Provider of in-depth & balanced analysis on hot issues around the world

The Foreign Policy of the United States in Latin America continues to be influenced by a doctrine that, although formulated in the 19th century, still resonates in the geopolitical dynamics of the 21st century, albeit with a Trump-style update. This adaptation of Trump to the Monroe Doctrine — hereinafter the Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine or simply the Donroe Doctrine — while maintaining its origin, now describes the perception of the second Trump administration's desire to reaffirm U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere, specifically in the Americas, not only against European intervention — as it was originally — but against any power that is neither the United States nor native to the region. These ideas were captured in the new U.S. National Security Strategy of 2025. Since its formulation, this principle has been reinterpreted and used to justify military interventions and actions in Latin America, often under the premise of defending "democracy" or confronting the threat of regimes considered authoritarian or ideological enemies. In this context, recent events — the surgical military operation and subsequent capture of Maduro in Caracas in January 2026 — demonstrate the relevance of this modern reinterpretation of the Donroe Doctrine. What’s more, it opens the door to new scenarios and tensions with other countries in the region such as Cuba or Mexico. Recent statements about the possibility of military interventions in Cuba and Mexico, along with the reconfiguration of international relations in countries like Colombia, highlight how geopolitical dynamics in Latin America are influenced by a mix of historical factors and new economic and political realities. The Case of Mexico: The Precariousness of Peace and National Security Mexico, a key actor in Latin America, has been at the center of various international debates due to its proximity to the United States and its role as a regional leader. However, violence and drug trafficking have been chronic problems that have deeply affected the country’s internal security and stability. Since Trump returned to the presidency, he has frequently declared the possibility of U.S. military interventions on Mexican soil, under the pretext of drug trafficking, primarily fentanyl, which enters the United States through its southern border. The rhetoric that has emerged from some political sectors in the United States, particularly from conservative figures, has suggested direct intervention in Mexico to combat drug trafficking and organized crime. These proposals arise in a context of increasing violence related to drug cartels, a rise in murders and kidnappings, and the inability of Mexican security forces to contain this phenomenon. This same rhetoric even claims that Mexico is “governed by narcos,” prompting Trump to mention that “we have to do something” about it, following the Venezuela situation. However, the possibility of foreign military intervention in Mexico raises a series of complex geopolitical questions. Since the signing of the USMCA, Mexico has sought to balance its relations with the United States and has been a close ally, particularly regarding trade and cooperation on security issues. However, the autonomy of its foreign policy and its ability to handle its internal problems have always been central to Mexican diplomacy. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has repeatedly emphasized that Mexico’s sovereignty and independence are non-negotiable and that Mexico “doesn’t need anyone from the outside,” while stressing that the relationship with the United States must be based on collaboration and respect for national sovereignty, not subordination. Her stance is a clear message of rejection for any attempt at foreign military intervention on Mexican soil. Therefore, the possibility of an attack of this nature could have negative repercussions on the international image of the United States, particularly in the context of bilateral cooperation that both countries need to face shared challenges like climate change and migration crises. On a regional level, the possibility of military intervention in Mexico could also have effects on Latin American diplomacy. Countries like Colombia, Brazil, and other members of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) might view an increase in U.S. intervention in the region with concern. However, in terms of internal security, the debate over the use of force in Mexico is likely to remain more of an internal political issue and a battle against organized crime rather than an event that leads to large-scale armed conflict. The Case of Cuba: The Rebirth of the Cold War? It is well known that relations between Washington and Havana have not been optimal since the victory of the Cuban Revolution in 1959. Although there were rapprochements during the Obama administration (2015), the U.S. embargo and pressure on the island have remained constants in recent years. After the capture of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela and recent statements about the possibility of direct military intervention — Trump recently refrained from referring to intervention, saying Cuba was "about to fall" — tensions escalated on the island. The accusations against Cuba are related to its support for authoritarian regimes in Latin America and its closeness to actors like Russia and China, as well as a memorandum — signed in June 2025 — to harden U.S. policy towards Cuba, which includes prohibiting direct or indirect financial transactions and reinforcing the ban on tourism to the island, among other economic measures. The Cuban government, led by Miguel Díaz-Canel, has firmly responded to these threats, recalling decades of resistance to the embargo and U.S. regime-change policies. For Cuba, any attempt at military intervention would not only be a violation of its sovereignty but also a return to an era of direct confrontation with the global superpower. From a geopolitical perspective, Cuba remains a stronghold of political influence in the Caribbean, which grants it a key role in regional security. On the other hand, the island also faces a deep economic and energy crisis, leading to a massive exodus of Cubans to the United States and other countries. While Venezuela, like Mexico, has become a major supplier of oil for the Cuban regime, the crisis is so profound that the oil is insufficient. Moreover, Cuba ended 2025 with an annual inflation rate of 14.07%. Finally, the fall of Maduro's regime and the “alignment” of the new government of Delcy Rodríguez — under threat — with the United States is a rather unfavorable scenario for Díaz-Canel’s regime. Maduro's Venezuela provided oil and was an economic source for the Caribbean state. However, it seems that with Venezuela's new alignment, Cuba's prolonged internal economic crisis, and the endless U.S. embargo, it’s only a matter of time before Miguel Díaz-Canel is completely suffocated. Trump himself, via Truth Social, suggested — in his style — that Cuba “reach an agreement before it’s too late.” Hours later, Trump claimed that “he is talking to Cuba.” The Case of Greenland: The Race for Arctic Resources Greenland, a strategic island with abundant mineral resources and critical metals, has also become a global geopolitical focal point. Its location in the Arctic and the opening of new maritime routes due to melting ice make it relevant both for the economy and for international security. The United States has shown particular interest, considering the island a key point for regional surveillance and defense, as well as access to strategic minerals for technology and the energy transition. Following the Donroe Doctrine, President Trump has been explicit in his statements about Greenland, claiming that the United States will do something to "control" the island, "by fair means or foul." Obviously, these statements have raised international alarm and speculation about potential scenarios, ranging from economic and defense cooperation agreements with Denmark and the Greenlandic autonomous government to more direct actions to secure critical infrastructure. This has led to dissatisfaction and concern primarily from Denmark, the European Union, and NATO members themselves, who have even questioned the continuity of NATO. U.S. interest is not new; there have been several attempts of all kinds to take control of the island in the past. However, the current context of growing global competition is worrying, as it is not only the United States; China and Russia are also seeking a presence in the Arctic, though mainly with economic and scientific approaches. Trump's rhetoric reflects how Greenland's strategic resources and geopolitical position have become a point of friction among powers, forcing Denmark and Greenland to reinforce their diplomacy and seek a balance between foreign investment and territorial sovereignty. In this case, diplomacy has been prioritized. Denmark has requested a meeting with Marco Rubio, the U.S. Secretary of State, and both Danish and Greenlandic officials have expressed their rejection of both a purchase and military intervention. It is important to highlight that Greenland has active agreements with the United States regarding national security and mineral extraction, so the meeting with U.S. officials could simply reaffirm and highlight these agreements. However, the argument and "need" or "desire" of Trump for the island will continue to cause concern for the Danes, Greenlanders, and the world in general. The Case of Colombia: De-escalation of Tension and the Future Petro-Trump Meeting The relationship between Colombia and the United States, traditionally one of the strongest alliances in Latin America, entered one of its worst crises in decades with the beginning of Donald Trump's second term. What began as diplomatic tensions over immigration policies and deportations quickly escalated into public accusations, sanctions, and open threats of military intervention. The turning point came when Trump accused Colombian President Gustavo Petro — a former guerrilla fighter and the country’s first left-wing leader — of allowing the proliferation of drug trafficking. At various points, Trump even called him “a sick man” and “a co-conspirator in drug trafficking,” rhetorically linking him to organized crime without clear judicial evidence. This rhetoric led to concrete actions, including U.S. sanctions against Colombian officials, revocation of diplomatic visas, and suspension of intelligence cooperation on security matters. These tensions triggered a strong internal response in Colombia: mass protests, Petro’s calls to defend national sovereignty, and debates about the possible violation of the principles of non-intervention and respect for international law. Even the Colombian government stated that its military should be prepared to defend the country in the event of a hypothetical foreign military action, underscoring the confrontational climate generated by the regional threats. In this extreme context of tension, a phone call between Trump and Petro on January 7, 2026, following the capture of Maduro, marked a significant turning point. After months of cross accusations, the two leaders spoke for over an hour to discuss issues such as drug trafficking and other bilateral disagreements. Trump called the call “a great honor” and expressed that he valued the tone of the conversation, while Petro, after the dialogue, spoke to his followers in Bogotá, emphasizing the importance of resuming diplomatic talks and avoiding further escalation. Colombian officials, such as Ambassador García Peña, described the exchange as an opportunity to ease tensions and strengthen cooperation, especially in the fight against drugs — an area that has historically been central in the relations between the two countries. The conversation also paved the way for a future meeting at the White House, which both Bogotá and Washington view as a step toward normalizing relations after months of confrontation. Although the specific issues to be discussed and the date of the meeting were still pending confirmation, this represented an important de-escalation between the two countries. Conclusion This article provides a comprehensive analysis of how the Donroe Doctrine, an adaptation of the Monroe Doctrine during Trump's second term, has shaped U.S. foreign policy in Latin America. It highlights how this modern interpretation, while rooted in a historical context, is driving interventions in the region with a focus on reaffirming U.S. dominance. By exploring the potential military interventions in countries like Cuba, Mexico, and Colombia, it demonstrates the continuation of U.S. interventionist trends, now with particular emphasis on national security concerns such as drug trafficking, authoritarian regimes, and geopolitical interests. The article also discusses the specific challenges each country faces in responding to these pressures, from Cuba's historical resistance to U.S. policies to Mexico's firm stance on its sovereignty. In conclusion, the article paints a picture of a geopolitically tense and increasingly fragmented Latin America, where the United States is exerting pressure both directly and indirectly. While regional dynamics suggest that the Donroe Doctrine could lead to greater instability and conflict, it is also clear that Latin American countries are seeking to assert their sovereignty and balance their relationships with both the United States and other global powers. As countries like Colombia and Mexico try to manage these tensions, there remains a delicate balance between cooperation and resistance, with both local and international consequences that will shape the future of U.S.-Latin American relations. The trajectory of these relations will likely depend on how these nations navigate sovereignty, security, and the evolving global order. References Ámbito. (11 de Enero de 2026). Donald Trump va por la intervención de EEUU en Cuba: "Que llegue a un acuerdo antes de que sea demasiado tarde". Obtenido de Ámbito: https://www.ambito.com/mundo/donald-trump-va-la-intervencion-eeuu-cuba-ya-no-tiene-mas-petroleo-ni-dinero-venezuela-n6232907 Atwood, K., & Bertrand, N. (08 de Enero de 2026). Diplomáticos de Groenlandia y Dinamarca se reunieron con funcionarios de la Casa Blanca mientras Trump impulsa la adquisición. Obtenido de CNN: https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2026/01/08/eeuu/diplomaticos-groenlandia-dinamarca-reunion-casa-blanca-trax Bassets, M. (11 de Enero de 2026). “Por las buenas o por las malas”: así puede Trump conquistar Groenlandia. Obtenido de El País: https://elpais.com/internacional/2026-01-10/por-las-buenas-o-por-las-malas-asi-puede-trump-conquistar-groenlandia.html Beth Sheridan, M. (09 de Enero de 2026). Trump quiere que México ‘elimine a los cárteles’. Estas son las razones por las que eso es tan difícil. Obtenido de CNN: https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2026/01/09/mexico/trump-eliminar-cartales-mexico-complejo-sheinbaum-orix Blanco, U. (09 de Enero de 2026). Un año de relaciones entre Trump y Petro: de las amenazas y el odio a una llamada de teléfono y la distensión. Obtenido de CNN: https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2026/01/09/colombia/trump-petro-amenazas-tension-llamada-orix Cubanet. (11 de Enero de 2026). Donald Trump: “Se está hablando con Cuba”. Obtenido de Cubanet: https://www.cubanet.org/trump-afirma-que-ya-se-esta-hablando-con-cuba/ DW. (19 de February de 2025). Trump dice que México está "gobernado por los carteles". Obtenido de DW: https://www.dw.com/es/trump-dice-que-m%C3%A9xico-est%C3%A1-gobernado-por-los-carteles/a-71666187 Fouda, M. (11 de Enero de 2026). Trump lanza un ultimátum a Cuba: "No habrá más petróleo ni dinero de Venezuela". Obtenido de Euro News: https://es.euronews.com/2026/01/11/trump-ultimatum-cuba-petroleo-dinero-venezuela France 24. (11 de Enero de 2026). Trump dice a Cuba que alcance "un acuerdo, antes de que sea demasiado tarde". Obtenido de France 24: https://www.france24.com/es/minuto-a-minuto/20260111-trump-dice-a-cuba-que-alcance-un-acuerdo-antes-de-que-sea-demasiado-tarde Hernando, C. (08 de Enero de 2026). ¿Va Trump a invadir Groenlandia? Cuatro escenarios sobre el futuro de la isla. Obtenido de El Orden Mundial: https://elordenmundial.com/trump-invadir-groenlandia-cuatro-escenarios/ Infobae. (12 de Enero de 2026). Donald Trump advirtió que EEUU controlará Groenlandia “de una forma u otra”. Obtenido de Infobae: https://www.infobae.com/estados-unidos/2026/01/12/donald-trump-advirtio-que-eeuu-controlara-groenlandia-de-una-forma-u-otra/ M., C. M. (06 de Enero de 2026). ‘En México resolvemos los mexicanos’: Sheinbaum frena intervención extranjera. Obtenido de Vanguardia MX: https://vanguardia.com.mx/noticias/en-mexico-resolvemos-los-mexicanos-sheinbaum-frena-intervencion-extranjera-GF18846312 Martínez, M. (05 de Enero de 2026). MÉXICO ESTÁ GOBERNADO POR EL NARCO: ACUSA DONALD TRUMP Y AMENAZA CON ACCIONES TERRESTRES CONTRA CÁRTELES. Obtenido de Péndulo Informativo: https://www.penduloinformativo.com/%F0%9F%87%BA%F0%9F%87%B2%F0%9F%87%B2%F0%9F%87%BDimportante-mexico-esta-gobernado-por-el-narco-acusa-donald-trump-y-amenaza-con-acciones-terrestres-contra-carteles/ Medina, D. A. (10 de Enero de 2026). Sheinbaum: La independencia y la soberanía no se negocian. Obtenido de Imer Noticias: https://noticias.imer.mx/blog/sheinbaum-afirmo-que-la-independencia-y-la-soberania-no-se-negocian-asevero-que-mexico-y-eu-son-paises-iguales-y-no-hay-subordinacion/ Milenio. (03 de Enero de 2026). Trump dice que habrá que hacer algo con México al hablar sobre cárteles de la droga. Obtenido de Milenio: https://www.milenio.com/internacional/trump-reaviva-tension-con-mexico-narcotrafico-controla-al-pais Peralta, P. (06 de Enero de 2026). De aliados a enemigos: crece la distancia en la relación entre Colombia y Estados Unidos. Obtenido de France 24: https://www.france24.com/es/am%C3%A9rica-latina/20260105-de-aliados-a-enemigos-crece-la-distancia-en-la-relaci%C3%B3n-entre-colombia-y-estados-unidos Ronald, I. (06 de Enero de 2026). ¿Por qué Trump quiere Groenlandia y por qué es tan importante? Obtenido de CNN: https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2026/01/06/mundo/por-que-trump-groenlandia-seguridad-nacional-trax RTVE.es. (10 de Enero de 2026). Trump asegura que Estados Unidos hará "algo" con Groenlandia "por las buenas o por las malas". Obtenido de RTVE.es: https://www.rtve.es/noticias/20260110/trump-asegura-estados-unidos-hara-algo-groenlandia-buenas-por-o-malas/16889356.shtml Sana (Syrian Arab News Agency). (11 de Enero de 2026). Trump insta a Cuba a un acuerdo antes de que sea demasiado tarde. Obtenido de Sana (Syrian Arab News Agency): https://sana.sy/es/world/2288904/ Swissinfo.ch. (08 de Enero de 2026). Trump reitera que el Gobierno cubano «está muy cerca» de caer tras captura de Maduro. Obtenido de swissinfo.ch: https://www.swissinfo.ch/spa/trump-reitera-que-el-gobierno-cubano-%22est%c3%a1-muy-cerca%22-de-caer-tras-captura-de-maduro/90746448 Ventas, L. (19 de Febrero de 2025). El gobierno de Trump designa a los carteles mexicanos y al Tren de Aragua como "organizaciones terroristas": qué significa y qué consecuencias puede tener. Obtenido de BBC News: https://www.bbc.com/mundo/articles/c805kp4eke5o

