, for the first time in decades, Mexico is designing a Mexican defense architecture for Mexican problems.

And in this redesign, the missile bases serve both a symbolic and a tactical function. Symbolic because they send a clear message to the world. We are no longer a country without a real military response capability. Tactically. Because they are securing sensitive areas from which a conflict could escalate, not only with cartels armed with military arsenals, but also in the event of regional clashes with external powers. 

And who is behind this transformation? A technical team from the Secretariat of National Defense (Sedena), which has been working quietly for the past two years, gathering information on modern conflicts, designing simulations, and evaluating defense models used by countries in similar situations, such as Turkey, Israel, and Brazil.

But there's an even more unexpected twist. Far from following in the footsteps of Venezuela or Cuba, Mexico is betting on a hybrid model that combines domestic technology, imports from Western allies such as French radars and Israeli systems, and potentially Russian-made options if they prove more cost-effective. And in this scenario, Claudia Sheinba emerges as a leader determined to break the mold, because beyond her social commitments, she understands that without security there is no sovereignty, and without sovereignty there is no future. The unexpected element isn't the missiles themselves; it's that Mexico is finally ceasing to ask permission to protect itself, and that changes everything. To understand the magnitude of this project, we have to visualize it. Imagine kilometers of desert in northern Sonora or open areas near Matamoros discreetly transformed into technologically sophisticated operations centers.

There, hidden beneath reinforced concrete structures, lie the launch platforms, surveillance radars, and command centers. Each base will be divided into three zones: a tactical zone, an underground missile zone, and an air control zone. The tactical zone houses rapid deployment units, elite soldiers with specialized training in anti-aircraft and ballistic missile systems.

These teams have been trained using protocols inspired by the defensive doctrines of countries like India, Turkey, and France, which face multiple threats on their borders. In the underground zone, the missiles will be stored in sealed vertical silos equipped with automatic response technology. It is estimated that each base will be able to accommodate between 12 and 18 medium-range missiles designed to intercept aerial targets or deter massive ground attacks. We are not talking about nuclear warheads.

Mexico maintains its doctrine of non-proliferation, but rather of missiles with conventional, pinpoint accuracy capabilities. At the heart of it all is the air command and monitoring center, operating 24/7. Long-range, three-dimensional radar equipment, such as the French-designed GM400, will allow for the detection of any aerial incursion up to 470 km away.

These radars can simultaneously track more than 400 targets and feed real-time intelligence to the defense systems. Furthermore, the systems will be connected to the National Intelligence Center, enabling integration with satellite alerts, ground sensors, and patrol drones. This transforms the bases into nerve centers of a national defense network.

One of the most innovative features is the incorporation of military AI for multi-threat management. If a hostile drone crosses Mexican airspace, the system can detect, classify, and suggest a tactical action within seconds. The estimated cost is approximately 3 billion pesos per base, with mixed financing from the defense budget and technology agreements with partner companies.

It is, without a doubt, Mexico's most ambitious military project of the 21st century. And it's only just beginning. Beyond military strategy, the construction of missile bases in Mexico is already having far-reaching social, economic, and political repercussions. Because we're not just talking about defense; we're talking about jobs, sovereignty, and geopolitical reconfiguration.

First, the local impact is immediate. Each base generates more than 800 direct jobs during the construction phase and about 350 permanent jobs once it's operational. Engineers, electronics technicians, security personnel, logistics operators. Border communities, historically marked by unemployment and forced migration, are now becoming key points in the new national defense model.

Furthermore, the government has announced that some of the civilian infrastructure in surrounding areas will be modernized, including roads, hospitals, and power grids. In other words, the military presence entails social investment, which is generating a degree of consensus even among sectors that were previously skeptical. Economically, the project represents a direct injection of more than 25 billion pesos over the next five years.

But this is not money lost; it is being used to develop national technological capabilities. Mexico is investing in microcomponent factories, ballistic systems assembly, and the training of military technical personnel. All of this could become a new Mexican defense industry with the potential to even export to allied countries.

