venezuela

If the US attacks Iran like Venezuela, it will be a drain in both directions.

by

In recent weeks, the United States has concentrated hundreds of aircraft and support assets around the Middle East, while commercial satellites captured unusual movements around the Iranian capital. That combination of deployments and repositioning It has raised tension and forced us to rethink calculations about what a direct collision would really entail. The temptation to copy Caracas. I remembered this morning the new york times that when Donald Trump compared an eventual offensive against Iran with the lightning operation which allowed Nicolás Maduro to be captured in Caracas, raised the idea of ​​rapid, surgical and decisive action. The problem is that the parallelism is quite misleading from its strategic basis. Venezuela offered a aging airspace and weakly defended, in addition to an accessible political objective, while Tehran is supported by a theocratic structure consolidated for almost half a century, a Revolutionary Guard of some 150,000 troops and a regional network of militias that can open multiple fronts. There is no “clean” or low-cost option, and any attempt to decapitate the regime would involve a sustained campaign with real risk of American casualties and regional escalation. And not only that. Satellite images. The latest images commercial flights from space through Airbus and Planet Labs have shown something that changes the calculus: the relocation of S-300 systems long-range around Tehran and Isfahan, accompanied by the Cobra-V8 electronic warfare in key positions south of the capital. This combination combines interceptors capable of hitting targets hundreds of kilometers away with powerful jamming capabilities in critical bands for radars, satellite links and designation pods, which points directly to the US “kill chain” before the missiles even enter their range. The signal is clear: Iran not only wants or can fire, it also wants blinddegrade and force attackers to operate closer and with greater exposure. A shield that complicates air attack. He S-300PMU-2with high-speed missiles and three-dimensional radars optimized for detect targets at low altitudesuch as drones and cruise missiles, constitutes the hard shell of the Iranian system, while the Cobra-V8 system seeks to erode and wear down the sensory advantage of American platforms like AWACS or even electronic suppression aircraft. Although there are doubts about the full integration of these systems and the absence of advanced fighters that act as overhead sensors, their deployment near the capital suggests an architecture designed to survive the first wave of attacks and force Washington to devote additional resources to suppression and electronic warfare. In other words, it is no longer just about dropping bombs, but about winning a previous battle in the electromagnetic spectrum. Missiles and multiple fronts. Added to this defensive armor is one of the missile arsenals wider Middle Eastwith medium-range systems capable of hitting US bases and allied cities more than 2,000 kilometersin addition to drones, anti-ship weapons and recent sea-based air defense tests in the Strait of Hormuz. In fact, it is entirely plausible that Iran could scale quickly through its so-called “axis of resistance”, activating Hezbollah, the Houthis or Iraqi militias to disperse the cost and expand the theater of the conflict. All this, of course, while threatening a road along which nearly a fifth of of world oil and gas. The logic, therefore, is dissuasive: any blow against Tehran would have an immediate echo in Israel, in the Gulf and in the planet’s energy trade. An indentation in both directions. The result of this equation is that the comparison with Caracas is diluted facing a scenario where the Iranian capital has become a strongly defended and electromagnetically contested space. The satellite images do not show a disarmed country, but one that has strengthened its core strategic in anticipation of a modern aerial suppression campaign. In short, if the United States plans to attack as he did it in Venezuelayou will not face an operational vacuum, but rather an environment saturated with missilesinterference and possible regional retaliation, a full-blown clash that threatens to become a combat with casualties in both directions from day one. Image | Airbus, Planet Labs In Xataka | If the US attacks Iran with drones, it will find a surprise: Russia has shielded its sky with an explosive weapon, Verba In Xataka | It is so small that it can barely be seen from space, but this secret island is the main problem for the US to attack Iran

The US invaded Venezuela with perfidy. A letter suggests that there is something simpler and more primitive with Greenland: vendetta