Europe stands at a precipice. Following the US military operation in Venezuela, President Donald Trump and his close advisers have reiterated that Greenland – currently an autonomous territory of Denmark – will be next. “We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security, and Denmark is not going to be able to do it,” Trump told reporters this week. “Let’s talk about Greenland in 20 days.” The threat is not mere hyperbole. Trump has appointed Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry, who publicly supports US annexation, as special envoy to Greenland. And Katie Miller, wife of top Trump adviser Stephen Miller, recently posted an image of Greenland in US flag colours with the caption “SOON”. These are not random provocations but coordinated pressure tactics against a sovereign territory. Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen responded by saying “That’s enough now. No more pressure. No more insinuations. No more fantasies of annexation.” Danish leaders have warned a US attack on Greenland would signal “the end of NATO” and of post-second world war security. Threats against NATO members (such as Denmark) could also embolden Russia even more and lead to more uncertainty for Europe. So why are European leaders not more forcefully calling out Trump’s threats against Greenland – as well as his government’s shocking intervention in Venezuela? And what’s at stake? Europe’s weak response NATO’s Article 5 commits members to treat an attack on one as an attack on all. If the US were to attack Greenland, Denmark would expect NATO’s collective defence mechanisms to activate against the US. European leaders have been forced to confront a reality they hoped to avoid: the US, NATO’s founding member, may become the alliance’s gravest threat. But so far, the response across the continent to both the Greenland threats and the US’ actions in Venezuela has been feeble and confused. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer admitted he wanted to speak to President Trump before he condemned the attacks, epitomizing Europe’s subordination. A letter signed by the Danish prime minister and the leaders of France, Germany, Spain, the UK, Italy, and Poland, has affirmed only Greenland and Denmark should determine Greenland’s future. The European Union has pledged to defend members’ territorial integrity. But they didn’t articulate any solid counter-threat to Trump’s comments about Greenland. They could, for instance, have reiterated their long-term partnership, the potential collapse of the biggest alliance in human history, or the costs in losing cooperation (both economic and security) with Europe that directly benefits the US. And such vague declarations about Greenland ring hollow when the same governments hesitate to condemn US violations of international law in Venezuela. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said the “legal classification of the US intervention [in Venezuela] is complex” and that Germany needed time to consider this. Such equivocation on the most basic, foundational concept of international law not only signals incredible weakness. It also undermines Europe’s credibility when invoking the “rules-based order” against Russia and its actions in Ukraine, making it near impossible to mobilise Global South support, sustain sanctions coalitions, or claim principled restraint. When European leaders respond so cautiously to the Venezuela operation – stressing respect for international law while avoiding direct criticism of Washington – their principles are exposed as highly selective. Russia benefits Russia understands this dynamic perfectly. Moscow has already characterised US actions as “armed aggression” while pointing to Western hypocrisy. Moscow benefits from this in fundamental ways. First, Western hypocrisy validates Russia’s narrative that international law is merely a tool the powerful use against the weak. The vacillation on condemning US action in Venezuela or threats against fellow NATO members contradicts the European narrative against Putin’s war. Second, NATO’s potential collapse or paralysis would hand Moscow a strategic victory that Russian military power alone has been unable to secure. If the United States annexes Greenland, Denmark would face an existential choice: accept the violation and remain in a compromised NATO or leave an alliance that no longer protects its members. All other members would face the same choice. The NATO alliance cannot function if its members no longer share fundamental values about sovereignty and law. Trump has forced Europe to confront whether it will defend these principles universally or accept a world where might makes right. Appeasement all over again? This moment recalls Europe’s crisis of the Munich agreement. In 1938, Britain and France sacrificed Czechoslovakia’s sovereignty to appease Nazi Germany, excluding Prague from negotiations over its future while negotiating away its territory. Only later would the democratic powers discover that appeasing aggression – however politically convenient at the time – would only invite yet more aggression. Today, Europe faces a parallel dilemma: how to respond when its most powerful ally directly threatens an EU and NATO member state. Europe is edging toward another Munich agreement moment, with concessions dressed up as stability and peace a euphemism for appeasement. The events in the coming weeks will largely determine the very future of Europe. The continent faces a choice between political expediency or rules-based international order built on the prohibition of aggressive war, respect for sovereignty, and collective security. Will its leaders be prepared to confront their own hypocrisy or timidly accept the erosion of the rules they claim to defend?

On January 3, 2026, in a surgical operation in the early hours of the morning, just days after the New Year celebrations, the Delta Force special unit successfully carried out a raid capturing Nicolás Maduro, who had held power uninterruptedly for 13 years. The first images showed him aboard the USS Iwo Jima, being taken to the courts in New York to finally face trial — a scene that, along with the operation itself, will provide Hollywood with material for years to come. We are left to wait and see how long the sentence will take. Beyond the immediate event, the message and worldview it conveys for the rest of the world are far broader and more significant. What happened can be read in multiple ways, beyond the basic explanations of oil, resources, or the threat to the United States. Reality is much more complex, full of twists and intersections that enrich the events. We have an opportunity to see beyond the obvious, to reflect on things even the protagonists themselves may not fully understand. This event invites us, like few others, to reflect on one of the central axes of humanity: power. How is it understood now? How is it interpreted? Is power something one possesses, demonstrates, or enacts? Or perhaps all of the above? We can debate not only these questions but also the legality of Maduro’s overthrow, yet it is also true: what else could have been done? This is where the issue of power comes into play — not only through the act of detention itself, but through the operation designed to remove it. However, underlying this is a fragile topic: the institutions themselves, their weaknesses, and whether they will ever fulfill their function, if they even have one. Both Venezuela and the United States have become central actors in international anarchy, yet the latter, in exercising its power, raises the question of why, while the former is left with the uncertainty of what. Beyond them, one must ask: what happens with the rest? How is the global geopolitical board now positioned? How does this influence other actors, and how does it affect us? Each aspect could merit an in-depth analysis, but the aim of this piece is to open these questions for discussion. To go beyond what happened, to invite thought and debate, and not to let ourselves be swayed by media narratives that seek to extinguish the most human thing we have: our voice. The Trump Corollary: Power and the New Paradigm. U.S. Decisions, “The Why.” Since the end of the First World War, and with greater emphasis after the Second, the United States consolidated its global image not only as a great power but as a defender of democratic ideals. During the Cold War, it dispersed its forces to contain the Soviet Union while always ensuring what once again resonates strongly today: the American hemisphere. Years after that bipolar confrontation, the world shows new arrangements. There is no longer direct rivalry with a single power, but the unipolar dominance of the United States seems to have given way. Are we facing a multipolar reality? Do actors have true autonomy in the continuum of political decisions? It is difficult to answer definitively, but the fact is that the capture of Maduro completely changes these perceptions. It is no secret that Venezuela was a historic target sought after by Donald Trump. Ever since he was first president, he tried through various means to remove Maduro; however, now he has succeeded with a shrewdness and forcefulness he lacked in his prior four years. From this arises the first questions for analysis: Why now? Why Venezuela? The speed of the operation is surprising. It is not just the audacity of the command, but the authority with which it was carried out: without calls for interrogation, freely using the instruments of power at Trump’s disposal. The interpretation centered on oil is the most obvious: the president himself does not hide that between 30 and 50 million barrels will be transported to the U.S. But the background is more complex. Facing weak economic foundations in his administration, volatility with the Federal Reserve, and the spectacular failure of his tariff policy against China, Trump needed a show of authority. In his early days in charge, Donald Trump began threatening various countries with tariff increases until April 2, 2025, the so called “Day of Liberation,” on which he announced dozens of taxes. Whether to negotiate or actually implement them, this proved to be a spectacular failure, far from what Trump believed. Not only did he have to renegotiate most of them without securing concessions or beneficial agreements for the United States — with some simply maintaining the status quo — but his main “rival,” China, ended the year in a stronger position. This made two things clear: commercially, China is at least very difficult to match, and Trump lost authority. This authority — or, more precisely, negotiation power and credibility — was lost on the ground and under the rules of agreements and dynamics we believed would prevail from the American side. What Trump did in Venezuela not only enhances his figure and empowers him, but also shows that his comments on social media (the new form of political communication) are serious. He left both allies and enemies in uncertainty: those who believed in his decline because of tariff issues and those who counted on them, because in order to exercise power, he can go beyond what was thought to be “fantastical” or “crazy.” The warnings to Colombia and its president, Gustavo Petro — who, knowing his position of weakness, has already communicated with the White House — as well as to Mexico — where a ground operation against cartels has already been announced and whose president, Sheinbaum, according to Trump, is worried — or Cuba make this evident. But even more striking is his obsession with Greenland: without directly attacking NATO, he frames it as a matter of hemispheric security. All of this is part of the new dynamic imposed by Trump; the one people fear is him and his persona, positioning himself as the figure that even Russia or China watches closely, understanding that, beyond commerce, they have little real influence in the hemisphere. Trump’s ambition for power blossomed at the beginning of this year, and we do not know if it will end. Ignoring Africa, keeping the Middle East and Europe in view, and knowing that beyond Japan or South Korea there is little he can do, he elevates the American continent. In fact, he speaks of a new Monroe Doctrine, rebranded as the “Donroe,” making clear the question of power: how he exercises it and how he now uses it to construct his own narrative. The “why” behind this desire will likely remain unknown; beyond the good of the United States, we are entering a new reality of leaders who place themselves above all else, like Putin in Russia and Xi Jinping in China: figures who shape the board to their liking. Perhaps the reason is more human than we think, perhaps the most human fear: death. From being a successful businessman to becoming president, in his latest term he seeks to leave a mark in history and thus ensure that he does not “die” in a spiritual sense. Or perhaps it is a unilateral decision made at random; the truth only he will know. It cannot be ignored that this is his last term, and in addition to criticism, he is already experiencing electoral setbacks, as in New York, where Zohran Mamdani of the Democratic Party won as mayor, representing a clear challenge to his use of power. Even political scientist Andrés Malamud argued that the Republican base rejects foreign interventions, so Trump must justify to them that this action will bring a concrete economic benefit. The internal dynamics seemingly unfolding within the party between J.D. Vance and Marco Rubio — the architect of the operation — also invite reflection on how this move is being positioned. Rubio emerges as a prominent figure, enhancing his stature, drawing a parallel to Kissinger during the Cold War. In his analysis of classical realism, Rubio acts similarly in a different world: seeking to centralize instruments to build that sphere of influence and diversify the tools that become the American directives for countries in the Americas. Completely leaving aside institutions or democratic legality — a topic I will address later — Donald Trump demonstrates how, under the new dynamics and the new multipolar order, the old artifice of power must still be maintained. As if following Machiavelli, this move makes one thing clear: what he does is, and will remain, Power. The Venezuelan “What,” the Drift of the Apeiron: What Remains for the Rest of the Hemisphere? That Maduro was a dictator who perpetuated himself in power through fraudulent actions is a fact. Each person will decide whether he was a good ruler for his people or not; despite cases of corruption or political censorship, making a definitive judgment about his governance inevitably leads to confrontation between those who supported his ideology and those who opposed it. Here, what happened left a vacuum in the Chavista apparatus of the ousted leader. Despite the low standard of living endured by Venezuelans, the reality is that Maduro’s certainty — negative as it was from that perspective — was exactly that: certainty. Delcy Rodríguez, who assumes the presidential role, is a strong figure within Chavismo who has held very important positions within the apparatus and was supposed to constitute a solid axis to confront Donald Trump. Contrary to expectations, she now responds to the U.S. as a partner in the so-called stabilization process, or phase one. An equation that becomes mutually beneficial for both the United States and Rodríguez. For his part, Trump cannot be challenged for directly imposing or controlling Venezuela through any of his men; while it is clear that Caracas now aligns with American interests, aside from Maduro’s removal, the names remain the same: the change occurs in the responsibilities and alignment. Rodríguez herself seeks the same as Trump, but from a subordinate position: power. Here, this new arrangement — or the image projected to the world — is demonstrated once again: that in order to ensure one’s continuity, one is capable of anything, including changing historical positions within a party or reinterpreting theories of betrayal. It is also clear that, in the case of the Venezuelan leader, there are no options, as she is already threatened by Trump with worse consequences. Yet it is evident that the entire apparatus that answered to Maduro complies and collaborates without resistance, at least in practice, to maintain their positions. This image reinforces the idea that there are no values or ideals to uphold — only power to wield. For the people, the worst part remains. From Maduro’s perspective, those who suffered under his rule, while confident that he will face some form of punishment, know that he will not be held accountable for the crimes committed in his own country — or at least not judged for them — but rather for what he did against the United States. This leaves, at least symbolically, a form of penalty — not in legal terms — for the Venezuelan people. The internal situation is also unclear: the apparatus has already begun releasing political prisoners, but it is uncertain how this process will continue. The United States has not issued clear directives for the population, only specifying the concessions that must be made to the nation and how the U.S. will now deal with it and with countries it considers hostile. It remains to be seen whether there will be elections, or whether Edmundo González Urrutia or María Corina Machado will respond to those who declare them winners, despite Trump’s dismissal of them. The return of a clear system is far off, and under the decision and judgment of the United States, the question remains: Does the U.S. truly care about Venezuela and its people, in human and institutional terms? Or do they only respond to material interests, regardless of the power figures involved? There is also an unfinished path in terms of the hemisphere. The Donroe Doctrine no longer guarantees the complete freedom and autonomy of countries within the system; they remain at the mercy of their subservience to the United States, or at least to what the U.S. deems necessary. Events like those in Argentina, where Trump himself claimed that Milei’s legislative victory was thanks to him, or Nasry Asfura in Honduras during the presidential