The Friday Edition

Our Friday News Analysis | What the World Reads Now!

January 09, 2026

Helping to Heal a Broken Humanity (Part 66)

The Hague, 9 January 2026 | If you know of a decisive story, tell the world! We're still searching.

Permit me to tease my American friends.

EDITORIAL | “The Best Way to Predict the Future is to Create It" (Part 30)

EDITORIAL | Life is on the wire. Can we handle the tension?

By Abraham A. van Kempen
9 January 2026

Let’s just get down to brass tacks. Will the United States force Venezuela to become its next Vietnam (1961+), Afghanistan (2012+), Iraq (2000+), or Iran (1979+), notwithstanding 65 other failed regime changes?

Get serious! Compare Venezuela to Vietnam!

Venezuela and Vietnam differ in size, population, and resources. Venezuela, with larger oil reserves, has a smaller population and less stability. Vietnam, smaller and densely populated, has a more diverse economy. U.S. military action in Venezuela over oil would be risky, face international opposition, and likely fail.

Venezuela is on the northern coast of South America, bordered by Colombia (west), Brazil (south), Guyana (east), and the Caribbean Sea (north). It covers about 916,445 km², making it one of the continent's largest countries.

Vietnam is in Southeast Asia, bordered by China to the north, Laos and Cambodia to the west, and the South China Sea to the east. Its area is about 331,212 km², which is smaller than Venezuela’s.

Venezuela’s population is projected to reach about 28 million by 2026. Many have recently left due to economic and political issues, impacting the population and demographics. Vietnam, with about 100 million people, is one of Southeast Asia's most populous countries. Its population steadily grows due to economic stability and development.

Natural Resources

Venezuela possesses some of the world’s largest proven oil reserves, as well as substantial natural gas, gold, bauxite, and other mineral resources. Oil remains the core of its economy, accounting for most of its export earnings and government revenue.

Vietnam has more modest natural resource endowments, including coal, bauxite, oil, natural gas, and various minerals. It also has significant agricultural resources and is a major exporter of rice, coffee, and seafood.

U.S. Invasion of Venezuela for Oil

This situation involves military, geopolitical, economic, and ethical factors. Despite Venezuela's abundant oil reserves, U.S. efforts to access them would face significant challenges and repercussions.

Military Resistance: Venezuela has a large military capable of significant resistance, despite internal problems. Urban and jungle terrain would complicate military operations.
Regional and Global Backlash: Taking such action could provoke severe criticism from the international community and U.S. allies, cause regional instability in Latin America, and draw reactions from Russia and China, which have interests in Venezuela.
Economic Consequences: Even if the U.S. controlled Venezuela’s oil fields, maintaining steady production and exports would be difficult due to risks such as sabotage, underinvestment, and sanctions.
Humanitarian Impact: An invasion could worsen Venezuela's fragile crisis, causing more civilian casualties, displacements, and economic struggles.
Legal and Moral Issues: Seizing another country’s resources by force would violate international law and norms, damaging U.S. credibility and moral standing globally.

In summary, while Venezuela’s oil reserves are attractive from a resource perspective, any attempt by the United States to militarily seize them would likely result in severe geopolitical, economic, and humanitarian consequences, far outweighing any potential short-term gains. The U.S. would face significant resistance—militarily, diplomatically, and economically—rendering such a venture highly inadvisable and destabilizing.

Besides, Venezuelan oil is like sludge with a high viscosity. Adapting the refineries to Venezuelan oil demands significant capital.

Is there a method to the madness? Yes! We’ll continue this conversation next week.

For now, one might argue that the US should have attacked, invaded, occupied, and plundered Venezuela in the 1960s instead of Vietnam. In a way, the US and Europe did. Our oil companies owned the rights to exploit their oil. Venezuela was once home to Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, Esso/Exxon, and the entire Seven Oil Sisters family. However, Venezuela expelled these companies because they refused to pay an honest price for the oil. Since then, Venezuela has been regarded as a persona non grata nation, similar to Cuba, and has been subjected to sanctions imposed by the EU and the United States that crippled its economy.

The parties could have resolved the issue diplomatically, but greed and nationalism obstructed the process.