by

The greenland crisis has ceased to be a diplomatic scuffle and has become an open pulse between Washington and its allies, and that means an accelerated deterioration of trust within NATO. While Denmark has sent more troops to the islanda letter points to an idea that was not in the pools: that the germ of everything comes from a question of revenge. The Atlantic Rift. The positions at the moment are clear: Trump insists that the United States must “acquire” a strategic island rich in minerals, while Denmark and Greenland repeat that not for sale and they warn of a climate in which the threat of force is no longer taboo. For its part, Europe is beginning to speak not only of political indignation but of economic responses and security, because what seemed like a campaign eccentricity is becoming a structural crisis regarding sovereignty, alliances and credibility. Meanwhile, Russia observe with popcorn and from the sidelines how the Western bloc is fracturing from the inside. From perfidy to vendetta. The most disturbing element is not only the objective, but the real motive that Trump has hinted at: if in other recent scenarios Washington was able to resort to perfidy (the engineering of deception, the calculated movement, the operation that is disguised as something else) here something simpler, cruel and primitive appears, the vendetta. We don’t say it, Trump himself has linked his determination not to have received the Nobel Peace Prize in a letter to the Norwegian minister, as if a symbolic humiliation was enough to break the mental brakes and justify him no longer feeling obliged to “think purely about peace.” That emotional turn turns everything in unpredictable: It would no longer be a cold dispute over the Arctic, but a personal reckoning elevated to doctrine, an explosive mix of wounded narcissism and state power that degrades any rational alibi and leaves its allies without stable ground on which to negotiate. The economic threat and the language of blackmail. The escalation takes shape in a pressure scheme that sounds more like an ultimatum than diplomacy between partners: as we counted yesterdayTrump threatens 10% tariffs on Denmark and several European countries, with the promise to raise them to 25% if there is no agreement. Not only that. In parallel, he reserves the “no comment” when asked about the use of forcea silence that functions as a threat in itself, because it allows each gesture to be interpreted as preparatory. Europe, for its part, is beginning to speak of countermeasures and activate pressure instruments commercial, making it clear that he understands the movement as political extortion. In other words, sovereignty becomes a currency, and the economy becomes the mechanism to bend the will of an ally. Nuuk The gesture that turned everything on. counted the financial times A revealing story this morning. Apparently, the spark that lit everything is almost ridiculous because of the size of figures: the dispatch of a British soldier, two Finns and small Danish, French and German detachments arriving for an exercise conceived as a sign of commitment to Arctic security and solidarity with Copenhagen. The European message intended to be reassuringas if to say that the region is not neglected and that the allies take the northern flank seriously, but Trump interpreted as a challenge responding with commercial retaliationas if this symbolic presence were an anti-American provocation. There appeared a central problem of the crisis: what for some is a defensive gesture, for the White House becomes an affront that would confirm its story that Europe stands up to it. The island is militarized. Faced with this aggressive reading, Denmark has upped the ante on the ground with a more visible and politically charged reinforcement. sending more soldiers of combat and the head of the Army himself to Greenland. They add to the approximately 200 troops already deployed between Nuuk and Kangerlussuaq in the framework by Arctic Endurancewhich is also accelerated and intensified precisely by the Trump’s verbal escalationas if the exercise went from routine to warning. In parallel, the images of soldiers patrolling the center of Nuuk and the presence of a Danish warship patrolling the coast They project the feeling that the island has entered a new phase, where normality is militarized without the need for shots. NORAD moves pieces. The TWZ analysts They also emphasized another movement that occurs at the same time. NORAD advertisement sending troops and aircraft to Greenland to support “long-planned” and “routine” activities, stressing that they are not linked to the current crisis. The timing may be real, but the political effect is inseparable from context: In the midst of escalation, any American movement on the island seems like a message, and any explanation sounds like a textbook formula. The “security argument.” As the weeks passed, in addition, the Trump’s strategic pretext It is beginning to sound increasingly hollow, because Europe is trying to cover the same need (reinforcing the Arctic) and yet American pressure does not relax. In fact, for many observersthe European shipment uncovers the real reason, because if the problem was that Greenland was exposed to Russia or China, then a greater allied presence should be the solution, not the trigger. Chagos as ammunition. The Guardian had a few hours ago another way: Trump has reinforced his vision of the world using the case of the Chagos Islands as a moral example in reverse, calling of “great stupidity” for the United Kingdom to cede sovereignty to Mauritius even if it maintains the island of Diego García leased 99 years for the joint base. In his story, that act shows weaknessand that weakness is what China and Russia “only understand” as opportunity, so Greenland “must” be acquired for national security reasons. The logic is simplistic: neither law nor history rules, but force, and what is given by agreement is interpreted as a kind of shameful concession, even if it is an arrangement to sustain a military installation. Meanwhile, in Greenland. dSince the beginning of the crisis, … Read more

Chinese oil tankers are arriving in Venezuela and coming up empty. Exactly what the US was looking for

by

The map of world power has been redrawn in just one week. What began as a military operation to capture Nicolás Maduro has transformed into an energy earthquake that has left an image for history: the gigantic Chinese supertankers, which for years were the financial lifeline of Caracas, turning around in the middle of the Atlantic. A U-turn in international waters. The ships Xingye and Thousand Sunny —two supertankers (VLCC) with the Chinese flag—have definitively abandoned their course towards Venezuela. As confirmed by the South China Morning Post (SCMP)After weeks of inactivity and uncertainty anchored in the ocean, these colossi return to Asia empty. These ships are not just any oil tankers. According to Reutersare part of a group of three ships dedicated exclusively to the Venezuela-China route to transport the crude oil destined to pay the gigantic Venezuelan external debt. Its withdrawal is the clearest sign that the South American country, now under US control, will not export crude oil directly to its main buyer in the short term. The embargo that Trump does not lift. Although the US president stated last week that China “would not be deprived” of Venezuelan oil, the reality in the ports is different. According to SCMPChina has not received shipments from the state-owned PDVSA since last month, while Washington insists that the oil embargo remains in force. Where does the oil go then? While the Chinese ships return empty, the giants of the trading Global companies such as Vitol and Trafigura are already preparing the first shipments of a $2 billion deal to move 50 million barrels accumulated in inventory. the destiny, as reported by Reutersit will be the United States and other markets like India. China could receive part of this oil, but only if it negotiates with these intermediaries, thus losing its direct and preferential access to the benefit of the discounts it obtained. through its independent refineries or “teapots”. The bill that no one wants to pay. After the euphoria of the military takeover, a financial dilemma of billion-dollar proportions looms. Venezuelan oil has been takenbut it is mortgaged. China financed railways and power plants for decades through more than 600 bilateral agreements. Regarding the debt, the figures estimate around 10,000 million dollars, although other calculations of think tanks they increase the historical debt to more than 60,000 million, much of it structured under the “oil for loans” model. However, the great fear in Beijing is that the new government led by Trump will invoke the doctrine of “hateful debt”. As pointed out expert Cui Shoujunthis legal recourse would allow the new executive to repudiate the loans alleging that the Chinese money did not benefit the people, but rather served to keep the Maduro regime in power. Outrage in Beijing. The response from the Asian giant is firm and has not been long in coming. The official China Daily media has qualified Maduro’s capture and the January 3 military intervention as a “flagrant hegemonic invasion” and an act of “neocolonialism.” In editorials signed by researchers from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, the US is accused of using “hard force” to trample international norms and send a message of fear to the rest of the Latin American countries that seek an independent path. A treasure in ruins. The capture of Maduro has put the largest crude oil deposit in the world in the hands of Washington, but the trophy comes with a fine print that could break global financial balances. The infrastructure that the US now inherits It is literally in ruins: Loading an oil tanker today takes five days compared to the only day that was enough seven years ago, and the crude oil arrives “dirty” (with excess salt and water). Reconstruction will require $10 billion annually for a decade. The battle in Venezuela is no longer fought with soldiers, but in the offices where it will be decided who pays the Chinese debt and who repairs PDVSA’s rusty pipes. Meanwhile, the ships Xingye and Thousand Sunny They move away from the Caribbean, symbolizing the end of an era. Image | Unsplash Xataka | The “B side” of the United States landing in Venezuela: a subsoil full of hypothetical rare earths