elections, demonstrate that, despite minor gestures, the President of the United States is beginning to pull the strings across the Americas. This shift — or turn — toward the right in the Americas is perhaps less a change in mindset than a product of dependency and the condition of being tied to the United States. Countries like Brazil are the main exception: through their links with other multipolar actors (China, Russia, India, as part of BRICS), they secure at least some autonomy and maneuverability in this process of change. Even with unresolved issues like Cuba or the dictatorship in Nicaragua, there remain theoretical aspects of the Donroe Doctrine to clarify: Who does it apply to? Under what cases? What distinguishes it from its predecessor? What can be said with certainty is that the doctrine fluctuates and evolves according to Trump’s decisions, which may be designed to prepare for a confrontation with other global actors, justifying why the Americas do not ally with China and remain aligned with the United States, creating unity under a single mandate and exercising that power. What remains to be seen are the consequences of Trump’s Greenland issue, which sooner or later will become his next international victory. Tensions with Denmark are already difficult to manage, and Europe is unlikely to oppose U.S. decisions. Trump has stated that he will not dismantle NATO by any means, but considers the lack of control over the island a national security risk. With little economic or resource potential, the issue is more symbolic, as previously discussed: the Donroe Doctrine, national security, and Trump’s ambitions, in addition to the strictly geopolitical concerns and the strategic position it would provide in a confrontation with China or Russia. As the latter is the goal closest to the top of the president’s agenda, time will reveal how events unfold. What is certain is that every aspect, which could be analyzed from a particular lens, is conditioned by Trump — by his logic, perspective, and desires — demonstrating the exercise of his power. The International Conception: From the Periphery to the Power From an international perspective, and positioned on the periphery, what best aligns with the world ahead is what Argentine political scientist Carlos Escudé described with his concept of peripheral realism. The parallels with this theory are clear: we see states that set the rules — in this case, the United States for our hemisphere, but also China within its sphere; states that follow the rules, such as countries that align due to Trump’s influence and end up gravitating toward Washington; and rebellious states, like Venezuela, which paid the price. Faced with the new logics introduced by the U.S. president, Escudé provides a theoretical framework to understand the behavior of countries. He shows how we can, even without full freedom (if Latin America ever truly had it), use our autonomy and take advantage of what a great power can offer. Avoiding confrontations and maintaining “close relations” allows us, even under the oversight of being in their hemisphere, to make progress. Accepting our role as a peripheral actor serves as a starting point to build more domestically than internationally, understanding that we lack sufficient autonomy to set new rules of the game. American scholar John Mearsheimer also offers insight into Trump’s stance, which, together with Escudé’s perspective, clarifies the reasoning behind these events in the system’s anarchy. Mearsheimer’s offensive realism makes it clear that Trump’s proposals on national security and hemispheric defense align with the idea that states only seek security, and the only way to achieve it is by having more power than others. This frames Trump’s logic within the dynamics of a multipolar world. The goal pursued by the United States is the same as Mearsheimer describes: to be the regional hegemon. Uncertainty about what other actors can do represents a threat; therefore, security through power is fundamental, and this power is unlimited: the more, the better. These theories, framed within a realist perspective, define the current international system and will likely describe events to come while the Trump administration is in charge and exercising hard power. Soft power actions, while important in various areas, are set aside, as they cannot match what is gained through the use of hard power. While these situations could be analyzed through other lenses, this analysis is centered on the axis of power. How Trump is handling it creates a scenario that, far from idealism, forces us to operate within realist frameworks. This moves us away from idealized global perspectives and confirms that the system, anarchic as always, functions through power relations — and it is precisely these that the President of the United States is targeting. The Meaning of Institutions and the Anticipatory Future Finally, without going into detail — since the topic itself would warrant a full analysis —the role of institutions, both international and democratic, deserves at least a mention. Not only because they form the foundations of what we know as society, but also to reflect on their functionality and effectiveness: are they truly necessary? Should they be modified? On the international side, it is clear that they seem outdated. UN meetings often function merely as spaces for presentations or speeches that lack real results. From its flawed composition to its limited capacity for action, one would not expect years to pass before resolving situations like the recent case in Venezuela. The United States has withdrawn from 66 UN bodies; other countries that do not participate raise the same question: what is the UN really for? Does it need restructuring? How? One might accuse Trump of violating international law regarding the legality of his action, but what can really be said? He addressed a problem in his own way, defending his nation against offenses related to drug trafficking. Which organization could realistically sanction the United States for this move when the UN itself cannot provide solutions to even larger problems? The legality of the act is debatable, but no resolution could realistically be reached; once again, we are left to consider how decisions might be made without producing confrontations in the legal realm, which, rightly or wrongly, operate within the territory of power. Other bodies, such as MERCOSUR — which recently approved its agreement with the European Union after 25 years — demonstrate that essential or basic issues can take decades to resolve. The fragility of NATO regarding Greenland further shows that even in defense organizations, rules are unclear; naturally, interests collide, which has even contributed to conflicts like that between Russia and Ukraine. What remains for these institutions in terms of power and organization if their own interpreters override them? Democracy is also called into question: how can Trump transgress the institutional legal procedures of his country to achieve his goals? Various world leaders celebrate such violations — like Emmanuel Macron, President of France — while supporting Paul Biya’s regime in Cameroon. So, what is truly being defended? What constitutes a dictatorship? What represents a breach of democracy? Rather than speaking strictly of democracy, we could refer to the concept of polyarchy, introduced by American political scientist Robert Dahl. However, even with democracy as an ideal, its meaning loses moral or practical weight when we see that major actions must occur outside institutional channels, and support shifts depending on each actor’s geopolitical convenience. Discussing democracy and international organizations invites broader analyses and alternative proposals, which must go beyond the specific case of Venezuela. But it is worth mentioning them, because they form part of the daily workings of power; although power can override them, these institutions are supposed to act as brakes, yet they lack solid foundations and rely on tools that are themselves imperfect. On the international level, we are left to rethink the role of institutions: do they genuinely act as participants in the system, or are they merely observers with minimal influence? The unfolding of events will show how they develop under the new logics of a multipolar world and how the geopolitical board is configured. Are we witnessing a new paradigm? Should this be understood as an isolated case, or merely as the result of Trump’s actions? Surely Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin also have their national security ambitions. Outcomes like the conflict in Russia and Ukraine, Middle East tensions, and the fragile or developing institutions in Africa are the key areas to monitor this year. What happened in Venezuela demonstrates that international affairs affect us closely; we are not far removed from these events and must attempt to understand them. The new dynamics of power present different scenarios, which we may never fully know, but one thing is clear: despite everything, history and decisions are ultimately grounded in a single reality —power.

Introduction Artificial intelligence has become a critical technology in the 21st century, with applications spanning healthcare, commerce, and scientific research. However, the same algorithms that enable medical diagnostics can guide autonomous weapons, and the same machine learning systems that power recommendation engines can identify military targets. This dual-use nature, where technologies developed for civilian purposes can be repurposed for military applications, has positioned AI as a central element in evolving global security dynamics. The strategic implications are substantial. China views AI as essential for military modernization, with the People's Liberation Army planning to deploy "algorithmic warfare" and "network-centric warfare" capabilities by 2030 (Department of Defense, 2024). Concurrently, military conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza have demonstrated the operational deployment of AI-driven targeting systems. As nations allocate significant resources to military AI development, a critical question emerges: whether the security benefits of dual-use AI technologies can be realized without generating severe humanitarian consequences. The Reversal Commercial Innovation Driving Military Modernization Historically, military research and development drove technological innovation, with civilian applications emerging as secondary benefits, a phenomenon termed "spin-off." The internet, GPS, and microwave ovens all originated in defense laboratories. This dynamic has reversed. Commercially developed technologies now increasingly "spin into" the defense sector, with militaries dependent on technologies initially developed for commercial markets. This reversal carries significant implications for global security. Unlike the Cold War era, when the United States and Soviet Union controlled nuclear weapons development through state programs, AI innovation occurs primarily in private sector companies, technology firms, and university research institutions. Organizations like DARPA influence global emerging technology development, with their projects often establishing benchmarks for research and development efforts worldwide (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, 2024). This diffusion of technological capacity complicates traditional arms control frameworks based on state-controlled military production. The scale of investment is considerable. The U.S. Department of Defense's unclassified AI investments increased from approximately $600 million in 2016 to about $1.8 billion in 2024, with more than 685 active AI projects underway (Defense One, 2024). China's spending may exceed this figure, though exact data remains unavailable due to the opacity of Chinese defense budgeting. Europe is pursuing comparable investments, with the EU committing €1.5 billion to defense-related research and development through initiatives like the European Defence Fund. Dual-Use Applications in Contemporary Warfare AI's military applications span the spectrum of warfare, from strategic planning to tactical execution. Current deployments include: Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR): AI systems process large volumes of sensor data, satellite imagery, and signals intelligence to identify patterns beyond human analytical capacity. In 2024, "China's commercial and academic AI sectors made progress on large language models (LLMs) and LLM-based reasoning models, which has narrowed the performance gap between China's models and the U.S. models currently leading the field," enabling more sophisticated intelligence analysis (Department of Defense, 2024). Autonomous Weapons Systems: Autonomous weapons can identify, track, and engage targets with minimal human oversight. In the Russia-Ukraine war, drones now account for approximately 70-80% of battlefield casualties (Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2025). Ukrainian officials predicted that AI-operated first person view drones could achieve hit rates of around 80%, compared to 30-50% for manually piloted systems (Reuters, 2024). Predictive Maintenance and Logistics: The U.S. Air Force employs AI in its Condition-Based Maintenance Plus program for F-35 fighters, analyzing sensor data to predict system failures before occurrence, reducing downtime and operational costs. Command and Control: AI assists military commanders in processing battlefield information and evaluating options at speeds exceeding human capacity. Project Convergence integrates AI, advanced networking, sensors, and automation across all warfare domains (land, air, sea, cyber, and space) to enable synchronized, real-time decision-making. Cyber Operations: AI powers both offensive and defensive cyber capabilities, from automated vulnerability discovery to malware detection and sophisticated social engineering campaigns. Gaza and Ukraine: AI in Contemporary Conflict Recent conflicts have provided operational demonstrations of AI's military applications and associated humanitarian costs. Israel's Lavender system reportedly identified up to 37,000 potential Hamas-linked targets, with sources claiming error rates near 10 percent (972 Magazine, 2024). An Israeli intelligence officer stated that "the IDF bombed targets in homes without hesitation, as a first option. It's much easier to bomb a family's home" (972 Magazine, 2024). The system accelerated airstrikes but also contributed to civilian casualties, raising questions about algorithmic accountability. The system's design involved explicit tradeoffs: prioritizing speed and scale over accuracy. According to sources interviewed by 972 Magazine, the army authorized the killing of up to 15 or 20 civilians for every junior Hamas operative that Lavender marked, while in some cases more than 100 civilians were authorized to be killed to assassinate a single senior commander (972 Magazine, 2024). Foundation models trained on commercial data lack the reasoning capacity humans possess, yet when applied to military targeting, false positives result in civilian deaths. Data sourced from WhatsApp metadata, Google Photos, and other commercial platforms created targeting profiles based on patterns that may not correspond to combatant status. Ukraine has implemented different approaches, using AI to coordinate drone swarms and enhance defensive capabilities against a numerically superior adversary. Ukrainian Deputy Defense Minister Kateryna Chernohorenko stated that "there are currently several dozen solutions on the market from Ukrainian manufacturers" for AI-augmented drone systems being delivered to armed forces (Reuters, 2024). Ukraine produced approximately 2 million drones in 2024, with AI-enabled systems achieving engagement success rates of 70 to 80 percent compared to 10 to 20 percent for manually controlled drones (Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2025). Both sides in the conflict have developed AI-powered targeting systems, creating operational arms race dynamics with immediate battlefield consequences. Civilian Harm: Technical and Legal Limitarions The integration of AI into lethal military systems raises humanitarian concerns extending beyond technical reliability. AI's inability to uphold the principle of distinction, which requires protecting civilians by distinguishing them from combatants in compliance with international humanitarian law, presents fundamental challenges. Current AI systems lack several capabilities essential for legal warfare:  Contextual Understanding: AI cannot comprehend the complex social, cultural, and situational factors that determine combatant status. A person carrying a weapon might be a combatant, a civilian defending their home, or a shepherd protecting livestock.  Proportionality Assessments: International humanitarian law requires that military attacks not cause disproportionate civilian damage. Human Rights Watch noted that it is doubtful whether robotic systems can make such nuanced assessments (Human Rights Watch, 2024).  Moral Judgment: Machines lack the capacity for compassion, mercy, or understanding of human dignity, qualities that have historically provided safeguards against wartime atrocities.  