However, the most sensitive impact is on the diplomatic front. The decision has generated tensions with the United States. But it has also been viewed with respect by countries such as Brazil, Argentina, and even India. Mexico is beginning to emerge as an independent regional power capable of protecting its sovereignty without being completely dependent on Washington.

This policy of deterrent autonomy, as Shanba herself has called it, is awakening a sense of national pride. For many, it is the first time they have seen Mexico act in self-defense with such determination. For others, it is a dangerous way of provoking external powers, and yet one thing is clear.

Mexico has ceased to act as a passive spectator on the international stage. It has decided to strengthen its internal defense, not to aggress, but to avoid being aggressed against. The message is powerful. Mexico respects itself and is prepared to demonstrate this with technology, strategy, and resolve. Mexico's decision to install missile bases is not just a military strategy; it is a message.

A message of sovereignty, autonomy, and a new role on the regional geopolitical map. It is not merely about weaponry; it is about vision. It is about demonstrating that Mexico will no longer be a country that only reacts, that it is ready to anticipate, to defend itself, and to negotiate from a position of strength. Because when a country takes control of its security, it also begins to control its destiny.

And what we have seen is the beginning of a profound transformation. A Mexico that no longer simply receives orders or asks for permission. A Mexico that plans, responds, and commands respect. That is the true foundation, not the underground one, but the symbolic one, built with firm decisions, national identity, and a new approach to power.

Now, the challenge is to transform that military power into civilian power, into the capacity to protect, yes, but also to unite, to rebuild, to propose a new model for the country. And if this change of course surprised you, wait until you see the other major initiative that complements it. The president wants to unite all of Mexico with a passenger rail network, a backbone to connect regions, opportunities, and the future.

Source: https://news1.metacorepc.com/mexico-se-arma-hasta-los-dientes-bases-de-misiles-en-zonas-clave-%F0%9F%9A%80%F0%9F%94%A5%F0%9F%87%B2%F0%9F%87%BD-admin13/

The End of International Law and the Return of World War

Alexander Dugin explains how international law has collapsed and why the struggle between unipolar domination and a multipolar world order is already moving towards a Third World War.

Alexander Dugin

Jan 03, 2026 (Ler em português)

I am certain that now—witnessing what is unfolding in global politics—everyone has finally understood that international law no longer exists. It is no more.

International law is a treaty between major powers capable of defending their sovereignty in practice. It is they who determine the rules for themselves and for everyone else: what is permitted and what is forbidden. And they follow them. Such law operates in phases (beats)—as long as the balance between the major powers is maintained.

The Westphalian system, which recognizes the sovereignty of nation-states, took shape due to a stalemate in the balance of power between Catholics and Protestants (joined by anti-imperial France). Had the Catholics won, the Roman See and the Austrian Empire would have established a completely different European architecture. More precisely, they would have preserved the previous, medieval one.

In a sense, it was the Protestants of the European North who benefited from the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, as they had originally steered towards national monarchies against the Pope and the Emperor. Without achieving a total victory, they nonetheless secured their goal.

Formally, the Westphalian system has survived to this day, as we construct international law on the principle of nation-states—the very thing the Protestants insisted upon in the Thirty Years’ War. But in essence, in the 17th century, this concerned only the states of Europe and their colonies, and later, not every nation-state possessed true sovereignty. All nations are equal, but the European nations (the Great Powers) are “more equal” than others.

There was a certain element of hypocrisy in recognizing national sovereignty for weak countries, but it was fully compensated for by the theory of Realism. It only fully crystallized in the 20th century, yet it reflected a picture of international relations that had formed long ago. Here, the inequality of countries is balanced by the possibility of creating coalitions and the “chess-like” order of alliances—weak states conclude agreements with stronger ones to resist the possible aggression of other strong powers. This is what occurred, and continues to occur, in practice.