To resume diplomatic talks to restart oil production and eliminate drug manufacturing, the United States must first break bread – make peace – with the people of Venezuela. Diplomacy is catalytic—transformative. Military action is cataclysmic—destructive and catastrophic. If the United States wants to expand its footprint in the Americas, it cannot step on its people. It cannot trample the whole Continent. It cannot homogenize the region in its own image.

In simple terms, if the United States plans to grow its presence in the Americas, it should do so with honor and respect. Americans should appreciate the diversity of the Americas from North to South, from Sea to Shining Sea, instead of aiming for uniformity. Let’s pursue this expansion carefully, respecting all parts of the continent and dignifying differences.

After all, we are not robots uniquely created in God’s image.

Enjoy your weekend.

Abraham A. van Kempen
Senior Editor

Building – not burning – the Bridge Foundation, The Hague
A Way to Get to Know Each Other and the Other

Remember! Diplomacy is catalytic—transformative —while military action is cataclysmic—destructive and catastrophic.

When faced with the options to be good, bad, or ugly, let’s build bridges, not burn them. After all, mutual deterrence reigns.

STANDING IN SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF VENEZUELA

I support Venezuela always! I love Venezuela.

Open letter from Ivanova Svetlana, 6 January 2026. Ivanovna to Mr. Isaac Herzog, President of the State of Israel

Subject: Standing in Solidarity with the People of Venezuela

To: People of Venezuela

Dear Friends,

I am writing to share my heartfelt support and solidarity with you during these difficult times. Across borders and oceans, know that many of us are thinking of you, admiring your resilience, and hoping for brighter days ahead. May God bless and protect you always. Your strength, courage, and unity in facing adversity are truly inspiring. Despite the hardships you encounter, your culture, traditions, and spirit continue to shine as a beacon of hope. The world recognizes your perseverance, reminding us all of the power of community and the human will to overcome. While words alone cannot resolve the challenges, I hope this message serves as a reminder that you are not alone.

Countless people around the world stand with you, advocate for your well-being, and believe in a future where peace, stability, and opportunity thrive in Venezuela. May hope stay strong in your hearts, and may the coming days bring you renewed strength and the change you deserve.

With deep respect and solidarity,

Svetlana Sonday

GUEST EDITORIAL | WHAT IS TRUMP’S GAMBIT IN VENEZUELA?

Trump’s recent actions have their roots in Dick Cheney’s plans for the post-Cold War world

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro is seen in handcuffs after landing at a Manhattan helipad, escorted by federal agents as they make their way to a courthouse on Monday. / Photo by XNY/Star Max/GC Images.

By Seymour Hersh
Substack.com
8 January 2026

America and the world are trying to understand what happened behind the headlines and why President Trump targeted Venezuela, arresting its president and wife on Saturday.

Stephen Miller, deputy White House chief of staff and Homeland Security adviser, explained on CNN that the Venezuela events were justified. He told Jake Tapper, “We’re a superpower,” and noted under Trump, the US would act accordingly. He said it’s nonsensical to allow a neighboring country to supply our enemies but not us.

“We are in charge because we have the United States military stationed outside the country. We set the terms and conditions. We have a complete embargo on all of their oil and their ability to do commerce.”

US Ambassador to the UN, Michael Waltz, highlighted this on Monday in a Security Council statement.

“You cannot continue to have the largest energy reserves in the world under the control of adversaries of the United States.”

Their aggressive rhetoric and harsh language drew global media, diverting attention from a key Trump strategy to oust Maduro and prevent China from buying cheap Venezuelan crude.

Iran, with the world's fourth-largest crude oil reserves and supplies to China, is expected to become the next target.

Iran’s religious leadership faces political pressure from water shortages and limited access to vital goods. The protests started months after US and Israel's June bombing raids on Iran’s nuclear sites, missile defenses, and key government buildings and neighborhoods in Tehran.

A global oil industry figure recalled that US intervention in Venezuela was planned by a secret task force formed after Bush's 2000 election. Vice President Dick Cheney, a former congressman and ex-CEO of Halliburton, strongly focused on securing American independence in oil and gas.

Days after taking office, Cheney formed a secret oil and energy experts group, the Cheney Energy Task Force. Its existence became public, but Cheney withheld details despite calls for transparency. I later learned that a main goal, shared by the task force, was to stop Russian oil exports to Central and Eastern Europe and slow sales to China. (Russia’s pipelines to Europe have long been a US political concern since Kennedy’s era.)