Accountability: With autonomous weapon systems, responsibility is distributed among programmers, manufacturers, and operators, making individual accountability difficult to establish. As one expert observed, "when AI, machine learning and human reasoning form a tight ecosystem, the capacity for human control is limited. Humans have a tendency to trust whatever computers say, especially when they move too fast for us to follow" (The Conversation, 2024). The risks extend to specific populations. Autonomous weapons systems trained on data predominantly consisting of male combatants in historical records could create algorithmic bias. In the case of Lavender, analysis suggests "one of the key equations was 'male equals militant,'" echoing the Obama administration's approach during drone warfare operations (The Conversation, 2024). Communities of color and Muslim populations face heightened risks given historical patterns of discriminatory force deployment. Export Controls and Technology Transfer Challenges Recognizing AI's strategic importance, governments have implemented export control regimes. The U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security now requires licenses for exports of advanced computing chips and AI model weights, imposing security conditions to safeguard storage of the most advanced models. These controls face inherent tensions. Overly broad restrictions risk hampering legitimate research and commercial innovation. Analysis suggests that if AI technology is too extensively controlled, American universities may face difficulties performing AI research, resulting in a less robust U.S. AI ecosystem. Insufficient controls enable adversaries to acquire cutting-edge capabilities. The effectiveness of export controls remains uncertain. In 2024, hundreds of thousands of chips, totaling millions of dollars, were smuggled into China through shell companies, varying distributors, and mislabeling techniques (Oxford Analytica, 2025). China's DeepSeek models, which achieved performance approaching U.S. systems, were reportedly trained on chips that circumvented export restrictions. International Governance: Fragmentation and Competing Frameworks The international community has struggled to develop coherent governance frameworks for dual-use AI. Rather than a cohesive global regulatory approach, what has emerged is a collection of national policies, multilateral agreements, high-level summits, declarations, frameworks, and voluntary commitments. Multiple international forums have addressed AI governance: ● The UN Secretary-General created an AI Advisory Board and called for a legally binding treaty to prohibit lethal autonomous weapons systems without human control, to be concluded by 2026 ● The Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems has held discussions under the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons since 2013, with limited concrete progress ● NATO released a revised AI strategy in 2024, establishing standards for responsible use and accelerated adoption in military operations ● The EU's AI Act, adopted in 2023, explicitly excludes military applications and national security from its scope This fragmented landscape reflects geopolitical divisions. The perceived centrality of AI for competition has led the U.S. to position itself as leader of ideologically aligned countries in opposition to China, including for security purposes. China promotes its own governance vision through initiatives like the Belt and Road, exporting technology standards alongside infrastructure. Strategic Stability Implications AI creates strategic stability challenges. Autonomous weapons enable substitution of machines for human soldiers in many battlefield roles, reducing the human cost and thus political cost of waging offensive war. This could increase the frequency of conflicts between peer adversaries, each believing they can prevail without significant domestic casualties. For conflicts between non-peer adversaries, reduced casualties further diminish domestic opposition to wars of aggression. The implications extend beyond conventional warfare. Armed, fully-autonomous drone swarms could combine mass harm with lack of human control, potentially becoming weapons of mass destruction comparable to low-scale nuclear devices. The technical barriers to such systems are declining as components become commercially available. AI also complicates nuclear stability. Advances in AI-enhanced sensors and data processing could undermine second-strike capabilities by improving detection of mobile missile launchers and submarines. This erosion of assured retaliation could incentivize first strikes during crises. Simultaneously, AI systems managing nuclear command and control create risks of accidents, miscalculations, or unauthorized launches. Ethical Framework Limitations The integration of AI into warfare strains traditional ethical frameworks. Just War Theory requires that combatants maintain moral responsibility for their actions, possess the capacity to distinguish combatants from civilians, and apply proportionate force. Automation bias and technological mediation weaken moral agency among operators of AI-enabled targeting systems, diminishing their capacity for ethical decision-making. When operators interact with targeting through screens displaying algorithmic recommendations rather than direct observation, psychological distance increases. This mediation risks transforming killing into a bureaucratic process. The operator becomes less a moral agent making decisions and more a technician approving or rejecting algorithmic suggestions. Furthermore, industry dynamics, particularly venture capital funding, shape discourses surrounding military AI, influencing perceptions of responsible AI use in warfare. When commercial incentives align with military applications, the boundaries between responsible innovation and reckless proliferation become unclear. Companies developing AI for civilian markets face pressure to expand into defense contracting, often with insufficient ethical deliberation. Conclusion Dual-use AI technologies present both opportunities and risks for international security. One trajectory leads toward normalized algorithmic warfare at scale, arms races in autonomous weapons that erode strategic stability, and inadequate international governance resulting in civilian harm. An alternative trajectory involves international cooperation that constrains the most dangerous applications while permitting beneficial uses. The timeframe for establishing governance frameworks is limited. AI capabilities are advancing rapidly, and widespread proliferation of autonomous weapons will make policy reversal substantially more difficult. The challenge resembles nuclear non-proliferation but unfolds at greater speed, driven by commercial incentives rather than state-controlled programs. Because AI is a dual-use technology, technical advances can provide economic and security benefits. This reality means unilateral restraint by democratic nations would cede advantages to authoritarian competitors. However, uncontrolled competition risks adverse outcomes for all parties. Concrete action is required from multiple actors. States must strengthen multilateral agreements through forums like the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons to establish binding restrictions on autonomous weapons without meaningful human control. NATO and regional security alliances should harmonize AI ethics standards and create verification mechanisms for military AI deployments. Military institutions must implement mandatory human-in-the-loop requirements for lethal autonomous systems and establish clear chains of accountability for AI-driven targeting decisions. Technology companies developing dual-use AI systems bear responsibility for implementing ethical safeguards and conducting thorough threat modeling before commercial release. Industry alliances should establish transparency standards for military AI applications and create independent audit mechanisms. Universities and research institutions must integrate AI ethics and international humanitarian law into technical training programs. Export control regimes require coordination between the United States, EU, and allied nations to prevent regulatory arbitrage while avoiding overreach that stifles legitimate research. Democratic governments should lead by demonstrating that military AI can be developed within strict ethical and legal constraints, setting standards that distinguish legitimate security applications from destabilizing weapons proliferation. As Austrian Foreign Minister Alexander Schallenberg observed, this represents the Oppenheimer moment of the current generation, recognizing that dual-use AI, like nuclear weapons, represents a technology whose military applications demand collective restraint. The policy choices made in the next few years will have long-term consequences. They will determine whether AI becomes a tool for human advancement or an instrument of algorithmic warfare. The technology exists; the policy framework remains to be established. The actors are identified; the question is whether they possess the political will to act before proliferation becomes irreversible. References 972 Magazine (2024) 'Lavender': The AI machine directing Israel's bombing spree in Gaza. https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/ Center for Strategic and International Studies (2024) Where the Chips Fall: U.S. Export Controls Under the Biden Administration from 2022 to 2024. https://www.csis.org/analysis/where-chips-fall-us-export-controls-under-biden-administration-2022-2024 Center for Strategic and International Studies (2025) Ukraine's Future Vision and Current Capabilities for Waging AI-Enabled Autonomous Warfare. https://www.csis.org/analysis/ukraines-future-vision-and-current-capabilities-waging-ai-enabled-autonomous-warfare Defense One (2023) The Pentagon's 2024 Budget Proposal, In Short. https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2023/03/heres-everything-we-know-about-pentagons-2024-budget-proposal/383892/ Department of Defense (2024) Military and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of China 2024. https://media.defense.gov/2024/Dec/18/2003615520/-1/-1/0/MILITARY-AND-SECURITY-DEVELOPMENTS-INVOLVING-THE-PEOPLES-REPUBLIC-OF-CHINA-2024.PDF Foreign Policy Research Institute (2024) Breaking the Circuit: US-China Semiconductor Controls. https://www.fpri.org/article/2024/09/breaking-the-circuit-us-china-semiconductor-controls/ Human Rights Watch (2024) A Hazard to Human Rights: Autonomous Weapons Systems and Digital Decision-Making. https://www.hrw.org/report/2025/04/28/a-hazard-to-human-rights/autonomous-weapons-systems-and-digital-decision-making National Defense Magazine (2024) Pentagon Sorting Out AI's Future in Warfare. https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2024/10/22/pentagon-sorting-out-ais-future-in-warfare Queen Mary University of London (2024) Gaza war: Israel using AI to identify human targets raising fears that innocents are being caught in the net. https://www.qmul.ac.uk/media/news/2024/hss/gaza-war-israel-using-ai-to-identify-human-targets-raising-fears-that-innocents-are-being-caught-in-the-net.html Reuters (2024) Ukraine rolls out dozens of AI systems to help its drones hit targets. https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/10/31/reuters-ukraine-rolls-out-dozens-of-ai-systems-to-help-its-drones-hit-targets/

As international order evolves in the 21st century, strategic competition is increasingly shaped by technological frontiers and emerging domains of power. Unlike the unipolar moment following the Cold War, the contemporary landscape is defined by multipolarity, where major powers vie for influence across space, cyberspace, and biotechnology. Outer space has emerged not only as a frontier for exploration but also as a potential arena for resource acquisition and military projection, raising novel challenges for international law, security policy and cooperative governance. Examining interstellar phenomena in this context underscores the importance of preparedness, coordination, and risk management, even without assuming the presence of extraterrestrial intelligence, yet acknowledging the unprecedented nature of events that are pushing the boundaries of human observation. Humanity is gradually entering an era in which technological progress is reshaping our conception of cosmic exploration. As advancements in rocket propulsion, materials science, and observational astronomy accelerate, the prospect of humanity departing Earth towards other worlds becomes less a distant dream and more an inevitable chapter in our long-term evolution. The future of our species increasingly appears to be tied to the potential terraforming of new planets and celestial bodies, alongside the development of aerospace technologies capable of carrying us deeper into the cosmos. Within this transformative horizon, the Fermi paradox or the Dark Forest theory gains renewed relevance, challenging humanity to consider the existential filters that civilizations must surpass to survive, expand and potentially encounter other life forms. Yet, while such milestone may unfold centuries from now, the foundations of that future are being laid in the present. In the 21st century, specifically by the year 2026, humanity will become more capable of observing its immediate cosmic neighborhood. Modern telescopes and space-based observatories allow us to detect objects that for centuries have likely passed through our solar system unnoticed. Only within the brief span of our scientific maturation have we acquired the tools to identify interstellar objects, bodies originating beyond the solar system whose physical properties and trajectories challenge our existing frameworks. These objects, often catalogued as cometary in nature, possess characteristics that warrant careful study. Their unusual shapes, compositions, and velocities offer insights into environments beyond our interstellar cradle and, in some cases, raise questions about their natural origin or even the possibility of artificial extraterrestrial technology. As our detection capabilities improve, the arrival of each interstellar visitor represents not only a scientific opportunity but also a critical data point for understanding planetary security and defense. Consequently, their study urges nations to evolve towards a more serious and coordinated international framework capable of addressing the strategic, scientific, and existential implications of interstellar encounters. The emergence and Relevance of Interstellar Objects The scientific understanding of interstellar objects (ISOs) has evolved rapidly in recent years, propelled by technological advances and the unexpected discovery of bodies crossing the solar system on hyperbolic trajectories. Before 2017, the existence of such objects was largely theoretical, supported by models of planetary formation and stellar dynamics that predicted the ejection of debris during the early stages of planetary system evolution. These models implied that the Milky Way should contain vast populations of wandering fragments- comets, asteroids, and potentially more complex bodies such as extraterrestrial debris moving freely through interstellar space. Yet observational confirmation remained unattainable due to instrumental limitations. This changed with the detection of the first confirmed interstellar object, 1/Oumuamua, whose physical properties departed radically from known solar system bodies. Its non-gravitational acceleration, lack of a visible coma, and elongated shape challenged established models of cometary activity and asteroidal composition (Meech et al, 2017). The subsequent discovery of 2I/Borisov, a more conventionally cometary object, confirmed that the solar system is indeed exposed to material originating from other stellar environments (Jewitt & Luu, 2019). The contrast between both objects highlighted a key insight: ISOs are highly diverse, and their properties may reveal mechanisms and materials absent from our own planetary system. Advances in wide-field surveys, high-resolution instrumentation, and automated sky- monitoring systems have significantly expanded humanity´s capacity to detect and track ISOs. The increasing sensitivity of these tools marks a transition toward a new observational era in which interstellar detections may become more frequent. As a result, we are now able to observe the behavior of bodies entirely foreign to the solar system-objects whose trajectories, compositions, and signatures often defy established expectations and expose gaps in existing theoretical frameworks. This expanding observational capability not only advances scientific knowledge but also underscores the urgency of early warning detection. Because ISOs are typically identified within narrow observational windows, delayed characterization can lead to the loss of critical scientific and strategic information. Consequently, the growing presence of ISOs calls for enhanced global coordination, standardized protocols, and a more serious international approach to monitoring and interpreting near-Earth interstellar encounters. The Impact and Arrival of 3I/ATLAS The discovery of 3I/ATLAS, the third confirmed interstellar object entering our solar system, marks a significant milestone in modern astronomy. Unlike 1/Oumuamua and 2I/Borisov, whose observational windows were limited and partially constrained, 3I/ATLAS has provided a comparatively longer period for systematic study. Its hyperbolic trajectory, unusual photometric behavior, and non-standard luminosity variations have made it an object of exceptional scientific interest. While early observations suggest that while 3I/ATLAS shares key characteristics with known cometary bodies, its behavior reinforces broader findings that interstellar objects often display physical and dynamical properties that do not fit neatly within exiting taxonomies of solar system objects (Jewitt, 2023). The media response to 3I/ATLAS has been unprecedented. As with Oumuamua, the object rapidly became the subject of public fascination, sensational claims, and speculative narratives. News outlets, online forums, and social media ecosystems proliferated interpretations ranging from exotic physics to extraterrestrial probes. While much of this discourse lacks grounding in empirical evidence, its widespread circulation reflects a broader sociological trend: interstellar phenomena increasingly operate not only as a scientific event but also as catalysts for public, imagination, cultural anxiety, and geopolitical attention. As Kaku (2020) notes, humanity approaches a technological threshold where cosmic discovery intersects directly with public consciousness, provoking both curiosity and apprehension. From a scientific standpoint, researchers such as Loeb (2021) have emphasized that anomalous behavior in interstellar visitors should not be dismissed lightly. Although 3I/ATLAS currently appears consistent with a natural origin, its unique features-and the difficulty in categorizing ISOs-underscore the need for serious, methodical investigation. Loeb argues that humanity must abandon its complacency regarding the unknown nature of interstellar technologies or civilizations and instead adopt a posture of preparedness, open inquiry, and systematic risk assessment. In his view, phenomena like 3I/ATLAS are reminders that humanity is not isolated, and that contact-whether intentional or incidental—with non-human intelligence represents a real possibility with profound implications. The arrival of 3I/ATLAS has also highlighted the potential consequences of extraterrestrial technological encounters. Even in the absence of direct evidence of artificial origin, the mere ambiguity of such objects can trigger global destabilization through speculation, misinformation, or geopolitical competition. Historical examples such as the economic collapses of 1929 and 2008, the disruptive effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the global tensions surrounding major wars demonstrate how uncertainty-especially when amplified by media-can generate widespread instability. In this context, an interstellar object exhibiting unexplained characteristics could easily