The League of Nations attempted to give international law based on the Westphalian system a firmer character, seeking to partially limit sovereignty and establish universal principles—based on Western liberalism, pacifism, and the first version of globalism—which all countries, large and small, were supposed to follow. In essence, the League of Nations was conceived as a first approximation of a World Government. It was then that the school of Liberalism in International Relations finally took shape, beginning its long dispute with the Realists. Liberals believed that international law would sooner or later displace the principle of full sovereignty of nation-states and lead to the creation of a single international system. Realists in International Relations continued to insist on their position, defending the principle of absolute sovereignty—the direct legacy of the Peace of Westphalia.

However, by the 1930s, it became clear that neither the liberalism of the League of Nations nor even the Westphalian system itself corresponded to the balance of power in Europe and the world. The Nazi rise to power in Germany in 1933, fascist Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia in 1937, and the USSR’s war with Finland in 1939 effectively destroyed it, even formally. Although it was officially dissolved only in 1946, the first attempt to establish international law as an overarching, mandatory system had already foundered in the 1930s.

In essence, the 1930s saw the emergence of three poles of sovereignty—this time on purely ideological grounds. Now, what mattered was not formal sovereignty, but the real potential of each ideological bloc. World War II was precisely a test of the viability of all three camps.

• One camp united the bourgeois-capitalist countries—primarily England, France, and the USA. This was the liberal camp, which was, however, involuntarily stripped of its internationalist dimension. The liberals were forced to defend their ideology in the face of two powerful opponents: fascism and communism. But on the whole—if one excludes the “weak link,” France, which capitulated quickly after the start of WWII—the bourgeois-capitalist bloc demonstrated a sufficient level of sovereignty: England did not fall under the attacks of Hitler’s Germany, and the USA fought (relatively) effectively against Japan in the Pacific.

• The second camp was European fascism, which grew especially strong during Hitler’s conquest of Western Europe. Almost all European countries united under the banner of National Socialism. In such a situation, there could be no talk of sovereignty—even in the case of regimes friendly to Hitler (such as fascist Italy or Franco’s Spain). At most, some countries (Salazar’s Portugal, Switzerland, etc.) were able to secure a conditional neutrality. Only Germany was sovereign—or more precisely, Hitlerism as an ideology.

• The third camp was represented by the USSR, and although it was only one state, it was based specifically on an ideology: Marxism-Leninism. Again, it was not so much about a nation as it was about an ideological entity.

In the 1930s, international law—the last version of which was the Versailles agreements and the norms of the League of Nations—collapsed. From then on, ideology and force decided everything. Furthermore, each of the ideologies had its own view of the future world order, which meant they operated with their own versions of international law.

The USSR believed in the World Revolution and the abolition of states (as a bourgeois phenomenon), which represented a Marxist version of globalization and proletarian internationalism. Hitler proclaimed a “Thousand-Year Reich” with the planetary dominance of Germany itself and the “Aryan race.” No sovereignty was envisioned for anyone except world National Socialism. And only the bourgeois-capitalist West—essentially purely Anglo-Saxon—maintained continuity with the Westphalian system, calculating a future transition to liberal internationalism and, again, to a World Government. In fact, the League of Nations, which formally persisted though it was non-functional, was at that time a vestige of the old globalism and a prototype for the future one.

In any case, international law was “suspended”—essentially abolished. A transitional era began where everything was decided solely by the nexus of ideology and force, which remained to be proven on the battlefield. Thus we approached World War II as the culmination of this confrontation of force-ideologies. International law was no more.

The concrete result of the power-ideological confrontation between liberalism, fascism, and communism led to the abolition of one of the poles—European National Socialism. The bourgeois West and the anti-bourgeois socialist East created the anti-Hitler coalition and jointly (with the greater share belonging to the USSR) destroyed fascism in Europe.

In 1945, the United Nations was created as the foundation of a new system of international law. To some extent, this was a revival of the League of Nations, but the sharp rise in the influence of the USSR, which established total ideological and political control over Eastern Europe (and Western Prussia—the German Democratic Republic), introduced a pronounced ideological trait into the system of national sovereignties. The true bearer of sovereignty was the socialist camp, whose states were united by the Warsaw Pact and, economically, by COMECON [Council for Mutual Economic Assistance]. No one in this camp was sovereign except Moscow and, accordingly, the CPSU [Communist Party of the Soviet Union].