That group issued its report in March 2001 and did not communicate further after 9/11. However, Cheney remained resolute, as some of his close colleagues understood, in maintaining a tight grip—exactly as one aide described—on Vladimir Putin, the Russian president.

I was a Washington correspondent for the New Yorker and aware of this. However, the war against Islamic terrorism didn't involve Russia’s oil needs. The Bush administration invaded Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003.

Some international oil experts believe the real target of the attack on Venezuela was not Maduro himself but his willingness to sell oil to China, seen as a rival by the US military and many politicians.

An oil expert mentioned, “The big game is the United States versus China.” He noted that China is the world's top oil importer and alleged that Trump controls the true deep state.

Watch out, Tehran. He aims to dismantle your oil industry and possibly topple your government, with Israel's support. Currently, no one in American politics is prepared to stop him.

What is the Side of the Story that is Not Yet Decisive? Edited and annotated by Abraham A. van Kempen

RITTER'S RANT 068: THE BATTLE OF NEW YORK

Treaty is law.
The US Constitution is under attack.
President Nicolas Maduro's jurisdiction hearing in New York is the last chance to demonstrate that the rule of law matters.

Watch the Video Here (10 Minutes, 54 Seconds)

Scott Ritter
Substack.com
6 January 2026

Today’s ‘Scott Ritter’s Rant’ warns that neglect of constitutional duties by Congress and the Executive puts the Republic at risk, relying on a judge to safeguard it. Citing Jefferson, it urges citizens to stay vigilant and uphold justice and the rule of law.

The Battle of New York: Constitutional Crisis and Civic Duty

Hello and welcome to Ritter's Rant. Today, we're discussing the Battle of New York. Though the phrase may evoke the American Revolution, this conflict stems from revolutionary ideas from the founding of the constitutional republic. Currently, the focus is on a modern dispute in a Manhattan courtroom before District Judge Alvin Hellerstein.

The Case of Nicolas Maduro

Judge Alvin Hellerstein, serving on the Southern District of New York since 1989, is overseeing the trial of Nicolas Maduro and his wife, recently detained by U.S. forces, raising legal concerns. Appointed by Clinton, he has been involved since the 2020 indictment, which supported the Trump administration’s actions. The indictment does not allow the U.S. to bypass constitutional rights, and Hellerstein has opposed such infringements.

Legal and Constitutional Implications

The legal process is crucial here. Hellerstein accepted not guilty pleas from Maduro and his wife, setting the next court date for March 16. The lengthy timeline reflects a typical delay in the American justice system. This case goes beyond the law, challenging U.S. identity. The president’s actions, ignoring the Constitution and international law, led to the detention of a sovereign leader, breaching the UN Charter.

Treaties and the Rule of Law

The Constitution allows the president to negotiate treaties, which become the highest law once ratified by the Senate. Supreme Court decisions affirm this. Rejecting international law is then akin to rejecting the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law, jeopardizing the republic's legitimacy.

Checks and Balances: Congressional Inaction

The government prevents power concentration through three equal branches. In this case, the executive surpasses legal boundaries. Congress ignores war powers and treaty issues, failing to hold the president accountable. Treaties require legislative action, but Congress has not amended or altered them.

The Role of the Judiciary

With both branches shirking responsibilities, Judge Hellerstein holds the key to the republic's fate. If the president breaches laws without repercussions, it endangers the U.S. as a constitutional republic. This could turn the executive into a dictatorship without oversight.

Reflections on Civic Duty and Vigilance

This situation echoes Thomas Jefferson’s warnings about an uninformed and disengaged population. In 1787, Jefferson warned that a government without civic participation could turn tyrannical, and periodic resistance might be necessary to defend liberty. As the U.S. approaches its 250th anniversary, the author warns that unchecked executive power could threaten constitutional governance, forcing citizens to choose between tyranny, justice, and the rule of law.

Conclusion

Scott Ritter urges citizens to act as engaged participants in defending the nation's founding principles. The outcome of the legal case will determine whether the constitutional republic endures. While there's hope Judge Hellerstein will uphold the rule of law and restore order, failure to do so leaves the U.S. future uncertain.