become a flashpoint for international tension, economic turbulence, or strategic miscalculation. Thus, beyond its scientific significance, 3I/ATLAS has brought renewed attention to the vulnerabilities and responsibilities of a species becoming increasingly aware of its cosmic environment. The object serves as a practical reminder that humanity must develop not only more advanced observational systems but also coordinated international frameworks for managing unexpected astronomical events. As we confront the possibility of encountering technologies or life beyond Earth, the world must adopt a more mature, structured approach to detection, interpretation, and global communication. This moment sets the stage for next critical dimension of the discussion, the implications of interstellar objects for planetary security and defense, and the urgent need to assess humanity’s readiness for cosmic contingencies. Toward a Multiplanetary Security Architecture Planetary security has grown increasingly complex as scientific capabilities expand toward detecting and characterizing interstellar objects whose origins and physical attributes lie beyond conventional astrophysical categories. Within the United Nations framework, existing mechanisms-such as COPUOS, the International Asteroid Warning Network (IAWN), and the Space Mission Planning Advisory Group (SMPAG) provide the foundational structure for global coordination on natural impact hazards (UN COPUOS, 2014). However, these institutions were established under assumptions limited to solar system derived natural threats, leaving them poorly equipped to address unknown interstellar phenomena. The Outer Space Treaty and subsequent conventions introduced broad principles on cooperation and peaceful use, but no anticipated scenarios involving technologically anomalous interstellar objects or potential artificial extraterrestrial artifacts, resulting in a significant global governance vacuum. These mechanisms are designed primarily for probabilistic, natural impact scenarios, not for interstellar objects exhibiting anomalous trajectories, non-gravitational accelerations or uncertain technological signatures. Recognizing this gap, recent scientific proposals-most notably those advanced by Loeb (2023)-have called for the development of a dedicated international coordination mechanism under the United Nations system for the study and assessment of interstellar objects. Rather than proposing a fixed institutional blueprint, these contributions emphasize the need for a structured platform capable of integrating scientific analysis, risk assessment, and transparent diplomatic communication in cases involving anomalous interstellar phenomena. Such proposals should be understood not as a definitive institutional prescription, but as forward as a definitive institutional prescription, but as forward-looking reference points for the type of governance architecture of international community must begin to contemplate. As humanity´s observational reach extends beyond the boundaries of the solar system; this governance gap becomes increasingly consequential. Interstellar objects introduce forms of uncertainty that existing planetary defense regimes-designed around predictable, solar system-derived threats were never Intended to manage, underscoring the need for flexible and adaptive legal frameworks capable of integrating scientific uncertainty into decision making processes. Within this emerging landscape, conceptual assessment tools have gained relevance as mechanisms to structure uncertainty rather than eliminate it. One illustrative example is the Interstellar Threat Assessment Scale (ITAS) proposed by Loeb (2024), which offers a simplified framework for evaluating interstellar detections based on observable characteristics rather than speculative intent. As its lower levels, the scale categorizes objects that behave consistently with natural interstellar debris, such as comet-like bodies exhibiting predictable physical and dynamic properties. Higher levels correspond to increasing degrees of anomaly-such as unexplained non-gravitational acceleration, unconventional trajectories, or geometries inconsistent with known natural formation processes. While the scale is not explicitly designed to identify extraterrestrial technology, it intentionally encompasses characteristics that fall outside established natural baselines. This design allows it to function across multiple scenarios, from rare or poorly understood natural phenomena to detections that may warrant closer scrutiny due to their atypical behavior. In this sense, the framework remains agnostic regarding origin, yet adaptable enough to support both conventional astrophysical analysis and precautionary assessments under conditions of elevated uncertainty. Importantly, it does not assert hostile intent or artificial origin, rather it operates as a risk-management tool that helps differentiate levels of scientific uncertainty and potential planetary relevance. Approached in this manner, such frameworks contribute to the evolution of international space governance by providing a shared analytical language for policymakers, scientific institutions, security agencies and statecraft-oriented decision-makers. By standardizing how uncertainty is assessed and communicated, they reduce fragmented national interpretations, limit reactive or militarized responses, and promote cooperative, evidence-based decisions. Decision-making under conditions of incomplete information. This process reflects a broader need for international space law to evolve dynamically. However, the governance of interstellar risk cannot rely solely on conceptual models or isolated scientific initiatives. It requires a genuinely planetary response that integrates the full spectrum of contemporary technological, institutional, and political capacities. International legislation governing outer space must be adaptive and evolutionary, capable of responding to emerging scientific realities. Artificial intelligence, real-time global surveillance networks, and autonomous detection algorithms must be incorporated into a unified planetary architecture capable of identifying and characterizing interstellar objects far earlier than current capabilities allow. Equally important is the sustained collaboration among major space agencies-including NASA, ESA, CNSA, ISRO, Roscosmos, and JAXA- alongside private actors such as SpaceX, Blue Origin, and emerging aerospace enterprises, whose technological capabilities and rapid innovation cycles are increasingly central to space governance. Equally critical is great-power cooperation. From a realist perspective, the international system remains defined by competition, power asymmetries, and strategic mistrust. Yet planetary defense represents a rare domain in which shared existential vulnerability can partially override zero-sum logic. The detection of an anomalous interstellar object must never become a catalyst for geopolitical rivalry or strategic miscalculation, but rather an opportunity for transparent scientific collaborations and coordinated global response. In an international order strained by power competition, planetary security stands as one of the few areas where shared survival interests necessitate shared responsibility. Ultimately, interstellar objects compel humanity to transcend political fragmentation and adopt a forward- look global strategy. Building a resilient planetary security architecture requires the integration of scientific expertise, adaptive international governance, technological innovation, and coordinated commitment of state and private actor alike. Whether future interstellar encounters prove benign or reveal unprecedented anomalies, preparedness is not speculation, it is an essential step in the evolution of humanity´s role within the cosmos. References - Jewitt, D., & Seligman, D. Z. (2023). The interstellar interlopers. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 61, 197–236. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-054221 - Jewitt, D., & Luu, J. (2019). Initial characterization of interstellar comet 2I/2019 Q4 (Borisov). The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 886(2), L29. https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ab530b - Kaku, M. (2018). The Future of Humanity: Terra­forming Mars, Interstellar Travel, Immortality, and Our Destiny Beyond Earth. Doubleday. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/555722/the-future-of-humanity-by-michio-kaku/ - Loeb, A. (2021). Extraterrestrial: The first sign of intelligent life beyond Earth. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. https://openlibrary.org/books/OL31850155M/Extraterrestrial?utm_source=chatgpt.com - Loeb, A. (2024). The interstellar threat assessment scale. Medium. https://avi-loeb.medium.com/ - Meech, K. J., et al. (2017). A brief visit from a red and extremely elongated interstellar asteroid. Nature, 552, 378–381. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25020 - United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UN COPUOS). (2014). Report of the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee on its fifty-first session. United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs. https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/copuos/stsc/2014/index.html

Background (Venezuelan Presidential Crisis [2019–2023] and the 2024 Presidential Elections) Between 2019 and 2023, Venezuela experienced a political crisis centered on the legitimacy of the country’s presidency, stemming from “irregular” elections that declared Nicolás Maduro the winner. As a result, the Fourth Legislature of the Venezuelan National Assembly — controlled by the opposition — declared Maduro a usurper of the presidency and appointed Juan Guaidó as interim president under Article 233 of the Venezuelan Constitution (León, 2019). Subsequently, the Supreme Tribunal of Justice declared the National Assembly unconstitutional (BBC News Mundo, 2019), as well as Guaidó’s appointment, thereby triggering a political crisis that would persist until 2023. During this period, Maduro and Guaidó governed in parallel. Guaidó’s government was recognized by the United States, Australia, Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, and several European countries and international organizations, while Maduro’s government was recognized by Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Vietnam, Turkey, Iran, Russia, China, and South Africa, among others. Countries such as Mexico, New Zealand, India, and Indonesia remained neutral. Figure 1: Countries recognizing Guaidó’s presidential legitimacy as of February 8, 2019, during the peak year of international recognition for Guaidó. Black: Venezuela; Grey: Neutral; White: No official position; Dark green: Recognizes Guaidó; Bright green: Supports the opposition National Assembly; Red: Recognizes Maduro. By Jose001aef23 – Own work, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=76054258 Figure 2: Recognition of Venezuela’s president in 2023. Black: Venezuela; Red: Recognition of Maduro; Dark blue: Recognition of Guaidó; Light blue: Support for the Fourth National Assembly; Grey: Explicitly neutral. By ZiaLater – Own work, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=75890028 The crisis lasted for nearly four years and was marked by economic sanctions, social unrest, widespread public dissatisfaction, the COVID-19 pandemic, and a dialogue between opposition parties and the Maduro government that ultimately culminated in the signing of the Barbados Agreement. In the end, Guaidó’s interim government — despite enjoying broader international backing — failed to achieve its initially stated objectives, and the National Assembly formally dissolved it in January 2023. The Barbados Agreement (International Crisis Group, 2023) — signed in 2023 between the Venezuelan government and the opposition with the aim of guaranteeing electoral safeguards and political rights, as well as protecting national interests — paved the way for presidential elections held on July 28, 2024. However, both the outcome of the elections and the way they were conducted gave rise to allegations of irregularities and electoral fraud (Infobae, 2024; Singer, 2024; Gómez Forero, 2024; Diario Las Américas, 2024). According to the National Electoral Council (CNE), Maduro won the election with 51.95%, while Edmundo González received 43.18%. By contrast, the opposition platform Comando Con Venezuela (CCV) released results claiming González won with 67.05%, compared to 30.49% for Maduro. It is important to note that González ran as the opposition candidate after María Corina Machado, an opposition leader and 2025 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, was barred from participating in the election. Figure 3: Comparison of the 2024 presidential election results according to the CNE and the CCV. Source: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elecciones_presidenciales_de_Venezuela_de_2024#cite_note-:19-27 As of now, Maduro remains in power in Venezuela. González, meanwhile, is exiled in Spain and has been recognized as the winner or president-elect by Argentina, Costa Rica, Italy, Ecuador, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, France, Israel, among others. Relations with the United States (Suspension of Relations and Current Situation) Diplomatic relations between the United States and Venezuela have steadily deteriorated since Hugo Chávez — who governed Venezuela with an anti-imperialist and socialist discourse — was president. From Chávez’s tenure through the 2019 presidential crisis, the United States imposed economic sanctions on Venezuela, and bilateral relations experienced periodic fluctuations. However, beginning in 2019, relations worsened significantly, culminating in a formal rupture initiated by Venezuela. President Nicolás Maduro severed diplomatic ties with the United States after Donald Trump, during his first term, recognized Juan Guaidó as interim president (CNBC, 2019). Although the National Assembly later dissolved the interim government, the United States did not recognize Maduro. At present, relations between the two countries are critical. With Trump’s return to the White House, the already minimal level of interaction has shifted toward threats, warnings, and displays of power, including a military deployment described by Trump as “the largest armada ever assembled in the history of South America” (Maher & Liptak, 2025). This escalation has been justified — or framed — by the Trump administration as part of an effort to protect U.S. citizens from drug flows originating in countries such as Mexico, Colombia, and Venezuela. As part of its broader campaign against drug trafficking, Trump has also designated certain organized crime groups as terrorist organizations (The White House, 2025). Among these newly designated groups — relevant to this analysis—are the Tren de Aragua gang (Knickmeyer, 2025) and the Cartel of the Suns (Cártel de los Soles) (Wells & Blasey, 2025; InSight Crime, 2025). Senior U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have accused Nicolás Maduro of being the leader of the Cartel of the Suns (Savage, 2025). The U.S. Department of State has even offered a reward of up to $50 million for information leading to Maduro’s arrest (U.S. Department of State, 2025). Maduro, for his part, has denied all such accusations and alleged ties. Tensions in the Caribbean The threats and actions carried out in recent months between the United States and Venezuela have culminated in an unprecedented U.S. military deployment in the Caribbean Sea. The United States has mobilized up to 15,000 troops in the region, in addition to reinforcements and personnel stationed in Puerto Rico. The arrival of the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford alongside the USS Iwo Jima, as well as warships, destroyers, submarines, fighter jets, bombers, helicopters, drones, and other military assets, has further reinforced the U.S. military presence in the Caribbean Sea (Ellis, U.S. Army War College, & The Conversation Digital Storytelling Team, 2025). Alongside this military buildup, the United States launched Operation Southern Spear, aimed at deterring Venezuela and targeting alleged drug-trafficking speedboats in international waters. From the start of these attacks in early September through December 16, 2025, 25 attacks had been recorded, resulting in at least 95 deaths (Muñoz Morillo, 2025). The U.S. military deployment in the Caribbean has been supported by Trinidad and Tobago. The United States and Trinidad and Tobago have conducted joint training exercises and military drills in the region over recent months (Infobae, 2025), and Trinidad and Tobago has also agreed to allow U.S. military aircraft to transit through its airports (Rios, 2025). Venezuela responded by suspending a joint gas agreement and declaring Trinidad and Tobago’s Prime Minister, Kamla Persad-Bissessar, persona non grata (DW News, 2025). For its part, Venezuela has mobilized approximately 200,000 military personnel, civilians, and militia members in large-scale exercises and has deployed 5,000 Igla missiles (Sliwinski, 2025). The Venezuelan government has also urged preparations for guerrilla warfare, sabotage, and social destabilization to render the country ungovernable (Reuters, 2025) — a strategy that may be viewed as the most effective response given the asymmetry between the two sides. Maduro further warned that Venezuela would not become the “Gaza of South America”, while proclaiming a message of “peace, life, and love — no to hatred, no to war” (Swissinfo.ch, 2025). Maduro has likewise turned to international organizations such as the United Nations, as well as regional bodies including CELAC and ALBA, to denounce the escalation of tensions in the region. He has even called for Colombian military support in light of the critical situation in the Caribbean (El Colombiano, 2025). However, recent polarization in Latin America has been reflected in the responses. Lula (Brazil) and Petro (Colombia) have applied the strongest pressure regarding regional destabilization, while Mexico, maintaining an ambiguous neutrality, has taken a more cautious stance, emphasizing sovereignty and self-determination. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Argentina, Ecuador, Paraguay, El Salvador, Costa Rica, and Trinidad and Tobago have aligned with the U.S. position (Rivas Molina, Galarraga Gortázar, Marcial Pérez, & Esteban Lewin, 2025). Finally, outside the region, Russia (OIR-MPPCI Cojedes, 2025) — one of the main suppliers of arms and military equipment to the Bolivarian National Armed Forces — along with Iran (Sputnik, 2025) and China (Revista Economía, 2025), all allies of Venezuela, have expressed various forms of support for the South American country, though their rhetoric has focused primarily on concerns over what the U.S. military deployment and harassment could trigger in the region. War Speculation and the Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine All of the above brings together the necessary elements to consider the possibility of an invasion or a declaration of war by the United States against Venezuela, and such possibilities clearly exist. However, there are key factors that, for now, would prevent the outbreak of a new war. Regardless of the logistical difficulties involved in a large-scale invasion, the United States lacks a clear casus belli to declare war. Moreover, U.S. domestic politics — particularly the opposition — are not fully convinced that an invasion would be the best course of action. Nonetheless, Trump has shaped and carried out a series of political maneuvers, including economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and more recently a total oil blockade (BBC News, 2025), aimed at paving the way for a potential invasion or declaration of war, though so far without success. It is important to note that most of these actions — whether justified or not — such as the designation of cartels as terrorist groups, extrajudicial attacks in international waters against alleged drug-trafficking vessels, the military deployment in the Caribbean, and the seizure of a sanctioned oil tanker (BBC News, 2025), primarily generate heightened expectations of an impending war. In addition, on December 2, 2025, the U.S. government published its National Security Strategy (The White House, 2025). Without delving into details and for the purposes of this article, the strategy seeks to maintain the United States as a global power — while acknowledging the rise of China — and to consolidate U.S. dominance over the “Western Hemisphere” by controlling the American continent, establishing a supremacy-based relationship with aligned European countries, and ensuring that neither the European Union nor any other bloc emerges as an alternative center of power (González Posso, 2025). Rare Earths, Oil, and a Possible Regime Change in Venezuela? At this point, the reasons behind the escalation of tensions between Venezuela and the United States may not appear entirely clear, although they are hardly surprising and can be understood considering the divergent worldviews held by both countries. This sequence of events — fraudulent elections, military deployments, sanctions, and economic blockades — has gradually breathed new life into a pre-existing rupture that had previously remained stagnant. However, as is often the case, there is always a broader underlying context that tends to be overlooked. Venezuela holds the largest proven oil reserves in the world, estimated at around 300 billion barrels, representing approximately 18% of global reserves. It also possesses substantial natural gas reserves and deposits of more than 40 types of minerals and precious stones, including iron, bauxite (aluminum), coal, gold, coltan, diamonds, nickel, zinc, and rare earth elements, among others (Blanco, Rey S., Romero, Rosendo, & Berroterán). No less significant, Venezuela ranks seventh among the world’s 17 megadiverse countries, hosting roughly 9% of global flora and fauna (Álvarez Bernard, 2022). In addition, Venezuela holds the tenth-largest freshwater reserves globally — approximately 1,233 km³ — and contains an extensive network of rivers and lakes, which are essential for agricultural and livestock activities, supported by fertile soils, as well as for electricity generation and hydroelectric power (Montoya, n.d.). Given Venezuela’s natural resource potential, it is unsurprising that the United States has sought to “recover all the oil, land, and other assets that they previously stole from us,” as Trump wrote on his social media platform, Truth Social (Trump, 2025). Trump’s remark refers to the nationalization of oil projects carried out by Hugo Chávez in 2007, which affected major U.S. oil companies ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil (Al Jazeera Staff, 2025). As for a possible regime change in Venezuela, all remains speculative. Maduro continues to hold onto power, or at least presents an image of firmness before the cameras. At the same time, speculation about a potential war or invasion places him in a precarious position, fueling rumors and theories about resignation or exile. What is clear, however, is that U.S. pressure on the Venezuelan government is real. Although Maduro and Trump held a phone call in late November in search of a diplomatic off-ramp, the demands of both sides prevented any agreement. Prior to that call, in September, Maduro sent a letter to Trump seeking to “preserve peace through dialogue” (TRT Español, 2025). One month later, according to The New York Times, Maduro reportedly offered the United States significant participation in Venezuela’s oil fields, while remaining in power — a proposal that displeased U.S. officials and led to the suspension of talks at that time (Haberman & Kurmanaev, 2025). Discussion The situation between Venezuela and the United States is highly significant from a geopolitical perspective. On one hand, the United States appears to be poised and waiting for the green light to launch a potential large-scale invasion. On the other, Maduro, through his characteristic anti-imperialist discourse, is attempting to navigate and prolong the survival of his regime. This is no minor issue. Maduro’s continued hold on power has been widely criticized for its lack of transparency, its numerous irregularities, and even electoral fraud. Nevertheless, the recent escalation of tensions with the United States has worked to his advantage, reinforcing his anti-imperialist rhetoric and strengthening his Bolivarian nationalist narrative. Unfortunately, these recent developments are more likely to further suffocate the Venezuelan population than to consolidate Maduro’s position. Regardless of the underlying causes, Venezuelans have endured years of hardship, and toying with the prospect of war is far from sensible — a reality Maduro himself has implicitly acknowledged by attempting to de-escalate tensions by any available means. However, whether driven by ambition, ideology, or sheer will to power, the simplest exit — stepping down from office — does not appear to be, nor is it likely to become, part of his plans. Thus, while Maduro projects strength domestically and repeatedly calls for peace and rejects war at public rallies, he is experiencing a level of strain whose sustainability remains uncertain. The external pressure exerted by the United States — both diplomatic and in the form of a total economic blockade — is likely, sooner or later, to yield results for Washington. It is important to recall that Venezuela has survived in recent years largely due to oil revenues. With a total blockade focused on that asset, Venezuela’s economic situation would deteriorate further, with potentially severe social and political consequences. In short, the near-term outlook is far from optimistic. As for the United States, it appears ironic and contradictory that Trump — a figure who has boasted of having “ended” seven wars and portrayed himself as a staunch advocate of peace — is now demonstrating the opposite in the Caribbean by deploying the largest naval force seen in the region in years. One could argue that a war has not yet begun and may never materialize, but the very nature of these actions and their consequences cast doubt on his credibility, not to mention the attacks on alleged drug-trafficking vessels in international waters. It is understandable that the deployment of the U.S. naval forces in the region may be intended as an “extreme” form of diplomatic pressure. However, this does not justify — in terms of international relations, even if it might within the framework of U.S. foreign policy — the interference in and violation of Venezuelan sovereignty. Even more concerning is that the very rhetoric so often condemned by Maduro has long been one of the primary tools used by the United States to maintain its influence and intervention in the region since the last century. Nevertheless, the erosion of this approach in the medium and long term could prove costly for the United States. At this stage, as can be observed, drug trafficking and the economic and social crisis have been relegated to the background; they function merely as pretexts. What is truly at stake are national — or personal — interests, influence, and power in a world where the more one possesses, the better. This dynamic is clearly illustrated by the recent support Venezuela has received from Russia and China, which has been largely rhetorical rather than material (Paredes, 2025), in contrast to earlier instances when their backing was direct and tangible. The current situation, although complex, could have been avoided, as its underlying causes have been developing for several years. However, it would be irresponsible to take sides. One cannot defend an “illegitimate government,” nor align with a state that has consistently undermined the sovereignty of others in pursuit of its national interests — an approach that is even explicitly embedded in its national security strategy. International condemnation should be directed at both parties, and while diplomacy should prevail, this case is ironically contradictory, as both actors have operated outside international norms. Against this backdrop, multiple questions arise: What will ultimately happen? Will Maduro step down and negotiate a “democratic” transition? Will the United States invade Venezuela and succeed in overthrowing the Maduro regime? How long will the economic blockade and attacks on alleged drug-trafficking vessels continue? What role will Venezuelan society play, and will the opposition be able to capitalize on this moment? What role will other countries in the region truly assume? Many questions remain unanswered, and the coming weeks are likely to bring significant developments. References Al Jazeera Staff. (17 de December de 2025). Trump aide Stephen Miller suggests Venezuelan oil belongs to US. Obtenido de Al Jazeera: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/12/17/trump-aide-stephen-miller-suggests-venezuelan-oil-belongs-to-us Álvarez Bernard, D. (21 de Enero de 2022). Recursos naturales de Venezuela. Obtenido de Ecología Verde: https://ecologiaverde.elperiodico.com/recursos-naturales-de-venezuela-3609.html BBC News. (10 de Diciembre de 2025). Fuerzas de EE.UU. interceptan y confiscan un buque petrolero sancionado frente a las costas de Venezuela. Obtenido de BBC News: https://www.bbc.com/mundo/articles/c14vp73mk16o BBC News. (17 de Diciembre de 2025). Trump ordena el bloqueo "total y completo" de todos los petroleros sancionados que entren y salgan de Venezuela. Obtenido de BBC News: https://www.bbc.com/mundo/articles/cx2p45d0g2xo BBC News Mundo. (21 de Enero de 2019). El Tribunal Supremo de Justicia de Venezuela declara "inconstitucional" a la Asamblea Nacional y anula el nombramiento de Juan Guaidó como su presidente. Obtenido de BBC News Mundo: https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-america-latina-46952641 Blanco, Á., Rey S., S., Romero, D. E., Rosendo, M., & Berroterán, Z. (s.f.). Influencia de la distribución de los recursos naturales en el desarrollo regional de Venezuela. Universidad Central de Venezuela. Facultad de Humanidades y Educación. Escuela de Geografía., 118. CNBC. (24 de January de 2019). Maduro says Venezuela is breaking relations with US, gives American diplomats 72 hours to leave country. Obtenido de CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/23/venezuela-president-maduro-breaks-relations-with-us-gives-american-diplomats-72-hours-to-leave-country.html Diario Las Américas. (10 de Agosto de 2024). ONG señala que el CNE omitió tres auditorías post electorales en Venezuela. Obtenido de Diario Las Américas: https://www.diariolasamericas.com/america-latina/ong-senala-que-el-cne-omitio-tres-auditorias-post-electorales-venezuela-n5361569 El Colombiano. (18 de Diciembre de 2025). Régimen de Maduro lanza llamado desesperado a Colombia en busca de apoyo militar ante tensión con EE. UU. Obtenido de El Colombiano: https://www.elcolombiano.com/internacional/maduro-pide-ayuda-militar-colombia-tension-ee-uu-EN31879278 Ellis, E., US Army War College, & The Conversation Digital Storytelling Team. (26 de November de 2025). We've tracked the US military build-up in the Caribbean. Here's what it could do. Obtenido de The Conversation: https://stories.theconversation.com/tracking-the-us-military-in-the-caribbean/ Gómez Forero, C. (30 de Julio de 2024). ¿Por qué ver estos decimales ayudaría a hablar de un fraude en Venezuela? Obtenido de El Espectador: https://www.elespectador.com/mundo/elecciones-venezuela-2024/por-que-ver-estos-decimales-nos-ayudaria-a-hablar-de-un-fraude-en-venezuela/?outputType=amp González Posso, C. (7 de Diciembre de 2025). Corolario Trump a la doctrina Monroe: I take west – O la paz por la fuerza –. Obtenido de Indepaz: https://indepaz.org.co/corolario-trump-a-la-doctrina-monroe-i-take-west-o-la-paz-por-la-fuerza/ Haberman, M., & Kurmanaev, A. (2025 de Noviembre de 2025). Trump y Maduro hablaron por teléfono la semana pasada. Obtenido de The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/es/2025/11/28/espanol/estados-unidos/trump-maduro-llamada-venezuela.html Infobae. (30 de Julio de 2024). El burdo cálculo matemático en la información oficial que aumenta las sospechas sobre la manipulación de la elección en Venezuela. Obtenido de Infobae: https://www.infobae.com/venezuela/2024/07/30/el-burdo-calculo-matematico-en-la-informacion-oficial-que-aumenta-las-sospechas-sobre-la-manipulacion-de-la-eleccion-en-venezuela/ Infobae. (15 de Diciembre de 2025). Trinidad y Tobago aprobó el uso de sus aeropuertos por aviones militares de Estados Unidos para combatir el narcotráfico. Obtenido de Infobae: https://www.infobae.com/america/america-latina/2025/12/15/trinidad-y-tobago-aprobo-el-uso-de-sus-aeropuertos-por-aviones-militares-de-estados-unidos-para-combatir-el-narcotrafico/ InSight Crime. (22 de September de 2025). Cartel of the Suns. Obtenido de InSight Crime: https://insightcrime.org/venezuela-organized-crime-news/cartel-de-los-soles-profile/ International Crisis Group. (20 de Octubre de 2023). Pacto en Barbados: la ruta sinuosa de Venezuela hacia comicios competitivos. Obtenido de International Crisis Group: https://www.crisisgroup.org/es/latin-america-caribbean/andes/venezuela/barbados-deal-sets-venezuela-rocky-path-competitive-polls Knickmeyer, E. (19 de February de 2025). PBS News. Obtenido de Trump administration designates 8 Latin American cartels as ‘foreign terrorist organizations’: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-administration-designates-8-latin-american-cartels-as-foreign-terrorist-organizations León, I. (11 de Enero de 2019). Efecto Cocuyo. Obtenido de Prensa de la AN rectifica comunicado que proclama a Juan Guaidó Presidente de la República: https://web.archive.org/web/20190702155934/http://efectococuyo.com/principales/prensa-de-la-an-rectifica-comunicado-que-proclama-a-juan-guaido-presidente-de-la-republica/ Maher, K., & Liptak, K. (17 de December de 2025). Trump orders ‘total and complete blockade’ of sanctioned oil tankers coming to and leaving Venezuela. Obtenido de CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/12/16/politics/blockade-venezuela-sanctioned-oil-tankers#:~:text=%E2%80%9CVenezuela%20is%20completely%20surrounded%20by,%2C%E2%80%9D%20Trump%20said%20Tuesday%20night. Montoya, J. D. (s.f.). Recursos naturales de Venezuela. Obtenido de Desarrollo Sustentable: https://www.desarrollosustentable.co/recursos-naturales-de-venezuela/#:~:text=Biodiversidad:%20recursos%20animales%20y%20plantas%20de%20Venezuela,-Aves%20de%20Venezuela&text=Venezuela%20es%20un%20pa%C3%ADs%20con,el%20ave%20nacional%20del%20pa%C3%ADs. Muñoz Morillo, M. (16 de Diciembre de 2025). Un nuevo ataque de EE.UU. contra 3 narcolanchas deja 8 muertos en el Pacífico. Obtenido de Euro News: https://es.euronews.com/2025/12/16/un-nuevo-ataque-de-eeuu-contra-3-narcolanchas-deja-8-muertos-en-el-pacifico Noticias DW. (25 de Noviembre de 2025). Trinidad y Tobago anuncia ejercicios militares con EE. UU. Obtenido de DW: https://www.dw.com/es/trinidad-y-tobago-anuncia-nuevos-ejercicios-militares-con-estados-unidos/a-74755359 OIR-MPPCI COJEDES. (10 de Diciembre de 2025). Rusia considera “especialmente preocupante” tensión en el Caribe. Obtenido de Ciudad Cojedes: https://ciudadcojedes.com/rusia-considera-especialmente-preocupante-tension-en-el-caribe/ Paredes, N. (9 de Diciembre de 2025). Por qué China y Rusia parecen haber abandonado a Nicolás Maduro en plena escalada con EE.UU. Obtenido de BBC News: https://www.bbc.com/mundo/articles/cj97rxlw8zro República Bolivariana de Venezuela. (30 de Diciembre de 1999). Constitución de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela. Obtenido de https://www.oas.org/dil/esp/constitucion_venezuela.pdf Reuters. (12 de November de 2025). Venezuelan military preparing guerrilla response in case of US attack. Obtenido de Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/venezuelan-military-preparing-guerrilla-response-case-us-attack-2025-11-11/ Revista Economía. (5 de Noviembre de 2025). China defiende su alianza con Venezuela y critica la presión militar de EE.UU. en el Caribe. Obtenido de Revista Economía: https://www.revistaeconomia.com/china-defiende-su-alianza-con-venezuela-y-critica-la-presion-militar-de-ee-uu-en-el-caribe/ Rios, M. (15 de Diciembrre de 2025). Trinidad y Tobago permitirá el tránsito de aviones militares de EE.UU. por sus aeropuertos; Venezuela toma medidas. Obtenido de CNN Latinoamérica: https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2025/12/15/latinoamerica/trinidad-y-tobago-transito-de-aviones-militares-eeuu-trax Rivas Molina, F., Galarraga Gortázar, N., Marcial Pérez, D., & Estaban Lewin, J. (18 de Diciembre de 2025). América Latina toma partido ante la amenaza de Estados Unidos a Venezuela. Obtenido de El País: https://elpais.com/america/2025-11-30/america-latina-toma-partido-ante-la-amenaza-de-estados-unidos-a-venezuela.html Savage, C. (18 de Noviembre de 2025). Trump y compañía dicen que Maduro lidera un ‘cártel’. Esto es lo que significa. Obtenido de The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/es/2025/11/18/espanol/estados-unidos/trump-cartel-soles-maduro.html Singer, F. (14 de Agosto de 2024). La ONU concluye que las elecciones en Venezuela no cumplieron las medidas “de integridad y transparencia”. Obtenido de El País: https://elpais.com/america/2024-08-14/la-onu-concluye-que-las-elecciones-en-venezuela-no-cumplieron-las-medidas-de-integridad-y-transparencia.html Sliwinski, K. (15 de Diciembre de 2025). El aumento de tensiones en el Caribe: EE.UU. y Venezuela en medio de un complejo regional de seguridad. Obtenido de World & New World Journal: https://worldandnewworld.com/es/eeuu-venezuela-crisis-caribe/ Sputnik. (9 de Diciembre de 2025). Irán expresa su apoyo a Venezuela ante las "provocaciones hostiles" de EEUU. Obtenido de Sputnik: https://noticiaslatam.lat/20251217/mapa-como-avanza-la-operacion-especial-de-rusia-en-ucrania-1126329635.html Swissinfo.ch. (15 de Noviembre de 2025). Maduro dice que Venezuela no será la Gaza de Suramérica en plena tensión con EE.UU. Obtenido de Swissinfo.ch: https://www.swissinfo.ch/spa/maduro-dice-que-venezuela-no-ser%C3%A1-la-gaza-de-suram%C3%A9rica-en-plena-tensi%C3%B3n-con-ee.uu./90337213 The White House. (20 de January de 2025). Designating Cartels And Other Organizations As Foreign Terrorist Organizations And Specially Designated Global Terrorists. Obtenido de The White House: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/designating-cartels-and-other-organizations-as-foreign-terrorist-organizations-and-specially-designated-global-terrorists/ The White House. (November de 2025). National Security Strategy of the United States of America. Obtenido de The White House: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf TRT Español. (22 de Septiembre de 2025). Carta de Maduro a Trump invita a "preservar paz con diálogo" y rechaza "fake news" de narcotráfico. Obtenido de TRT Español: https://www.trtespanol.com/article/cdae6966f705 Trump, D. (17 de December de 2025). @realDonaldTrump. Obtenido de Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115731908387416458 US Department of State. (7 de August de 2025). Nicolás Maduro Moros. Narcotics Rewards Program: Wanted. Obtenido de US Department of State: https://www.state.gov/nicolas-maduro-moros Wells, I., & Blasey, L. (17 de November de 2025). US to designate Venezuela's Cartel de los Soles as terrorists. Obtenido de BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdxr3w2464eo