On the bourgeois-capitalist pole, essentially symmetric processes occurred. The USA became the core of the sovereign liberal West. In the Anglo-Saxon world, the center and periphery swapped places—leadership passed from Great Britain to Washington. The countries of Western Europe and, more broadly, the capitalist camp, found themselves in the position of vassals to America. This was solidified by the creation of NATO and the transformation of the dollar into the world’s reserve currency.

Thus, the UN also anchored a system of international law—formally based on the recognition of sovereignty, but in fact on the balance of power between the victors of World War II. Only Washington and Moscow were truly sovereign. Consequently, the post-war model maintained a connection to ideology, having abolished National Socialism but significantly strengthened the socialist camp.

This is the bipolar world, which projected its influence onto all other regions of the planet. Any state—including the newly liberated colonies of the Global South—faced a choice: which (of the two!) ideological models to adopt. If they chose capitalism, they transferred sovereignty to Washington and NATO. If socialism, then to Moscow. The Non-Aligned Movement attempted to establish a third pole, but it lacked both the ideological and the power resources to do so.

The post-war era established a system of international law based on the real correlation of forces between two ideological camps. Formally, national sovereignty was recognized; in practice, it was not. The Westphalian principle was maintained nominally. In reality, everything was decided through the balance of power between the USSR and the USA and their satellites.

In 1989, during the collapse of the USSR—brought about by Gorbachev’s destructive reforms—the Eastern bloc began to crumble, and in 1991, the USSR disintegrated. The former socialist countries adopted the ideology of their Cold War adversary. The unipolar world began.

This meant that international law changed qualitatively. Only one sovereign authority remained, which became global—the USA or the collective West. One ideology, one force. Capitalism, liberalism, NATO. The principle of nation-state sovereignty and the UN itself became a relic of the past, just as the League of Nations once had.

International law was henceforth established by only one pole—the victors of the Cold War. The defeated (the former socialist camp and, primarily, the USSR) accepted the ideology of the victors, essentially acknowledging a vassal dependence on the collective West.

In this situation, the liberal West saw a historical opportunity to merge the international liberal order with the principle of power hegemony. This required adjusting international law to the real state of affairs. Thus, from the 1990s, a new wave of globalization began. It meant the direct subordination of nation-states to a supranational body (again, a World Government) and the establishment of direct control over them by Washington, which had become the capital of the world. The European Union was created in this vein as a model of such a supranational system for all of humanity. Migrants began to be brought in en masse precisely for this purpose—to show what the universal international humanity of the future should look like.

In such a situation, the UN lost its meaning:

1. Firstly, it was built on the principle of national sovereignty (which no longer corresponded to anything at all).

2. Secondly, the special positions of the USSR and China and their place in the UN Security Council represented a relic of the bipolar era.

Therefore, talk began in Washington about creating a new—openly unipolar—system of international relations. It was called the “League of Democracies” or the “Democracy Forum.”

At the same time, within the US itself, globalism split into two currents:

• Ideological liberalism, pure internationalism (Soros with his “open society,” USAID, wokeism, etc.);

• Direct American hegemony relying on NATO, which was defended by the Neocons.

Essentially they converged, but the former insisted that the main priority was globalization and the deepening of liberal democracy in every country on the planet, while the latter insisted that the USA directly control the entire territory of the earth on a military-political and economic level.

However, the transition from a bipolar model of international law to a unipolar one never fully occurred, even despite the disappearance of one of the ideological-power poles. This was prevented by the synchronous rise of China and Russia under Putin, when the contours of a completely different world architecture—multipolarity—first began to manifest clearly. On the opposite side of the globalists (both the left-wing, pure liberal-internationalists, and the right-wing neocons), a new force appeared. While not yet clearly defined ideologically, it nonetheless rejects the ideological pattern of the liberal-globalist West. This initially vague force began to defend the UN and counteract the final formalization of unipolarity—that is, the conversion of the power and ideological status quo (the real dominance of the collective West) into a corresponding legal system.