The gold of the 21st century is not in Venezuela. China and Russia know it, and that is why the US wants Greenland no matter what.

by

As if it were a Deja Vú2026 has exactly begun same as 2025: with Trump’s insistence on take over Greenland. It happens that it no longer seems like an isolated whim or a rhetorical eccentricity, but rather the convergence of a personal drive, a strategic opportunity perceived as easy, and a high-impact geopolitical calculation. Venezuela It has served to light the fuse. Greenland as an obsession. After the capture of MaduroTrump confirmed once again that the use of force abroad lacks the legal and judicial brakes that do constrain his domestic action, and that, in the face of clearly outmatched adversaries or allies, the reality is imposed on international law without too many immediate consequences. Greenland then appears (again) as the perfect prize: a huge, sparsely populated territory, defended by an ally incapable of military resistance and located in an area where Washington can dress territorial ambition in the language of “national security”. The reiteration of the message, the appointment of a specific envoy and the public statements that normalize even the military option indicate that this is not a joke or simple diplomatic pressure, but rather an obsession that grows as Trump’s internal political margin narrows. The founding paradox of NATO. The central problem is that Greenland belongs to the Kingdom of Denmarka full member of NATO, and any US action against it would place the Alliance before a paradox for which it was not designed. He Article 5, designed to deter external enemies, does not see clearly What happens when the aggressor is the hegemonic member. As has warned Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, in that scenario “everything would stop”: NATO could continue to exist formally, but its credibility would be destroyed. No one would come to the defense of Greenland against the United States, not only due to a lack of political will, but also due to the absolute material asymmetry between Washington and the rest of the allies. The implicit message is thunder for Europe: security guarantees are no longer automatic, and force is once again in place above the treatyan outcome that directly benefits Russia at the moment of greatest tension since the end of the Cold War. Critical minerals. The economic and technological argument is supported in mineral wealth that lies under the Greenland ice, the result of an ancient geology that concentrates rare earths and other essential critical minerals for the energy transition. From the 19th century to today, different actors have tried exploit that potential, from Ivittuut cryolite during World War II to contemporary rare earth projects. However, the enthusiasm collides with a stubborn reality: extracting these resources is extraordinarily expensive, slow and risky. The almost total lack of infrastructure, the dependence on maritime or air transport, the complexity of processing (with minerals often associated with uranium) and restrictive environmental legislation mean that only a minimal fraction of exploration projects become operational mines, usually after more than a decade of investment. Extra ball. Furthermore, the memory of the environmental damage caused by past exploitations, whose effects are still detectable half a century later in extremely fragile ecosystems, explains why Greenlandic society only contemplates mining. like an opportunity if you actively participate in decision-making and project ownership. The loot exists, but it is neither immediate nor easy, and it certainly does not seem to be able to justify the American strategic urgency on its own. Hybrid war. The backdrop is a northern Europe increasingly militarizedwhere incidents against submarine cables, gas pipelines and critical infrastructure in the Baltic have normalized the idea of a permanent hybrid war. In this context, Washington observes how Moscow and Beijing test pressure tactics below the threshold of open conflict, while legal and judicial responses appear slow or ineffective. The explicit willingness of the United States to include military option for Greenland fits into that fait accompli logic: securing key positions before the strategic environment deteriorates further. It is not just about denying advantages to rivals, but about getting ahead of a scenario in which infrastructure, logistics and control of physical nodes are worth more than declarations of principles. The navigable Arctic and a port. Here a possible decisive derivative emerges. Science has been warning for some time a stage where the Arctic is heading, on a horizon of decades, to be navigable for most of the year. The sustained retreat of sea ice is transforming routes that were once seasonal into viable commercial corridorsdrastically reducing the distances between Asia, Europe and North America. Today, they capitalize on that advantage especially Russiawith the Northern Maritime Route, and Chinawhich presents itself as a “near-Arctic power” and invests in ports, icebreakers and logistics agreements. For the United States, which is late to this board, Greenland represents the perfect shortcut: an enclave located between the Atlantic and the Arctic, capable of hosting deep-water ports, air bases and logistics nodes from which to offset the Russian-Chinese advantage. Seen this way, more than a mine, Greenland is a port ahead of the world to come, a piece from which to influence the global trade of the 21st century and the control of routes that, for the first time in modern history, cease to be be closed by ice. A small island, a global change. If you will, the final paradox is that all this pulse revolves around a tiny territory of less than 60,000 inhabitantsone mostly opposed to integrating into the United States and in favor, at best, of a slow and cautious independence. However, its symbolic and strategic value is disproportionate. Greenland condenses the transition to a world where melting ice reconfigures maps, critical minerals redefine dependencies, and alliances are strained to the limit. For Trump, it is a source of political impact, potential money and demolition of the old order. For Europe, possibly proof that geography prevails again to the law. And for the international system, the warning that the Arctic is no longer a remote edge of the planet, but one of its new centers of gravity. Image | The … Read more