Amidst US bombs and lies about Venezuelan drug trafficking as a pretext for regime change, the subordinated position of Caribbean states’ economies plays a role in U.S. aggression. It is no exaggeration to say that for over half a millennium, the Caribbean has been a stage for imperial incursions. In the past two months, the US has increased its military presence in the Caribbean Sea, including carrying out an airstrike campaign, while claiming that these operations are necessary to protect US citizens from illicit drug trafficking allegedly occurring off the coast of Venezuela. As of November 15th, the US military has launched eleven deadly air strikes on small boats in Caribbean waters and eleven on South America’s Pacific Coast, killing over eighty people. In these operations, the US Navy also raided a tuna fishing boat, detaining the fisherfolk on board for several hours before releasing them.[1] To date, the US government has not provided any proof of its claims that the people it publicly executed are trafficking drugs. These extrajudicial killings have struck fear into the hearts of millions of ordinary people across the region, especially the fisherfolk who depend upon traversing the sea for their livelihoods. Meanwhile, Caribbean countries have either blatantly come out in support of the imperial violence at their doorsteps or been hesitant to respond. When these attacks began, Trinidad and Tobago (T&T) as well as Guyana expressed enthusiastic support for US militaristic incursions and extrajudicial murders.[2] As tensions escalated, the Guyanese government attempted to backpedal from its original position. However, the T&T Prime Minister, Kamla Persad Bissessar, has maintained a pro-US stance. PM Persad Bissessar is on record saying, “I have no sympathy for traffickers, the US military should kill them all violently.”[3] This position by the T&T government was reiterated even after the US murdered two of its citizens, Chad Joseph and Rishi Samaroo, in these airstrike campaigns. T&T allowed the US warship, USS Gravely, a guided-missile destroyer, to dock in the country’s capital between October 26-30 and for US military agents to “address shared threats like transnational crime and build resilience through training, humanitarian missions, and security efforts” on T&T soil.[4] The Caribbean Community (CARICOM) - the intergovernmental regional organization - has dragged its feet to take a position, waiting a whole month on October 18, to release a presser wherein it reaffirmed the region as a “zone of peace,” with Trinidad and Tobago excepting itself from this stance. The foot dragging is sinister when it is known for a fact that the US propaganda of conducting “anti-narcotics” operations is/are a ruse. These hostile US military aggressions in the Caribbean Sea and on South America’s Pacific Coast are part of a broader US imperial geopolitical strategy aimed at toppling the government of Venezuelan President, Nicolás Maduro. The aim, as Trump has publicly intimated,[5] is to get the Venezuelan government to grant the US more beneficial access to Venezuela’s resources. One might ask: Why are governments, like Trinidad and Tobago, enabling US imperial terror in the region? And why have CARICOM governments not taken an unequivocal anti-imperialist position? The answer lies in the subordinated position of these states’ economies within the global economy. Caribbean states are historically structured to be neoliberal, pro-imperial, and anti-democratic – while political elites are beholden to enacting external interests. Moreover, internal political dynamics – in terms of racial and class struggles – are also a factor, influencing the timing and intensity of these Caribbean governments’ responses to present US imperial terror. Debunking the Myth of the Venezuela Narco State The first order of business is dispelling the myth that Venezuela is a ‘narco-state.’ US officials have framed the current operations — boat strikes, deployments of destroyers and aircraft — as counter-narcotics efforts designed to stem the flow of illicit drugs from Venezuela to the US. However, the Caribbean route is not among the primary conduits for major volumes of cocaine and methamphetamines into the US. Most trafficking flows of narcotics to the US are overland, through Central America and via Pacific routes.[6] It is no surprise therefore that the US government has not provided any proof of its claims that the people it has extrajudicially murdered in the Caribbean Sea or on South America’s coast are engaged in drug trafficking. Additionally, the scale and nature of force being used are far beyond what traditional interdiction operations require – with the Trump administration claiming that interdiction has not worked, hence deadly air strikes are necessary. In addition to the lack of evidence of a Venezuelan route being key to drug trafficking into the US, there is also no credible proof linking the Maduro government to organized drug trafficking, despite the Trump regime’s claims, which are parroted uncritically by many Caribbean media and politicians. Within the US’s own intelligence establishment, one report explicitly states: “the Maduro regime probably does not have a policy of cooperating with TDA [Tren de Agua] and is not directing TDA movement to and operations in the United States.”[7] The report goes on to say: “Venezuelan intelligence, military, and police services view TDA as a security threat and operate against it in ways that make it highly unlikely the two sides would cooperate in a strategic or consistent way.” These facts stand out, especially given the evidentiary long and sordid history of the US’s leading role in drug trafficking in the Americas, and the US as the #1 supplier of weapons to those involved in the global drug trade in the region. The US government’s real motive is to destabilize and topple the Maduro government in Venezuela, in favor of a regime that undermines Venezuela’s sovereignty. Frantz Fanon, Walter Rodney and many others remind us that capitalist imperialism depends upon neocolonial puppet governments occupied by a predatory elite who facilitate accumulation by extractivism, dispossession, and exploitation. Positioned to usurp Maduro in Venezuela by imposition and not elections, is 2025 Nobel “Peace” Prize winner, María Corina Machado. Machado is a key US ally, Trump admirer, supporter of Israel and its bombing of Gaza, and an overall admirer of repressive regimes in Latin America – including El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele and Brazil’s former president, Jair Bolsonaro. Machado has been begging for foreign military intervention in Venezuela to remove the Maduro government while professing that her administration, if granted power through non-electoral means, intends to open up Venezuela’s doors to foreign exploiters. If the current iteration of US imperial antagonism in the region leads to regime change in Venezuela, the US is poised to have control over the resources in the southern Caribbean – namely Guyana and T&T – as well as on the South American Coast: again, namely Guyana and then Venezuela. This will give the US direct control over shipping routes in the region, as it prepares for a wider economic confrontation with China. Hence, these alleged “anti-narcotics” operations which have taken the lives of over eighty Caribbean and South American people, are just a smokescreen for deeper US geopolitical interests. Dependency and the Character of the State Caribbean states are disregarding the lives of the Venezuelan, Latin American, and their own Caribbean populations using external security narratives, largely because there is a true dictatorship of foreign capital in the region. As US Vice-President JD Vance let slip, places like the Caribbean countries were always intended to remain extractive workstations, not autonomous, functioning nations.…at all.[8] T&T, for example, has long been dependent on oil and gas extraction for the bulk of its national income. However, the country has been experiencing a decline in natural gas and crude oil production over the past decade and the country’s liquefaction complex and petrochemical plants producing ammonia, methanol, and other key exports – which depend upon gas input – have been suffering.[9] Combined with the collapse in energy prices in 2014, this situation has produced a decline in foreign exchange inflows and government revenues.[10] With the demand for US dollars far outstripping the supply, T&T is facing one of the most severe foreign exchange crises in the Caribbean, causing uproar across the working, middle, and upper classes of society alike.[11] As such, the T&T government is desperate for the resuscitation of its flailing oil and gas sector. The T&T government spent decades developing a “Dragon” gas deal, where Shell would lead operations that funnel gas located in Venezuelan waters to T&T, where it can be exported as LNG. This deal, considered by the T&T state to be the lifeline that would save the local economy from collapse, has become a weapon in Washington, DC’s arsenal against Venezuela. In the midst of the extra-judicial killings in the region, the US has revoked licenses approving the deal and re-approved them under new terms meant to ensure the involvement and profits of US companies. The continued structural dependency of T&T on foreign capital and imperial markets renders its misleaders susceptible to these coercive measures to ensure that Caribbean states align with US capitalist imperialist policies. Economic coercion is an important part of the context for Kamla Persad Bissessar’s support for imperialism, but her position cannot be traced to this alone. Persad Bissessar and the educated elite and comprador class she represents come out of some of the “best” primary, secondary, and tertiary educational institutions locally and internationally. Are these elites supposed to provide independent, critical thinkers who would decolonize “post” colonial societies? Are they only unwitting agents of imperialism or are they willing participants? From the time of many states' flag independence, foreign interventions have secured for the local Caribbean elites’ (or comprador classes) party longevity and/or political dominance, and/or visas and dual citizenships, and/or the ability to accumulate wealth for themselves by exploiting the people and land within their countries. As Frantz Fanon’s “Wretched of the Earth” and Walter Rodney’s “How Europe Underdeveloped Africa” detailed, these elites lack the sort of creativity and vitality to independently develop into an industrial bourgeoisie. They therefore turn to propping up foreign entities and dependent economic relations. Consequently, Caribbean state-making and the establishment of territorial statuses in the context of US and European imperialist capitalism has reproduced institutions that are unresponsive to Caribbean people. Whether through hopes of securing or acquiring foreign investment, or due to rank economic blackmail that threatens foreign investments elites through sanctions and other restrictions – many Caribbean states choose to serve US and Western imperialism as an almost “practical” strategy of economic “stability”. However, such imperial service only guarantees continued underdevelopment and economic beggary. Herein, T&T’s misleadership is positioning the country as a beggar to the US and reinforcing US sanctions on Venezuela, which makes it hard for Venezuela to sell its own oil and gas to states that need it, including T&T. Worse still, the US does not want China to remedy this situation between Venezuela and Trinidad. So not only are some Caribbean leaders and party supporters encouraging naked US imperialism cloaked in the deceptive language and rhetoric of “anti-drug trafficking” and “protecting the region,” they are also upholding a condition of dependency of the region on the US, advancing US attempts to subvert Chinese influence in the region, and in the process supporting direct attacks on states in the region’s right to self-determination and sovereignty. Moreover, local internal racial and class dynamics are also shaping the timing and intensity of Caribbean governments responses to US aggression in the region. In the post-WWII construction of party politics in T&T, middle-class parties carried forward the colonial divisions between the predominantly African and Indian segments of the population that multiracial worker movements had fought so hard to overcome. Kamla Persad Bissessar, as leader of the party popularly known as the one representing “Indian interests,” is advancing and exploiting this racial wedge to garner support for her pro-imperial policies. This party has actively engaged in criminalizing poor African communities as well as Venezuelan migrants, while downplaying the fact that the many poor and marginalized Indians are similarly caught in the net of US imperialism. Persad Bissessar and her party affiliates’ own ideas of “purity” mixed with class notions of entitlement merge with the supremacist foundations of US local and foreign politics. It’s bad enough that a Prime Minister — a lawyer — supports extra-judicial murders in violation of International Law, but how does one align with a political ideology that produced people like Senator James Reed, who, circa 1919, openly dismissed dealing with “a nigger from Liberia, a nigger from Honduras, a nigger from India…each (having) votes equal to that of the great United States.” Before one argues that this was long ago, consider what right-wing political commentator Ann Coulter told Vivek Ramaswamy why she’d never vote for him regardless of how his views match hers. We acknowledge that political leaders, seeking re-election, opt for the path of least resistance which in this case means not offending the mighty United States. But this cannot just be naïveté. It is in this context that Kamla Persad Bissessar has broken with even the basic understanding of what CARICOM is, and is astonishingly peddling the idea that each island seeking its own interest is somehow more progressive than banding together as one bloc! In other words, she and those who support her stance have embraced regional colonial divide-and-conquer tactics. The US has always stood in opposition to a unified body in the region. As then US diplomat Charles Whittaker put it: “A strongly federated West Indies might be detrimental to American interests.” As such, they undermined the West Indian Federation in the 1950s and sabotaged the New International Economic Order throughout the 1970s. The Caribbean misleaders proclaiming disunity as strength subscribe to political ideologies that interlock with a particular brand of politics in the West that has been openly Euro-nationalist and imperialist. Hence, at a time when many resource-rich countries are forming partnerships and alternative trading and security blocs, the political misleaders in the Caribbean calling for further fragmentation should warrant deeper investigation. Media, Political Misleadership, and How the State Weaponizes “Security” It is important to clarify that crime does exist in the Caribbean region, just as it exists elsewhere throughout the world. The size of Caribbean countries are also important to note, because though it is true that the amount of drugs flowing through the Caribbean are low relative to the global drug trade, the little that does pass through is indeed wreaking havoc, given the geographical and population sizes of these countries. The increase in guns and violent crime associated with the global drug trade in places like T&T has become a critical factor affecting everyday life for ordinary people there. This context has enabled the T&T government to justify and legitimate US military aggression in the name of “fighting” the drug trade in the region. Thus, most people cheering on the US military are simply desperate for a sense of safety. However, it is precisely this need for safety that is being weaponized — to increase unsafe conditions as new US-produced military weaponry and technologies become even more commonplace in the region. There is a direct and indirect connection between (geo)political and economic decisions made by successive generations of ruling elites in the Caribbean, and North American narratives of crime, which have – going back to the 19th century in some countries – allowed (and made space for) imperial aggression in the region. Over a number of decades, the United States has taken advantage of crises caused by rising violent crime to pursue its own security interests – even though rises in violent crime in the region is directly linked to US imported and manufactured weapons, and US consumer demands for items that the US state deems “illegal.” To establish and maintain US dominance — and the accompanying cheap labor[12] from the surplus populations which exist in a region notorious for high levels of unemployment and underemployment — the US has deployed constant applications of violence, packaged as maintaining “law and order” in the drive to “progress” and “catch up” with the West. It’s no coincidence that modern policing began in the Caribbean as militarized slave patrols in St Lucia.