Thus, we find ourselves in a situation resembling chaos. It turns out that five operating systems of international relations are currently functioning in the world simultaneously, as incompatible as software from different manufacturers:

1. By inertia, the UN and the norms of international law recognize the sovereignty of nation-states, which in reality lost its force nearly a hundred years ago and exists as a “phantom pain.” Nevertheless, sovereignty is still recognized and sometimes becomes an argument in international politics.

2. Also by inertia, some institutions retain traces of the long-concluded bipolar world. This corresponds to nothing at all, yet it makes itself felt from time to time—for example, in the question of nuclear parity between Russia and the USA.

3. The collective West continues to insist on globalization and the movement towards a World Government. This means that all nation-states are invited to cede their sovereignty in favor of supranational instances—such as the International Court of Human Rights or the Hague Tribunal. The EU insists on being a model for the entire world in terms of erasing all collective identities and bidding farewell to national statehood.

4. The USA—especially under Trump—under the influence of the Neocons, behaves as the sole hegemon, considering “law” to be anything that is in the interests of America. This messianic approach partially opposes globalism, disregards Europe and internationalism, but insists just as sharply on the de-sovereignization of all states—by right of force.

5. And finally, the contours of a multipolar world are emerging ever more clearly, where the bearer of sovereignty is the state-civilization—such as modern China, Russia, or India. This requires yet another system of international law. The prototype for such a model could be BRICS or other regional integration platforms—without the participation of the West (since the West brings its own, more articulated and rigid models with it).

All five systems operate simultaneously, and naturally, they interfere with one another, producing continuous failures, conflicts, and contradictions. A logical short-circuiting of the network occurs, creating the impression of chaos or simply the absence of any international law whatsoever. If there are five simultaneous international laws that exclude one another, then, in essence, there is none.

The conclusion from such an analysis is quite alarming. Such contradictions on a global level, such a deep conflict of interpretations, has almost never in history (honestly, never at all) been resolved peacefully. Those who refuse to fight for their world order find themselves immediately defeated. And they will have to fight for someone else’s world order, already in the status of vassals.

Consequently, a Third World War is more than likely. And in 2026, it is more likely than in 2025 or earlier. This does not mean we are doomed to it; it only means that we are in a very difficult situation. By definition, a world war involves everyone or nearly everyone. That is why it is called a world war. But still, in every world war, there are primary subjects. Today, they are:

• The collective West in both its incarnations (liberal-globalist and hegemonist);

• The rising poles of the multipolar world (Russia, China, India).

Everyone else is, for now, merely an instrument.

At the same time, the West has an ideology, while the multipolar world does not. Multipolarity itself has already generally manifested, but ideologically it is not yet formalized. Almost not at all.

If international law does not exist, and it is impossible by definition to defend the Yalta world, the old UN, and the inertia of bipolarity, then we must put forward our own new system of international law. China is making certain attempts in this direction (”Community of Common Destiny”), we to a lesser extent (the exceptions being the Theory of the Multipolar World and the Fourth Political Theory). But this is clearly not enough. Perhaps this year we will have to participate in a planetary “struggle of all against all,” during which the future, the corresponding world order, and the system of international law will be determined. Right now, there is none. But there must be an international law that allows us to be what we must be—a State-Civilization, a Russian World. This is what must be conceptualized as quickly as possible.

(Translated from the Russian)

Source: https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/the-end-of-international-law-and-the-return-of-world-war

First Thoughts on Venezuela

 

 

Lautaro Rivara
January 3rd (original en castellano)

Some tentative and urgent reflections on the United States' military aggression against Venezuela (and I will be updating them).

1) Trump DOES NOT HAVE political, military, or territorial control in Venezuela. There was no large-scale military invasion for the moment, but rather a "kinetic action" aimed at kidnapping a sitting president and using him as a tool of pressure and eventual bargaining chip. Even the total military assets deployed in recent months in the Greater Caribbean are insufficient to take control, let alone the rugged and vast Venezuelan geography, or even the capital, Caracas, and its immense and organized working-class neighborhoods (to put the scale into perspective, the invasion of tiny Panama in 1989 required the mobilization of more than 30,000 troops). In short, the bombings and attacks against military infrastructure were the operational cover for what imperial jargon euphemistically calls an "extraction."