the high possibilities that the US plan for Venezuela will sink the price of oil

by

The global geopolitical board has been blown up at the start of 2026. If the oil market was already limping after 2025 characterized by excess supplythe capture of Nicolás Maduro by US forces This weekend has acted as the definitive catalyst. What in another time would have caused a “shock” of rising prices due to fear of shortages, today is having the opposite effect: investors are beginning to discount a flood of crude oil in the medium term that could push the barrel of WTI directly towards the basement of $50. The Trump factor. The military operation to arrest Maduro and transfer him to New York has not come wrapped in the usual diplomatic alibis. On the contrary, President Donald Trump has been unusually explicit: the goal is oil. Under what some analysts already call the “Donroe Doctrine“, the White House has demanded the return of assets that it considers “stolen” from the United States since the era of Hugo Chávez. Trump does not seem interested in a change in the traditional democratic regime; has minimized María Machado’s opposition and has conditioned stability on US oil companies (Chevron, Exxon, ConocoPhillips) taking the reins of PDVSA to “fix” a ruined infrastructure, as Bloomberg has had access. A market in free fall. Despite the tension, prices are trading lower today. WTI stands at $57.12 and Brent barely defends $60.55 —at the time of writing this report. The market was already coming from 2025 where the barrels took a 20% annual cut. According to the Financial Timessentiment is the most bearish in a decade. The newspaper highlights that the operators (traders) maintain record levels of short positions (bets on the fall), ignoring any geopolitical risk premium. Amrita Sen, founder of Energy Aspectsexplains to the same medium that psychology has changed because it is assumed that there will be “much more oil in the medium term”, which cancels out any rebound due to military tension. The $50 plan. The real fear of traditional exporters is not only Venezuela, but the consolidation of a bloc under US influence. According to a JP Morgan reportIf Washington manages to reactivate Venezuelan production and add it to that of Guyana (controlled by Exxon) and its own domestic production (world leader with 13.3 million barrels per day), the United States would de facto control 30% of all world reserves. This “superblock” would neutralize OPEC’s ability to set prices. Oil would cease to be a purely market good and become a strategic tool administered from Washington to keep prices in low ranges (50-60 dollars) and thus promote its internal economic expansion. The OPEC+ axis: a fight for fiscal survival. This scenario of low prices creates a lethal clamp that squeezes Moscow and Riyadh equally. For Russia, a barrel at 50 dollars It is a weapon of economic war more effective than sanctions; The country already suffers from a chronic lack of investment and the siege of its income to sustain the conflict in Ukraine. This weakness spreads to the rest of OPEC+. According to the recent press releasethe eight countries have decided to pause production increases until April 2026 due to “seasonality.” However, its capacity for influence is exhausted: each cut by the cartel is compensated by the increase in supply from foreign countries such as Brazil or Canada. In addition, doubts are already bleeding into the Gulf financial markets. According to ReutersSaudi Arabia’s stock markets have closed in the red on the prospect of a chronic surplus. Riyadh has approved a borrowing plan of 217 billion riyals by 2026 to support its “Vision 2030”. Without oil above 70-80 dollars, their megaprojects become financially unsustainable. Is a flood of Venezuelan crude oil realistic? In the short term, technical skepticism persists. According to Bloombergreviving the Venezuelan industry so that it returns to its 3 million barrels per day of yesteryear would require an investment of 10 billion dollars annually for a decade. The infrastructure is so deteriorated that loading a supertanker today takes five days, compared to the single day it took seven years ago. Additionally, there is the factor of internal resistance. Delcy Rodríguez, current interim president, has already warned that Venezuela “will not be anyone’s colony.” However, the market looks further: the simple possibility that Venezuelan heavy crude (vital for US Gulf Coast refineries) return to the legal circuit is enough to keep prices under structural pressure. It is worth remembering that the market moves by expectations. The International Energy Agency (IEA) already foresees a surplus record of 4 million barrels per day for this year due to the China slowdown and technological efficiency. The new era of transactional oil. Trump’s success when eliminating an opponent and “lay your hand” on the largest reserves in the world In a matter of hours he sent a message maximum global pressure. If this trend is consolidated, 2026 will be remembered as the year in which oil stopped being an instrument of balance to become the hammer with which the United States redraws the map of power. Barring an unexpected disruption, the path to $50 seems less like a hypothesis and more like a sentence for traditional petrostates. Image | freepik and Gage Skidmore Xataka | This graph shows that Venezuela has more oil than anyone else. Its production is another story

After Venezuela, the United States is already saying loud and clear what its next objective is: Greenland