THE BATTLE OF NEW YORK

The future of the United States is being decided in a New York City courtroom, where the nation itself is on trial. If the courts do not dismiss the false charges against the kidnapped Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, the final pillar of Constitutional legitimacy will have collapsed, ceding power to the dictatorship that has taken hold under Donald Trump's presidency.

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro is in the custody of US DEA agents

BY SCOTT RITTER
SUBSTACK.COM
6 JANUARY 2026

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?"

Thomas Jefferson asked.

Today, we search for an answer.

While the world grapples with the shocking abduction of a sitting leader of a sovereign nation by U.S. armed forces—an act lacking legitimacy under international and domestic law—the American people face their own failures as citizens and, honestly, as members of the human race. They cheer this reckless act of aggression as if it truly reflects our identity, not realizing that their cheers are actually the cries of a dying dream of the Constitutional Republic once known as the United States of America.

Today, what was once a dream has turned into a nightmare. The remnants of democratic freedoms we valued have been overshadowed by a display of narcissism. Donald Trump, resembling a modern Caligula, has become a charismatic cult figure. He has transformed the American democratic experiment—built on the rule of law—into an open-air arena. In this arena, might rules over right, strength replaces reason, and citizens are replaced by gladiators. These gladiators are driven to fight and kill, pleasing their demented rulers.

Let me be as clear as possible—supporting any actions by Donald Trump (whom I refuse to call President, as that implies adherence to democratic norms and constitutional safeguards that are no longer present in America) concerning Venezuela makes you part of the problem, not the solution. There is nothing about the US's past, present, or planned policies towards Venezuela that can be considered legitimate.

I take a moment to remind my fellow Americans that the United States has signed the United Nations Charter, and it was ratified by the Senate, making it part of the law under the U.S. Constitution. According to Article II, Clause 2, the President has the authority to make treaties with the Senate's advice and consent, requiring two-thirds of the Senators present to agree.

Chief Justice John Marshall

Chief Justice Marshall, in 1829, explained that a treaty is fundamentally a contract between two nations, not a legislative act. Typically, it does not automatically achieve its objectives on its own, especially when its effects are outside territorial boundaries. Instead, it is implemented through the sovereign power of the involved parties. In the U.S., however, a different principle applies: our constitution states that a treaty is the law of the land, making it comparable to an act of the legislature in courts, provided it has direct effect without any legislative action. When a treaty stipulates a specific obligation—like one party promising to perform a certain act—it is directed at the political branch. The legislature must carry out the contract before it can serve as a rule in court.

Justice Samuel Freeman Miller, in his 1884 opinion, elaborated that “A treaty is mainly an agreement between sovereign nations, relying on the integrity and interests of the involved governments to enforce its terms. If these are breached, the matter becomes a matter of international dispute and negotiation, potentially resulting in war to uphold it. Judicial courts have no role in this process."

A treaty may also grant private rights to citizens or subjects of the contracting nations that can be enforced in courts of law. When these rights are involved in legal cases, they serve as grounds for decisions. The U.S. Constitution states that once a treaty is in effect, it becomes part of the supreme law of the land, applying in all courts where such rights are disputed.

However, regarding treaty provisions that can be reviewed by the country's courts, they are subject to the actions Congress may take to enforce, modify, or repeal them.

Four points emerge from these decisions.

First and foremost, a treaty is the supreme law of the land. While a treaty is in force, it has the same weight as all other laws of the land.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio

Remember this next time you hear Secretary of State Marco Rubio or any other Trump administration member dismiss the United Nations or international law based on the UN Charter. Doing so undermines the very Constitution they pledged to defend. Such remarks insult America and all Americans because, last I checked, we remain signatories to the UN Charter, and Senate ratification still stands. Therefore, the Charter is the supreme law of the land here in the U.S., equal to our rights to free speech and gun ownership.

Second, A treaty's enforcement largely depends on the “honor and interest” of the government. Since implementing treaties typically falls under executive responsibilities, the durability of any treaty relationship relies on the integrity and interests of the President of the United States. Historically, Presidents understand the weight of their office and act accordingly, recognizing that they are temporary custodians of a position granted by the Constitution. Their duty to uphold the office's integrity and the nation's interests always takes precedence over personal desires. A President should avoid actions that diminish the office and should act in ways that maintain its dignity and protect the country.