2) I believe—and this is, of course, a hypothesis—that the main objective was not, and is not, to seize the country by force, but rather to decapitate the political leadership of the process and induce a significant fracture within the Bolivarian National Armed Forces, something the United States and the local opposition have attempted unsuccessfully for over 20 years. The Achilles' heel of imperial aggression against Venezuela is the absence of an endogenous vassal force, with firepower and mass mobilization capacity, capable of proclaiming something resembling a "legitimate" national rebellion against the "tyranny," thus providing a pseudo-democratic alibi for the aggression. VENEZUELA IS NOT SYRIA, neither in this nor in many other respects. There is nothing even remotely comparable to the HTS (Helicopters of Terrorism), and political-military-territorial unity in Venezuela and our region is generally much stronger than in other reference scenarios in West Asia.

3) This explains why Trump has threatened another round of attacks, and why we cannot rule out the possibility that this could escalate into a full-scale invasion in the coming hours or days, especially if the region and the "international community" fail to take any effective deterrent action, whether diplomatic, economic, or military. If the objective was to incite a large-scale military rebellion, a popular uprising (or a combination of both), and this did not occur for whatever reason, it is natural to expect that armed pressure on the chain of command will intensify and that the Pentagon will seek to compensate militarily for what it is not achieving, in principle, politically: the unconditional surrender of its enemy.

4) This explains a paradoxical but incontrovertible truth. In this strange geopolitical chess game, the United States checkmated the king (captured Maduro), but that did not mean it won the game. For the moment (everything could change from now on), the control of Caracas and the country by loyal state forces is total, or at least that's what I can conclude after speaking with several dozen Venezuelans in different parts of the capital and the country, in various roles and capacities. There are no clashes between military factions, no attempts at rebellion, and no "guarimbas" of any kind (2026 is not 2014 or 2017). The only mobilizations, on foot or by motorcycle, are coming from within the Chavista camp, although of course this is not 2002 either (when the coup and Chávez's reinstatement occurred). Considering the gravity of the circumstances, a relative calm prevails, with the exception of the obvious lines of families waiting to stock up on food in the face of this uncertainty.

5) Proof of all the above, and especially of the weakness of the imperialist home front, is that instead of announcing a "legitimate president," Trump once again belittled María Corina Machado, whom he publicly deemed incompetent to lead the country. For this reason, he announced that the United States would, for the time being, oversee the "transition." We cannot rule out the possibility that the invading force might attempt to seize control of oil wells and infrastructure to finance the operation and begin what could be a long and unpredictable strategy of territorial balkanization, as has frequently occurred in other theaters of operation (although, again, Latin America is not West Asia). Let us remember that, according to the "Trump corollary" to the Monroe Doctrine, Venezuela's strategic resources belong to the United States by virtue of the nationalizations of the 1970s and the beginning of this century.

6) It may seem inappropriate to kick a man when he's down, but we cannot fail to mention that this aggression was prepared and announced for months in full view of the world, and that most actors (governmental, multilateral, media, intellectual, etc.) chose to turn a deaf ear to the drums of war beating in the Greater Caribbean. There is still time to rectify the mistakes and correct the misinterpretations, but this requires decisive and forceful action on all fronts, particularly from the other countries that were also threatened today with the Damocles' sword of intervention: Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, Cuba, and others. As so many of us have maintained (even though we were labeled pessimists, conspiracy theorists, or outdated), this never had anything to do with democracy, human rights, cartels, or the fight against drug trafficking, but rather with the relaunch of the most blatant and bellicose imperial geopolitics, the geopolitical domination of our region, and the colonial plunder of our natural resources. One example suffices: Trump's press conference today, which will surely be forever etched in the annals of infamy and cynicism.

 

 

Source: https://x.com/LautaroRivara/status/2007527927664218333

BREAKING: Maduro kidnapped after US bombing. Venezuelan & international popular movements respond.