by

The world looks at Venezuela, but a good part of Europe, NATO allies and more specifically Denmark have one eye (or both) on another geographical point: Greenland. The capture of Nicolás Maduro opens a very wide range of questions about the future of Venezuela, but it has also fueled the unknowns that for months They surround Greenland, geographically located in North America, although at a political level it depends on Denmark. That Donald Trump wants Greenland to come under Washington’s rule is not new, but his words take on a new meaning after what happened on Saturday. Especially because the Republican leader himself has remembered in the last hours that he does not give up on the island: “we need itdefinitely”. Beyond Venezuela. That Venezuela is the protagonist of the start of 2026, no one doubts it. The operation launched by the US on Saturday and which culminated in the capture of Maduro opens a wide range of unknowns about the future of the South American nation. Especially after Trump himself has slipped that he is determined to keep the country under his tutelage “until there is a reliable transition”, a process for which doesn’t seem to trust in María Corina Machado. What happened in Venezuela has, however, shaken some chords that go far beyond America. The main one is probably related to Greenland. Trump wants the US to control the island, crucial for its geostrategic value and mining resources. That’s nothing new. He has said it on many occasionsbefore even being sworn into office. Saturday’s campaign, however, gives a new veneer to that claim, especially because there are those who already warn that the US has shown that it is willing to ignore international law. Click on the image to go to the tweet. “SOON”. The above would be enough to rock the diplomatic waters around Greenland, but Trump himself (and his entourage) have taken it upon themselves in the last few hours to make it clear that they are not giving up on Greenland. The first message in that direction was sent on Saturday by podcaster ultraconservative Katie Miller, who posted a tweet in which it showed a map of Greenland colored with the US flag and a message as simple as it was resounding: “SOON”, ‘soon’. The tweet, which has more than 28 million views, caused a stir because Miller is not a simple influencer from the republican and MAGA sphere. During the Republican’s first term she played a relevant role in the Department of Homeland Security and today she remains the wife of Stephen Milleran influential figure within Trump’s White House team. Hence, Denmark has given special relevance to his tweet. Just a few hours after Miller published it, the Danish ambassador to the US, Jesper Moller Sorensen, he took it upon himself to respond by the same means (X) to make it clear that Washington and Copenhagen are allies and Greenland is already integrated into NATO. “We expect full respect for the territorial integrity of Denmark.” “We need it”. Miller hasn’t been the only MAGA voice to speak out about Greenland. In case there were still doubts about the White House’s position, Trump himself has also done so. On Sunday, in an interview with TheAtlantic, The Republican made it clear that his aspirations for Greenland remain as strong as a year ago, if not stronger. In fact, far from softening the tone after the multiple frictions With Denmark, Trump has been gradually raising the tone. During the interview The Republican insisted that he will not give up the island and recalled that right now it is “surrounded by Russian and Chinese ships.” “We need Greenland, without a doubt. We need it for defense,” he emphasizedblunt. Just words? That is the unknown that remains after what happened on Saturday in Venezuela, a powerful military deployment that resulted in the capture of Maduro and that some experts and countries They see it as questionable from a legal point of view, if not directly contrary to international legislation. In the case of Greenland, the US has not only limited itself to sending messages. TO end of december Trump appointed the governor of the state of Louisiana as the US special envoy for Greenland, a decision that caused discomfort in the Danish Executive. The chosen one, Jeff Landry, is not just the governor of Louisiana. He is also a MAGA ally who, having recently assumed his position as special envoy, proclaimed in X that their goal is for “Greenland to be part of the United States.” Click on the image to go to the tweet. “Enough of the insinuations”. Trump and his entourage are not the only ones who have raised their voices to talk about Greenland. On this side of the Atlantic it has also done so (and with increasing forcefulness) Denmark itself through his Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen: “I have to say this to the US: there is no point in talking about the need for the US to take over Greenland. I strongly urge you to stop threats against a close ally.” His voice joins that of Ambassador Moller Sorensen, who remembered in X that Greenland is already part of NATO, so it is integrated into the same defensive alliance as the US. More resounding It has even been the Prime Minister of Greenland, Jens Frederik Nielsen: “That’s enough. Enough pressure. Enough insinuations. Enough fantasies of annexation.” A recent survey has revealed that 85% of Greenlanders They do not want their island to integrate into the United States. The new Monroe Doctrine? As remember Financial TimesTrump himself has slipped that the Venezuela operation goes beyond that nation and is framed in a broader concept of “hemispheric defense” that reinforces Washington’s role in the American continent. Against this backdrop, Greenland finds itself in a complex position: it is geographically located in North America, but administratively and politically linked to Denmark. The picture is also completed with its important geostrategic role and mining wealth, which opens a … Read more

For 150 aircraft to bomb Venezuela, the US used one of the most lethal tactics of the war: gunboat diplomacy