Honor and interest.

Honorable conduct involves following what is right or a conventional standard of behavior, and fulfilling obligations or keeping agreements.

President Donald Trump

Donald Trump cannot act with honor because he does not respect any law, obligation, or agreement.

Interest is typically measured by the advantage or benefit gained by an individual or group. For a President of the United States, the only interest that matters is that of the nation as a whole. Personal interests have no place in state affairs.

Donald Trump, reflecting his highly narcissistic nature, acts solely when his personal interests—whether political or financial—are threatened. He has prioritized his own ego over the nation's well-being, transforming the dignity of the presidency into a troubling cult of personality.

Under Donald Trump, America has lacked the ability to act with honor or prioritize the nation's best interests.

Third, any treaty or other national obligation that attains the status of supreme law of the land can only be modified or nullified through legislation, specifically by the United States Congress, which must establish procedures for treaties to be enforced, changed, or repealed. In essence, neither the Executive nor the Judicial branches has the authority to interpret treaty obligations of the United States. This power exclusively resides with the legislative branch, which, in Venezuela, has been largely inactive. It has not only failed to fulfill its constitutional duty to authorize the use of military force but has also rendered itself ineffective with respect to treaty obligations.

Void of any meaningful action on the part of Congress (and none has been forthcoming), the Executive Branch has virtual carte blanche when it comes to military action and other executive branch activities related to such.

Here’s the kicker … without legislative action, the courts lack jurisdiction over treaty obligations.

None.

There is no judicial recognition of treaty obligations, which are the highest law of the land, unless Congress enacts legislation that explicitly affects these obligations as a matter of law.

Congress has not done so with respect to the UN Charter.

The United States unlawfully abducted the leader of a sovereign nation, violating the United Nations Charter. Article 2(4) states that:

“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

Under international law, the United States has no legal authority to arrest a sovereign nation's leader unless there is a recognized self-defense claim under Article 51 of the UN Charter—something the US has not claimed—or a UN Security Council resolution under Chapter VII, which is absent.

In summary, the United States has no legal authority over Nicolas Maduro or his wife, as both were unlawfully taken from their Caracas home by US Special Operations forces.

Please continue reading...

TRUMP IN VENEZUELA: GEOPOLITICS AND THE RETURN TO FORGOTTEN REALITIES

Nicolas Gauthier dissects the muted reactions in France and Europe to the bold US military intervention in Venezuela, questioning whether ideals like international law still hold weight in a world where brute force and strategic interests reign supreme.

By Nicolas Gauthier
ARKTOS JOURNAL
8 JANUARY, 2026

“I felt like I was watching a television series,” Donald Trump reportedly said while watching the American mission in Venezuela unfold live.

Now that the media frenzy has died down, it is time to take stock of the situation.

Translated by Alexander Raynor

Reactions in France and Europe are mostly superficial, except for La France Insoumise, which opposes, and Italy's Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who supports. Other leaders condemn this breach of international law, but their outrage seems symbolic. Dominique de Villepin’s 2003 UN speech, defending Europe's honor, didn’t stop the US invasion of Iraq, which had serious consequences.

Words only matter when backed by power—arms. Villepin’s voice was heard; Trump’s is heeded. That’s the key difference.

Don’t confuse Maduro with Chávez

Many overlook a key difference: Nicolás Maduro is not Hugo Chávez. Chávez was a charismatic populist and a builder who aimed to free Venezuela from oil rent monopolized by oligarchies, diversify the economy, and fight poverty. His efforts echo those of Simón Bolívar, who, after rebelling against Spain, also rejected American influence—representing a third way.

Maduro’s path has been different. Coming from Caracas's petty bourgeoisie, he joined the Marxist Socialist League early, initially working as a bodyguard before training in Cuba at a Communist Party school. He's an apparatchik lacking stature and disconnected from the people, likely fueling his authoritarian tendencies, which alienated his predecessor. For example, in *Que la bête meure*, SAS novel, Gérard de Villiers shows how the CIA protected Chávez from assassination attempts by Venezuela’s upper class—white, of course—who saw him as a half-indigenous communist. At the time, the White House considered him a manageable autocrat.