Trump claimed that his administration will "run Venezuela" with the acquiescence from Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez.

 

Ricardo Vaz  

January 3, 2026

Caracas, January 3, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan popular movements and international solidarity organizations have taken to the streets to condemn a US military attack against the country and the kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro.

Following the bombings and special operations raid in the early hours of January 3, pro-government collectives began to concentrate in Caracas near Miraflores Presidential Palace. Demonstrations were likewise registered in many other Venezuelan cities.

“Long live a free and revolutionary Venezuela,” grassroots leader Mariela Machado told press in the Caracas demonstration. “International institutions must stop being accomplices and take a stance because our people are being massacred.”

She went on to state that “the US government is not the world’s police” and demanded the safe return of the Venezuelan President.

Venezuelan Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello and Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López published statements in the early morning hours, urging the international community to take a stance against the US actions and calling for popular mobilization.

International solidarity organizations also set up emergency rallies in dozens of cities, including London, New York and several Latin American capitals.

US forces began the attack at 2 am local time with missiles fired against a number of Venezuela military installations in the capital and surrounding areas. Social media users broadcast fires and large columns of smoke emerging from Fuerte Tiuna, the main military installation in Caracas.

The port in La Guaira, an airbase in Higuerote, Miranda State, and a radar facility in El Hatillo, Eastern Caracas, were among the targets reportedly struck. Venezuelan authorities have not disclosed information concerning damages and casualties.

A few hours after the first bombings, US President Donald Trump announced that a special operations raid had kidnapped Maduro and first lady Cilia Flores and that the two were “flown out of the country.” The pair was reportedly taken aboard the USS Iwo Jima warship.

US Attorney General Pam Bondi stated that Maduro and Flores were indicted in a New York District Court on charges including “narco-terrorism conspiracy.” In recent years, US officials have repeatedly accused Maduro and other Venezuelan high-ranking officials of “flooding” the US with drugs. However, they have not presented any court-tested evidence, while UN and DEA reports have shown Venezuela to be a marginal player in global drug trafficking.

In a Saturday press conference, Trump stated that the US will “run” Venezuela until there are conditions for a “safe, proper and judicious transition.” He added that Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other officials will be charged with “running the country.”

The US president reiterated claims to Venezuelan oil resources and threatened that Venezuela would have to “reimburse” the US for oil nationalizations and damages from alleged drug trafficking. Trump went on to say that Rubio had held talks with Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, alleging that she had been sworn in and had vowed to accept US dictates.

Trump dismissed the idea of María Corina Machado taking power in the South American nation, affirming that the far-right leader lacks on-the-ground support. 

Washington’s military attack and special operations raid followed months of buildup and escalating regime-change threats against Caracas. US forces have amassed the largest military deployment in decades in the Caribbean Sea while also conducting dozens of bombings against small boats accused of narcotics trafficking.

The military operation drew widespread international condemnation from Latin America and elsewhere.

“The US bombings and Maduro’s capture are unacceptable,” Brazilian President Lula da Silva wrote on social media. “These actions are an affront to Venezuelan sovereignty and set an extremely dangerous precedent for the international community.”

Colombian, Mexican and Cuban leaders were among those to strongly reject US actions and demand respect for international law.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov reportedly held a phone conversation with Vice President Rodríguez, reiterating Moscow’s support for the Venezuelan government and a call for dialogue.

For its part, the Chinese foreign ministry issued a statement “fiercely condemning the use of force against a sovereign nation.” Beijing urged Washington to cease its violations of international law and respect other countries’ sovereignty.

Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yván Gil held multiple phone conversations with counterparts from different countries who expressed their condemnation of the US attacks as violations of international law.

Caracas has likewise requested an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council. Two prior meetings called by Venezuela saw China, Russia and other countries criticize the US’ military actions but ultimately no resolutions were put forward.

Trump Kidnaps the Venezuelan President: 

Source: https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/venezuelan-international-popular-movements-condemn-us-bombings-maduro-kidnapping/