by

Long before the hundreds of aircraft, missiles, drones and special forces came into play, the United States had already begun to move pieces throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. While international attention was focused on Venezuela, Washington was weaving an accelerated network of military agreements with Paraguay, Ecuador, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago and other countries in the region, expanding access to airports, deploying troops “temporary” and authorizing operations armed under the umbrella of a renewed “war on drugs.” The tactic, in fact, was born in the 19th century. An escalation announced. It we count before the end of last year: the timing and magnitude of these pacts they did not go unnoticed for analysts, who interpreted them as the deliberate creation of a regional logistics infrastructure capable of sustaining a prolonged military operation against Caracas. Under a rhetoric that mixed drug trafficking, hemispheric security and regional stability, the real objective seemed much more classic: to surround Venezuela, isolate it diplomatically and make it clear that US military power was not only willing, but physically prepared to intervene. In this context, Caracas’ warnings to its neighbors and the growing concern in Latin American capitals reflected a familiar feeling: that of once again being the “backyard” of a power that did not ask for permission. The qualitative leap. The point of no return has arrived with the military operation which culminated in the capture of Nicolás Maduro and his wife in Caracas. From Mar-a-Lago, Trump not only celebrated the audacity and violence of the operation, but also verbalized something even more significant: the United States was not simply overthrowing a leader, but was arrogating to itself the right to “direct” Venezuela for an indefinite period, dictating key political and economic decisions and recovering, according to his own storythe control of oil resources that he considered “stolen” from American companies. The rhetoric carefully avoided words like occupation, but while the word “democracy” has not once left Washington, “oil” has been repeated dozens of times, so the substance was hard to hide: a tutelage imposed under threat of a military “second wave” if the new power did not obey. The image of an armada off the coast, ready to intimidate both Caracas and other governments in the region, marked the explicit return to a logic that many believed buried after Iraq and Afghanistan. Trump oversaw US military operations in Venezuela, from the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida, on Saturday, January 3, 2026 Gunboat diplomacy. Also called gunboat diplomacywas born in the 19th century as a brutally direct form of foreign policy: sending warships off the coasts of weaker countries to force political concessionscommercial or territorial without the need for a formal war. Powers such as the United Kingdom, France and the United States used it systematically in Asia, Africa and Latin America, turning the mere naval presence into an instrument of coercion. In the American case, this doctrine was intertwined with the Monroe Doctrine and his later reinterpretationlegitimizing military interventions, temporary occupations and regime changes under the premise of protecting national interests in the Western Hemisphere. If you want and from that perspective, the attack on Venezuela is not a historical anomaly, but a technological update of that same pattern: where before there were gunboats, today there are aircraft carriersdrones, special forces and economic sanctions, but the logic is identical. Military force does not act as a last resort, but as a political message itself, designed to discipline a particular government and warn all others. Map of US attacks against Venezuela An echo of interventions and their consequences. Latin American history is full of examples that help contextualize this movement. From the war with Mexico in the 19th century until the Banana Wars of the 20th, passing through the supported coups d’état During the Cold War, the United States has intervened dozens of times to shape like-minded governments or curb rival influences. Trump himself has claimed figures as William McKinleya symbol of an era in which territorial expansion and access to resources were considered legitimate expressions of national power. But they remembered yesterday in the New York Times that these interventions rarely produced lasting stability. They often left fractured societies, legitimized dictatorships and deeply damaged the American reputation, a legacy that strategic rivals today exploit. like china to present themselves as less intrusive (although not necessarily more benign) alternatives. The perfect operation and the subsequent vacuum. From a military point of view, Maduro’s capture was a demonstration extreme precision: months of surveillance, an exact replica of the target to rehearse the assault, selective blackoutscoordinated airstrikes and special forces breaking into the heart of Caracas in the middle of the night. But the tactical success contrasts with the strategic uncertainty which opens later. Who will really govern Venezuela? How will your armed forces react? What happens if a future election contradicts Washington’s interests? There is no doubt, these questions evoke familiar ghosts of “eternal wars” and covert occupationsexactly what Trump had promised to fight against. Hence that “gunboat diplomacy”no matter how modernized it is, continues to suffer from the same problem as it did more than a century ago: it is effective at imposing fait accompli, but terrible at managing long term consequences. The past with weapons of the future. Thus, the attack on Venezuela does not represent a doctrinal innovation, but rather a conscious return to an ancient way to exercise powercovered with 21st century technology. Instead of multilateral negotiations or classic diplomatic pressure, the United States has opted for a direct show of force, combining capture of leaders, control of resources and an intimidating military presence throughout the region above any international law. It is, in essence, the gunboat diplomacy elevated to an industrial scale: faster, more precise and media-intensive, but equally fraught with risks. History suggests that its effects will not be measured in days or weeks, but in decadesand that Latin America, once again, will be the stage where it is tested if the past can really be reused … Read more

The United States has turned Trinidad and Tobago into the war container it was missing. Venezuela has responded like Russia: an invisible fleet

by

The conflict between the United States and Venezuela has entered a phase in which the silent accumulation media outweighs official statements. If you will, the Caribbean once again functions as a strategic belt from which Washington projects pressure without the need to declare an open war. Under the formal argument of the fight against drug trafficking, the White House has been weaving a support network logistics, radars, airstrips, ports and resupply spaces in an arc at a time bigger of “allies”. The Venezuela’s response We already saw it in Russia. The map of countries. That “arc” of allies Washington runs from the Dominican Republic to Trinidad and Tobago, passing through Aruba, Curaçao, Bonaire, Grenada, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. The deployment includes destroyers, nuclear submarines, amphibious ships, aircraft carriers, state-of-the-art fighters, drones and thousands of troops, not enough for a land invasion, but enough to control air and maritime space, monitor critical routes and sustain missile attacks if it is decided to escalate. It is a prepositioning strategy classic: being everywhere without publicly assuming that something else is in the works. Trinidad and Tobago, the most sensitive link. Within that architecture, Trinidad and Tobago emerges as the most delicate piece of the board. Its extreme proximity to the Venezuelan coast turns any gesture into a political and military message. The new government has authorized the use of its airports by US military aircraft, has received warships and marine units, has allowed joint exercises and has accepted the installation of an AN/TPS-80 G/ATOR radar capable of detecting aircraft, drones and missiles. Everything is presented as logistical and defensive cooperationbut it fits almost literally with the US National Security Strategy of 2025, which calls for a toughened version of the Monroe Doctrine to reaffirm the preeminence of the United States in the Western Hemisphere and prevent external actors from controlling strategic assets. Trinidad and Tobago insist in that it will not be a platform for offensive attacks except direct aggression, but its role as node of surveillance, resupply and intelligence places it at the center of any scenario of sustained pressure on Caracas. A blockage that is not. The announced threat by Trump of a “total and complete” interdiction of sanctioned oil tankers entering or leaving Venezuela fits into that model of gradual pressure. It is not about closing ports with a formal declaration of war, but about taking advantage of naval and air superiority, supported by friendly infrastructure, to intercept, seize or deter the ships that support the main source of income for the Nicolás Maduro regime. The recent seizure of an oil tanker loaded with nearly two million barrels and the warning that further action could follow shows the extent to which Washington is willing to take pressure beyond the symbolic, taking the risk of controlled incidents in international waters. The Venezuelan response. Faced with this siege, Caracas has reacted by raising the profile of its challenge. The order to escort ships that transport oil products and derivatives to Asia is a calculated move: it seeks to demonstrate that the Venezuelan State does not renounce its right to free navigation and that it is willing to involve to his Navy to keep exports open. It is also a response that increases the risk of confrontationbut that sends an internal and external message of resistance. Oil continues to be the financial pillar of the regime, and losing it would be equivalent to accepting total economic asphyxiation. The ghost fleets. Beyond the visible escort, the true backbone of the Venezuelan strategy is the ghost fleeta tactic practically copied from the used by Russia after Western sanctions. Old oil tankers, many with more than twenty or thirty years of service, change name and flagsteal the identities of already dismantled ships, sail under flags of convenience, turn off or manipulate their identification systems and carry out crude oil transfers on the high seas to hide the origin of the cargo. The result is an opaque trade that allows you to sell oil with large discounts to buyers willing to take risks, while the traceability required by sanctions is diluted. It is not a marginal phenomenon: a significant part of the world’s oil tanker fleet already operates in this gray ecosystem, transporting Venezuelan, Russian or Iranian crude. Sanctions that do not suffocate, they deform. The BBC reported that the data show that, although far from the historical levels of the end of the 20th century, Venezuelan exports have recovered notably compared to the collapse of 2019. This indicates that the sanctions have not paralyzed the flow, but rather have displaced it towards more opaque and risky circuits. As in the Russian caseeconomic punishment does not eliminate trade, it makes it more expensive, makes it less transparent and reinforces dependence on informal networks and actors willing to move illegally. The Caribbean as a conflict. With US aircraft carriers patrolling the Caribbean, radars deployed in islands near Venezuela and escorted or invisible tankers sailing to Asiathe conflict is located in a dangerous intermediate zone between economic pressure and military confrontation. The United States bets on the ccontrol of space and logistics regional via of discreet allieswhile Venezuela responds with the same manual that has allowed other sanctioned countries to survive: ghost fleets, aggressive discounts and specific shows of force. The Caribbean, for decades associated with tourism and trade, is thus once again a scene of high geopolitical tension where each radar installed and each oil tanker intercepted brings the risk of a clash that no one admits they want, but for which both sides seem to prepare, a little closer. Image: US Navy In Xataka | The situation between the US and Venezuela only needs one incident to escalate into something more: that incident is already here In Xataka | In full tension with the US, Venezuela has presented its drone simulator: it is equal to a three-euro Steam game