Clearly, those days are behind us.

The persistence of the Monroe Doctrine

Some colleagues are surprised by this show of force. More informed ones cite the 1823 Monroe Doctrine, established by President James Monroe, which declared the southern half of the Americas Washington’s exclusive sphere. While governments have evolved, both Democrats and Republicans have upheld this doctrine—sometimes gently, often forcefully. In 1901, the US occupied Cuba soon after its independence from Madrid, replacing one ruler with another. The 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, where the CIA tried to oust Fidel Castro—who overthrew Fulgencio Batista, installed by the White House—serves as a reminder. Along with many coups by American intelligence in Latin America, two other missions foreshadow the current situation in Venezuela.

In 1983, during Reagan’s first term, US special forces parachuted into Grenada, whose government—led by a revolutionary military council—leaned toward the Castro regime. Though it wasn’t the age of prestige TV yet, the Hollywood flair of the operation inspired Clint Eastwood to direct his film Heartbreak Ridge (1986). In 1989, George Bush invaded Panama and kidnapped its president, Manuel Noriega, then a quasi-official CIA asset and drug trafficker. In 1992, he was sentenced to 40 years in prison.

In short, there is nothing truly new under the sun. Powerful nations impose their will on weaker ones. What was Françafrique, if not a pattern of coups replacing troublesome leaders with controllable figures? In the past, there was some pretense, even if hypocritical.

Donald Trump doesn't bother with politeness; he states his intentions and follows through. In contrast, Woodrow Wilson, US president from 1913 to 1921 and founder of the League of Nations, aimed to end wars but failed to prevent conflicts. In 1914, Wilson’s ideals didn’t stop him from invading Mexico, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic to protect American interests. Despite this, he supported the Ku Klux Klan and created Prohibition.

Here's to you, Woodrow...

France’s diplomatic vanishing act

There are two kinds of autocrats: those who embrace it and those who preach morality while doing so. It's better to choose the former. Donald Trump exemplifies this, like Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. Some might prefer Bernard Kouchner; bad taste is universal.

European institutions believe passing a law against war can prevent it, but war follows its own laws, often ruled by the strongest. Diplomacy's strength historically lay in avoiding war through practical interests, not in morality or good versus evil. The Ukraine war might have been avoided if France's Quai d’Orsay had been less influenced by neocon policies and American pressure. Ultimately, the US pushed Russia into conflict, similar to their role in Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

The US strategy in Venezuela is unique; Trump stated American troops are there to profit from local oil, showing rare honesty. Greenland could also be a focus. Despite his tough exterior, Trump researched historical offers; the US proposed buying Greenland from Denmark in 1867, 1946 under Truman, and 2019 during his presidency. Though opinions vary, Trump’s actions are consistent and reflect long-term policies.

Proponents of the international order argue that Trump's actions in Venezuela justify Putin's in Ukraine or what Xi might do in Taiwan. They have a point. However, Trump no longer justifies himself, and Xi probably won’t either—since he views Taiwan as essential to China, aligning with "international law.”

And what about domestic policy?

Donald Trump was re-elected mainly to focus on domestic issues. This frustrates parts of his MAGA base, especially the isolationist faction, who question actions like bombing Iran for Israel or invading Venezuela — or possibly Cuba or Colombia soon. Even if these strikes succeed, what are the next steps? Arab and South American voters know guerrilla warfare, which could become an electoral challenge, especially since the Hispanic vote that helped him win in 2025 might cost him in midterms. Playing with risky moves can backfire. Meanwhile, Brussels technocrats seem unaffected, not seeing that their "new international order”—a façade of organized chaos—is just hypocrisy, with reality reasserting itself. Perhaps it never faded from memory. The past always has a future.

Originally published on Éléments on January 6th, 2026

MAX BLUMENTHAL | ‘THERE WAS NO REGIME CHANGE’ -VENEZUELA’S EX-FM JORGE ARREAZA ON US KIDNAPPING RAID

An exclusive interview with President Nicolas Maduro's former Foreign Minister on the shocking January 3 US raid on Caracas, and where Venezuela goes now that its leader is abducted.