We have to start calling what is happening in Venezuela by its name. The “other” US bombers have arrived

by

May America return to “walk” bombers strategic actions against Venezuela gives shape to an idea: this is no longer a tactical whim, it is a military campaign that moves on a dangerous border between ambiguity and prelude of something of greater significance. Not only that: the presence in the air, sea and territorial periphery of a country without the capacity for military parity introduces a geopolitical message directed towards third partiesand places the region before an unprecedented scenario. The visible phase. United States has done it again. Now they have been B-1 Lancer (long-range bombers, high payload and supersonic speed) from Dyess (Texas) to the outskirts of Venezuelawithout entering sovereign airspace but close enough to constitute an unequivocal signal of availability of remote fire. These flights are added to previous demonstrations with B-52 and F-35B, and are part of a expanded deployment which includes eight warships, a submarine, P-8 maritime patrol, MQ-9 Reaper and a squadron of F-35s already advanced in the theater. The novelty is not the capacity but the frequency: what used to be an annual exercise has become a sustained cadence that Pentagon officials already hint will grow, under the operational argument of surveillance and destruction of boats, but with a clear transition potential to fixed targets ashore. What the bombers reveal. Air traffic scans showed pairs of B-1 with BARB21/22 and nodal planes (KC-135 for replenishment, RC-135 ISR and a E-11A BACN) composing architecture of command, link and persistence typical of complex operations, not symbolic gestures. The immediate precedent of the B-52 in the same areadescribed by the Department of Defense itself as a “demonstration of attack”, reinforces the reading that Washington is setting up an environment from which it will be able to strike from outside the Venezuelan tactical range without the need to preposition bombers in regional bases, exploiting the strategic autonomy of the heavy wing. The E-11 BACN The bridge and options. The campaign against suspicious vessels (with at least seven confirmed attacks on speedboats and a submersible since September) complies a double function: produces immediate kinetic effects and, at the same time, normalizes the use of lethal power without explicit congressional authorization on targets politically designated as “narco-targets.” Trump openly declared that, once the maritime phase has been exhausted, the attacks could move to land against distribution or production facilities, and former USAF officers admit that the B-1 platform is ideal for that scenario. The Republican-dominated Congress has blocked attempts to limit presidential authority, and the line between war on cartels and strategic coercion of the regime has been blurred. deliberately blurred. A B-52 and two F-35Bs seen flying together during the “bomber strike demonstration mission” last week The background. Before reappearing heavy wing on the Caribbean, Washington had consumed three cycles without success: maximum sanctions, political negotiation and recognition of a parallel government. They all failed in dislodging Maduro, protected by a Cuban counterintelligence apparatus and armored by alignment with Russia, China and Iran. The turn to military coercion (destroyers with Tomahawk, embarked special forces, ISR means and precision fire) replicates a repertoire with long and bumpy genealogy in Latin America, but here with a deliberately ambiguous purpose. The Caribbean without law. The Pentagon has sunken vessels alleging narcoterrorism, with no specific congressional authority to equate cartels with al-Qaeda-type threats. Trump came to contemplate blows on the ground that would produce high-impact viral images, but without a sure path to a stable political outcome: the available force (some 10,000 troops) is not enough for a conventional invasion, and a surgical assault to capture Maduro would entail catastrophic risks if it failed. The limits and fragility. I remembered a few hours ago the financial times that the recent history of the United States in “nation-building” after the use of force is poorand in Venezuela the vacuum after a forced decapitation could be occupied by hard factions of the apparatus or consolidate Maduro himself if a failed operation gave him an alibi for deeper repression. The legitimate opposition is fragmented or in exileand institutional continuity after a crash would be uncertain. The main weight of the warning lies not so much in the probability of an immediate attack as in the fact that, by declaring the war open to “narco-terrorists” and pointing to Maduro as one of them, the administration has crossed a line from which it is difficult to retreat without showing strength. The strategy. If you want, the bomber flyover In the face of Venezuela, it functions as an element of psychological pressure, as an enabling infrastructure for a rapid kinetic leap, and as an extra-regional message to those who support the regime. Until now, the legal elasticity of this “anti-drug” framework has served to go through it lining barriers to the use of force without declared war. Now, with the appearance of heavy wingWashington points out that coercion has left the discursive plane to settle in the closest thing to a real architecture of the theater. Image | USA, USAF In Xataka | The US has several warships deployed off Venezuela. Venezuela has a Soviet missile capable of penetrating them In Xataka | Satellite images leave no doubt: there are 10,000 soldiers and unusual artillery pointing at the same place in the Caribbean

The real threat from US warships off Venezuela is supersonic. It is called Kh-31 and it is Made In Russia

by

The satellite images left no room for doubt: the United States has been adding pieces in the southern Caribbean until it forms the closest thing to a military army prepared for an attack against Venezuela, it remains to be seen on what scale and if that is really Washington’s idea. And in the face of this artillery, the greatest threat to American warships lies in the Venezuelan Air Force. To be more exact, in one of their fighters and their missile. Supersonic capability. The presence of Russian supersonic anti-ship missiles Kh-31A in the hands of Venezuela, integrated into their Soviet fighters Su-30MK2V of the Bolivarian Military Aviation, turns the Venezuelan coast into a high-risk environment for US ships that today operate at very short distances. The missile, conceived by the USSR to pierce Western air defenses and later adapted to anti-ship penetration rolescombines low flight over the sea, active tracking guidance before or after launch, terminal maneuvers of up to 15 G and a penetration warhead that detonates after passing through the side of the hull, making it difficult to intercept when the ship is within its short warning zone. The very fact that the US Navy purchased units to convert them into targets MA-31 to test its defenses illustrates that, although it is not cutting-edge technology, it is a system whose lethality is taken very seriously. Launching platform. Venezuela has of 21 fighters Su-30 Flanker in service, has advertised early warning exercises with Kh-31 off the coast and has spread images of armed flights with the clear intention of signaling their denial capacity to Washington. Although it is not certain that the Kh-31P anti-radiation variant will be available in significant quantities, it could be used de facto against naval radars. Close-range encounters (even with Venezuelan F-16s approaching to US ships) show that, in an improvised incident, fighters could be placed within the launch envelope before being detected or deterred. Promotional image of a Kh 31 Physics, distance and reaction. The profile of Kh-31A missile (initial acceleration by rocket to Mach 1.8 and transition to Mach 3.5 at high altitude or Mach 1.8 at sea level) drastically reduces the defense reaction time, especially when the ship is close to the coast, with a shortened radar horizon and degraded early warning. The employment envelope (the three-dimensional zone in which the missile can be launched, fly and reach its target, encompassing variables such as range, altitude and speed), means that an approaching armed aircraft without being ejected from the zone can place missiles in flight before the ship completes its defense cycle. Comparison of arsenals. They counted the TWZ analysts than the rest of the Venezuelan anti-ship arsenal (Otomat Mk 2 on a frigate Marshal Sucreaged versions in Constitution boatsmissiles Sea Killer in helicopters and Iranian CM-90s) is sub-sonic, of doubtful availability and much inferior in penetration and probability of impact compared to modern defenses. In practice, the only vector that alters the American calculation is that Su-30/Kh-31 pairing: is sufficiently fast, sufficiently provided, and sufficiently close to impose significant risk. Missile infographic United States position. It we counted yesterday. The American deployment (ARG/MEU Iwo Jima, Arleigh Burke destroyersa cruise Ticonderoga and the special operations ship Ocean Trader) is in itself a coercive message designed to project the capacity for punishment or specific assault from international waters. However, this same deployment creates specific vulnerabilities: the Ocean Trader lacks organic defense and has operated very close to the coast. A successful attack, even isolated, would have far-reaching strategic and political consequences, turning a limited clash into cause for war. The Pentagon has reinforced kinetic and electronic warfare subsystems (including Burkes ahead of Rota to operate under threat of cruise missiles), but the speed and proximity of the theater mean that the risk is far from theoretical. The logic of last resort. While a direct Venezuelan attack would almost certainly amount to an open war with the United States, the variables that could make it imaginable exist: a regime collapse scenario, an outbreak of operational error in a close air encounter, or a misattributed US covert operation could precipitate “last resort” decisions from Caracas. Precisely because the probability of something like this happening is low but the expected damage if it occurs is extreme, the US Navy treats the Kh-31 as a priority threat of active management, not as technological waste. Implications. The mere presence of a supersonic missile of denial in the hands of a sanctioned State amplifies political pressure: it forces the United States to assume more heavy (cruises as escort, separation cordons, additional ISR), makes persistent operations more expensive and raises the threshold for intervention. The tactical result (a reaction window of seconds) translates into a strategic effect: Venezuela has a de facto veto on the degree of safe intrusion of American ships, if you will, a kind of chip of negotiation that Caracas has already turned into a public message with its armed flights at short distance. Image | NavyRosoboronexport, Boeing In Xataka | Satellite images leave no doubt: there are 10,000 soldiers and unusual artillery pointing at the same place in the Caribbean In Xataka | A disturbing idea is gaining strength: that what the US wants is not drugs, and that is why it is targeting Venezuela

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.