Watch the Video Here (37 Minutes, 11 Seconds)

By Max Blumenthal
The Grayzone
8 January 2026

In an interview with The Grayzone, Venezuela’s ex-Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza discusses the January 3 US military raid on Caracas, which kidnapped President Maduro and First Lady Flores, causing up to 100 deaths.

Arreaza claims the operation broke international law, the US Constitution, and head-of-state immunity, calling it “barbaric.” He states Maduro and Flores were in a secure location, protected by guards who “gave their lives,” but US technology made resistance futile. He dismisses rumors of betrayal as psychological warfare, affirming that the military and Chavista leadership are united.

Arreaza explains that "there was no regime change," as Vice President Delcy Rodríguez took over, and the government continues normal functions, with schools open, oil production ongoing, and order maintained. He highlights this stability as proof of Chavismo’s strength and support, warning Venezuela could face civil war or collapse like Libya without it.

He depicts Acting President Rodríguez as a loyal leader and emphasizes the goal of securing the release of Maduro and Flores through legal action in U.S. courts, citing Maduro’s immunity. Arreaza condemns Trump's threats but states Venezuela is open to negotiations based on sovereignty, law, and respect, framing the broader struggle as a historic conflict between US dominance and Latin America’s independence rooted in Bolivarian ideals.

AFTER MADURO, MIGHT MAKES RIGHT

Alexander Dugin claims that the US attack on Venezuela and the kidnapping of Maduro were intentionally staged as political theater or a 'meme' to showcase Trump’s aggressive and swift approach.
This move signals the apparent end of international-law norms, emphasizing raw power and forcing other nations to demonstrate their sovereignty through strength.

By Alexander Dugin

Arktos Journal
7 January 2026

Trump Sets the New Terms of Sovereignty

Radio Sputnik, Escalation Host: The most discussed topic so far in 2026 has been the United States' swift actions, including their military operation in Venezuela and the kidnapping of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro. You recently wrote a comprehensive article about the emergence of a new world order. My question is: why did Trump and the US choose to escalate the situation so dramatically at the very start of 2026?

Alexander Dugin suggests that the timing of this operation aligns with Trump’s meme-driven approach to politics. The way the operation was executed—through filmed clips and Maduro's transport in New York—serves as a form of advertising. It functions as a frightening commercial, strategically released during the Christmas and New Year holidays to demonstrate that Trump’s new policy will be characterized by toughness, decisiveness, speed, victory, boldness, and a strong assertion of sovereignty.

The timing is deliberate: it occurs when ordinary Americans' minds are least burdened by daily worries. During this window, a spectacle unfolds for a wholly as-if-‘idiotized” crowd through advertising memes, clips, and musical snippets, turning reality into a performance element. This is the New Year’s show of powerful Trump, who defeats enemies and wins wars in a single day. Naturally, it also sends a message to us: ‘I fixed all my backyard problems in a day, while you’ve been grappling for four years.’ This message aims to send clear, sharp, and unequivocal signals amid new information policies. We witness a blend of reality, AI, clips, fakes, and deepfakes, all converging to deliver a single, crucial message.

If we look beyond the surface of show business, which itself warrants serious scrutiny, we can identify new warfare principles. The role of information support and the entertainment industry behind it is crucial. The staged footage of helicopters appears striking, but soldiers from Donbass have noted that if such slow-moving targets truly appeared, they would be quickly shot down by FPV drones—unlikely to last more than a minute. Yet, these images are colorful and persistent. Perhaps they weren’t real flights but AI-generated, but the informational impact is significant. This isn’t something to dismiss or dismiss lightly — it's essential to acknowledge that this is the reality we inhabit today. That’s the extent of the presentation.

Now, to get to the core of the issue: Trump has effectively dismantled international law. This is very serious. My article focuses less on the specifics of how this happened and more on what has actually transpired in the initial days of the New Year. What are the implications of Trump’s invasion of Venezuela, without any legitimate cause? What does the kidnapping of a sovereign country's president signify? Similar to barbarian kingdoms of old, Maduro was brought in and displayed through the streets of New York as a prisoner for public spectacle.

Many observe that this resembles Rome during its decline. In ancient times, prisoners often faced stones, but here they are subjected to insults and threats of death or multiple life sentences. Essentially, it's the same idea: a defeated enemy is displayed in a cage for public entertainment.

What does all this signify? Beneath this carefully staged informational display lies a serious reality: international law has effectively ceased to exist. Appeals to the UN, requesting the West to heed violations of principles, agreements, or laws that contradict their true intent—these efforts are now entirely ineffective. Only superficial, meaningless PR can serve these purposes. Recognizing this as mere entertainment, akin to a festive concert or a ritualistic mourning by Egyptian mourners, allows us to present examples of attacks or drone attempts on our leader to the UN. The reaction might be, 'They tried, and that’s enough: if they failed to kill him, good; if they succeeded, so be it—perhaps we pushed them away.' The notion that certain norms and rules can be negotiated should be discarded forever. International law no longer exists.

There is only the law of force.

Please continue reading …

CHAS FREEMAN: COLLAPSE OF LAW, REASON & RETURN TO WAR

Ambassador Chas Freeman discusses the breakdown of international law and reason, and the subsequent return of great-power wars.

Watch the Video Here (53 Minutes, 52 Seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
7 October 2025

Ambassador Freeman previously served as an Assistant Secretary of Defense, receiving top public service awards from the Department of Defense for his work in developing a NATO-focused European security system after the Cold War and for reestablishing defense and military ties with China.

He also served as the U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Additionally, he served as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs during the historic U.S. efforts to mediate Namibia's independence from South Africa and the Cuban troop withdrawal from Angola.

JORGE HEINE: DONROE DOCTRINE - SUBVERSION OF LATIN AMERICA

Jorge Heine is a former Chilean ambassador to China, India, and South Africa, and currently a non-resident fellow at the Quincy Institute.

Watch the Video Here (41 Minutes, 10 Seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
8 January 2026

Prof. Glenn Diesen and Amb Jorge Heine examine how U.S. policies in Venezuela influence America's reputation, portraying it as unpredictable compared to China's consistent approach. The speakers suggest that U.S. strength may reflect weakness and decline, with lasting regional impacts. They advocate for "active non-alignment" as a viable strategy amid global turbulence.

The discussion highlights how modern international relations scrutinize established power structures. The U.S. intervention in Venezuela shows its impact on credibility and perceptions. The trend toward active non-alignment indicates nations prefer pragmatic diplomacy over strict alliances.

In particular, countries in the Global South must navigate international pressures carefully to preserve their independence. Embracing active non-alignment helps safeguard interests, maintain diplomatic flexibility, and avoid conflicts among great powers. This strategy strengthens sovereignty and promotes active engagement in a rapidly changing global landscape.

BUILDING THE BRIDGE! | A WAY TO GET TO KNOW THE OTHER AND ONE ANOTHER

Making a Difference – The Means, Methods, and Mechanisms for Many to Move Mountains

Photo Credit: Abraham A. van Kempen, our home away from home on the Dead Sea

By Abraham A. van Kempen
Senior Editor
Updated 19 January 2024

Those who commit to 'healing our broken humanity' build intercultural bridges to learn to know and understand one another and others. Readers who thumb through the Building the Bridge (BTB) pages are not mindless sheep following other mindless sheep. They THINK. They want to be at the forefront of making a difference. They're seeking the bigger picture to expand their horizons. They don't need BTB or anyone else to confirm their biases.

Making a Difference – The Means, Methods, and Mechanisms for Many to Move Mountains

Accurate knowledge fosters understanding, dispels prejudice, and sparks a desire to learn more about the subject. Words have an extraordinary power to bring people together, divide them, forge bonds of friendship, or provoke hostility. Modern technology offers unprecedented possibilities for good, fostering harmony and reconciliation. Yet, its misuse can cause untold harm, leading to misunderstandings, prejudices, and conflicts.

Continue reading

A Free Trial for Life – SUBSCRIBE NOW!

• It's quick and straightforward.

• We won’t ask for your credit card number.

• Just enter your e-mail address to receive your complimentary free-for-life subscription to our newsletter.

• Please include your First and Last Name.

• We won’t share or sell your e-mail address.

_________________________

Related Articles Recently Posted on www.buildingthebridgefoundation.com:

OUR FRIDAY NEWS ANALYSIS

OUR WEDNESDAY NEWS ANALYSIS

OUR MONDAY EDITION

________________________