[13] Then, like now, the purpose is the same: protect wealth from the workers who created it. However, the real effectiveness lay in conditioning the exploited to adopt the values of the elites. To date, Western elite definitions of progress and development for the wider working people in the Caribbean region dominate, even as the dependent status of Caribbean economies make this impossible for the majority of the people in the region. Thus, US reliance on expanding its military apparatus for economic growth is justified through the construction of permanent threats that the US supposedly has to “defend” itself against. Another such narrative, like the need to “promote democracy” in Venezuela, is also within this vein of western imperialist propaganda. The US and western imperialists maintain that Venezuela is not a democracy, despite the presence of robust, active citizen’s assemblies and communes, as well as elections that occur under the presence of election observers – including from the US. Nonetheless, the western imperialist narrative maintains that Venezuela is not democratic and thus their people can be bombed for some purported “greater good.” Meanwhile, these same imperialist narratives call genocidal Israel a democracy deserving of “protection” and “defense,” as it exterminates Palestinians and decimates Palestinian land. This propaganda – not analysis based on any facts – readily frames western imperialism as “defensive,” “pro-security,” and “pro-safety” and those not in line with it as “aggressive” and “undemocratic.”[14] In lockstep with imperialists, local political figures too have long used or encouraged the use of dehumanizing language when discussing criminalized people and communities. When the T&T Prime Minister, Police Commissioner, and other influential authority figures refer to human beings as “carcasses,”[15] “pests,” “fleas” or “cockroaches,” the message sent is that these are not citizens or members of society and therefore, not worthy of certain basic courtesies and legal obligations, including the right to life. When this sort of thinking is widespread, issues of social justice fall by the wayside. Instead, heavy, often murderous attacks on real or alleged drug runners who come from poor, precarious, vulnerable communities become justified while the power brokers, bankers and their institutions[16] that launder money do not get so much as a paper weight dropped on them. Likewise, the local and international media is playing a significant role in the unfolding crisis. Save for a few columnists, the local media has been disgraceful, little more than sycophantic stenographers for egregious narratives coming from Washington. Initially, the local media conducted little to no critical research into the many available sources discrediting[17] false allegations connecting the Maduro administration to drug cartels. They parroted language that criminalized the victims of the attacks without presenting any evidence proving that they were guilty of violating any laws. They were silent on the voluminous literature connecting the CIA and the US military to colonial land and resource grabs that violate international and local laws.[18] They also proliferated the myth that Nicolas Maduro “lost” or “rigged” elections in Venezuela, contrary to information provided by election observers. The lack of critical and independent journalism is a clear dereliction of duty, supporting imperialist narratives and providing cover for extrajudicial murder. Conclusion The neoliberal era shortly after many states’ independence extended the life of bourgeois colonial thought in the Caribbean, interpreting the human “firstly, [as] a figure that is homo economics, and, secondly, a figure that can only operate within the field of white supremacy and capitalism.”[19] In this environment, Caribbean resistance weakened, having to establish itself alongside the intensification of neoliberal processes – foremost amongst them being state repression and militarist aggression supported by the US hegemon – so that Caribbean peoples could be definitively integrated into a Western capitalist system as “bottom labor-exporting economies,” whose labor commodification was masked by discourses on ‘growth’ and ‘development.'[20] It is in analyzing the characteristics of Caribbean states and governance within them – including how they interpret “development” – that helps us to answer why so many states elect to do imperial service: Caribbean neocolonial (puppet) states are fundamentally anti-democratic with no real regard for Caribbean life within them. The T&T government’s deliberate facilitation of US imperial aggression in the region mirrors the position of several African states. The post-genocide Tutsi-dominated regime of Paul Kagame in Rwanda, leveraging its image as a victim of colonialism and genocide, justifies domestic repression of Hutus and expansionist military ventures in neighboring states, notably the Democratic Republic of Congo in close alliance with the United States, France, and Israel. In exchange for U.S. and western military, financial, and political backing, Rwanda facilitates imperial access to Congo’s mineral wealth — coltan, gold, and tin — channeling profits both to Western capital and Rwandan elites. Thus, Rwanda functions as a pro-U.S. imperial proxy, advancing the global system of resource extraction and accumulation on behalf of Western powers. In addition, Rwanda along with a growing list of African states, including Ghana, Eswatini, and South Sudan have accepted the terms of bilateral agreements with the US government to receive people who have been criminalized and deported under the Trump regime’s attack on communities racialized as non-white in the US.[21] By enlisting themselves to be locations for the outsourcing of US racist incarceration policies, they are enabling the geographical expansion of the US military industrial prison complex to more and more corners of the world. These Caribbean and African misleaders will go down in history as active enablers and facilitators of the very imperial greed, oppression, and exploitation that the masses have been resisting since the days of direct colonial domination. Only invigorated mass resistance that takes power away from Caribbean neocolonial (puppet) elites engaged in imperial service can rectify these conditions. Global Africans in the Caribbean and around the world must claim power and reclaim movement histories that fought back against capitalist imperialism. Originally published in Pambazuka News and republished in Black Agenda Report References [1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/venezuela-says-u-s-warship-raided-a-… [2] https://www.caribbeanlife.com/trinidad-guyana-us-moves-venezuela/ [3] https://newsday.co.tt/2025/09/03/kamla-says-kill-all-traffickers-as-tru… [4] https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/26/world/us-warship-docks-trinidad-venezeul… [5] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/17/trump-maduro-venezuela [6] https://www.unodc.org/unodc/data-and-analysis/world-drug-report-2025.ht… [7] https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/32f71f10c36cc482/d9… [8] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1bd-D1PIZg&pp=ygUZIGogZCB2YW5jZSBnbG9i… [9] https://www.finance.gov.tt/2020/03/16/effect-of-the-oil-price-collapse-… [10] https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2014/cr14271.pdf; https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/CR/Issues/2024/06/04/Trinidad-and-T…. [11] Chamber of Industry and Commerce 2025; University of the West Indies Campus News 2024. [12] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAJgGFtF44A [13] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kavkiH9YHag&pp=ygUaanVsaWFuIGdvIHBvbGlj… [14] See, for example, the Trilateral Commission’s “The Crisis of Democracy” in which influential thinkers who shaped US policy complained that decolonising countries were exercising too much democracy, which needed to be contained, leading to the proliferation of NGOs all over the peripheralized world. [15] https://trinidadexpress.com/news/local/kamla-state-resources-won-t-be-wasted/article_5d0c61fd-d633-4dd3-8e3e-6995a454c774.html [16] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcpZPGOksp0 [17] https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/2025NationalDrugThreatA…; https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/32f71f10c36cc482/d9… [18] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/455652.Dark_Alliance; https://www.versobooks.com/en-gb/products/1628-whiteout?srsltid=AfmBOor…; https://www.betterworldbooks.com/product/detail/the-politics-of-heroin-…; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxbW0CCuT7E [19] Bogues, Anthony. 2023. “Sylvia Wynter: Constructing Radical Caribbean Thought.” BIM: Arts for the 21st Century 11(1): 33–41, p.37. [20] Henry, Paget. 2000. “Caribbean Marxism: After the Neoliberal and Linguistic Turns.” In Caliban’s Reason: Introducing Afro-Caribbean Philosophy, Africana Thought, New York: Routledge, 221-46, p.228. [21] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/more-african-nations-are-receiving-t…

The recently released Trump Administration’s National Security Strategy (NSS) has upended what had been the decades-long consensus about American foreign policy. Most notable in it is the Trump Administration’s prioritization of the Western Hemisphere as an American security concern, its deemphasis on defending America’s traditional European allies, its identification of China as far more of a threat than Russia, and its determination not to be drawn into conflicts in the Middle East and Africa. But while the 2025 Trump Administration National Security Strategy breaks with much of previous American foreign policy, the logic behind it is not something completely new. Even though the document makes no mention of him, the policy outlined in the NSS comports with what John Mearsheimer described in his influential book, “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics”, which was first published in 2001 and updated in 2014. In his book Mearsheimer declared that no nation has ever achieved global hegemony. According to Mearsheimer, America is the only country that has achieved predominant influence in its own region (the Western Hemisphere) and has also been able to prevent any other great power from dominating any other region. Mearsheimer wrote, “States that achieve regional hegemony seek to prevent great powers in other regions from duplicating their feat. Regional hegemons, in other words, do not want peers” (2014 edition, p. 41). Trump’s 2025 National Security Strategy has, whether knowingly or not, adopted these aims as well. It discusses the various regions of the world in the order of their priority for the Trump Administration: the Western Hemisphere first, followed by Asia (or Indo-Pacific), Europe, the Middle East, and lastly Africa. With regard to the Western Hemisphere, the NSS unambiguously calls for the restoration of “American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere,” and states, “We will deny non-Hemispheric competitors the ability to position forces or other threatening capabilities, or to own or control strategically vital assets, in our Hemisphere.” This is very much in keeping with what Mearsheimer described as America being a regional hegemon in the Western Hemisphere. As for the other four regions of the world, though, the Trump Administration seeks either to prevent any other great power from becoming predominant — or it doesn’t see this as a possibility that needs to be worried about. According to the NSS, the Middle East was a priority in the past because it was the world’s most important energy supplier and was a prime theater of superpower conflict. Now, however, there are other energy suppliers (including the U.S.) and superpower competition has been replaced by “great power jockeying” in which the U.S. retains “the most enviable position.” In other words: the Trump Administration does not see any other great power as able to become predominant in this region which is now less strategically important than it used to be anyway. Similarly, the NSS does not see any other great power as even seeking to become predominant in Africa. The NSS thus sees America’s main interests there as mainly commercial. By contrast, China is seen as a threat in the Indo-Pacific region. The NSS, though, discusses Chinese threats in the economic and technological spheres before turning to the military one. A continued U.S. military presence in the region is seen as important for preventing Chinese predominance. But Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Australia are all enjoined by the NSS to increase their defense spending in order to counter this threat. The NSS also identifies “the potential for any competitor to control the South China Sea” as a common threat that not only requires investment in U.S. military capabilities, “but also strong cooperation with every nation that stands to suffer, from India to Japan and beyond.” Unlike the Middle East and Africa, then, the NSS does identify a rival great power as striving for predominance in the Indo-Pacific region. Countering it, though, is not seen as just being America’s responsibility, but also that of other powerful states in the region. The strangest section in the 2025 NSS is the one on Europe. While acknowledging that “many Europeans regard Russia as an existential threat,” the NSS envisions America’s role as “managing European relations with Russia” both to “reestablish conditions of strategic stability” and “to mitigate the risk of conflict between Russia and European states.” This is very different from the decades-long U.S. policy of seeing America’s role as defending democratic Europe against an expansionist Soviet Union in the past and Putin’s Russia more recently. Indeed, the NSS’s claim that the European Union undermines “political liberty and sovereignty” and its welcoming “the growing influence of patriotic European parties” (in other words, anti-EU right wing nationalist ones) suggests that it is not Russia which the Trump Administration sees as a rival, but the European Union. The 2025 NSS does call for a “strong Europe…to work in concert with us to prevent any adversary from dominating Europe.” The NSS, though, seems to envision the European Union as either greater than or equal to Russia in threatening to dominate European nations. In his book, Mearsheimer did not envision the European Union as a potential great power rival to the U.S. Indeed, there isn’t even an entry for it in the book’s index. The way that the NSS envisions the world, though, comports with how Mearsheimer described America’s great power position: predominant in the Western Hemisphere and able to prevent any other great power from becoming predominant in any other region of the world. Mearsheimer, though, is a scholar who described the position in the world that he saw the U.S. as having achieved and which would seek to maintain. The 2025 NSS, by contrast, is a policy document laying out how the Trump Administration believes it can best maintain this position. And there is reason to doubt that it has done so realistically. Keeping non-Hemispheric great powers out of the Western Hemisphere will not be easy when there are governments there that want to cooperate with them. Further, devoting American resources to being predominant in Latin America when this will be resented and resisted could not only take away from America’s ability to prevent rival great powers from becoming predominant in other regions, but could counterproductively lead Latin American nations than have already done so to increase their cooperation with external great powers which the Trump Administration wants to avoid. Further, the Trump Administration’s efforts to reduce the influence of the European Union runs two risks: the first is that such an effort will succeed, but that the rise of anti-EU nationalist governments throughout the old continent results in a Europe less able to resist Russian manipulation and incursion. The second is that Trump Administration efforts to weaken the European Union backfire and result not only in a Europe united against American interference but unnecessarily emerging as a rival to the U.S. It would be ironic indeed if pursuing the NSS’s plan for upholding what Mearsheimer described as America’s ability to predominate over the Western Hemisphere combined with an ability to prevent any rival from predominating over any other region ended up undermining America’s ability to do either.

According to the IEA by 2024, more than 20% of new cars sold worldwide were electric, exceeding 17 million and positioning China as the leader in the market with more than 11 million sales. In comparison, the European and US markets also saw a growth in the sector, but not comparable to the Chinese counterpart. Figure 1: Global EV sales, 2014-2024. Source (IEA, 2025) Figure 2: EVs registrations share in China, US and Europe: 2018-2023. Source: IEA, 2025. On the other hand, autonomous vehicles, whose market value size was estimated at USD 68.09 billion in 2024, are also trending worldwide, North America being the largest market in 2024 (market share of 37.1% and passenger vehicles leading the market with 69% of the global revenue), while the Asia Pacific region is the fastest-growing market. Figure 3: Autonomous Vehicle Market. Source: Grand View Research. (Grand View Research, 2025) Recently, despite the data and market share, discussions and analysis of the vehicle industry have moved into new concerns related to security risks, trade protectionism and unfair competition. Why? Because the vehicle industry has evolved and adopted new technologies, at the same time, concerns have shifted accordingly. These changes have relied on or prioritized human convenience and connectivity over everything else. A New Security Paradigm for Mobility: Are Connected Cars Data Weapons A simple answer is no, but there are elements that can change the answer into a yes in the future. Vehicles are evolving into connected machines, with software-driven platforms, sensors, cameras, connectivity modules and AI systems. Thus, the vehicle industry is entering a new era where data is key, and whoever controls it, is likely to control the market itself. As mentioned before, vehicle-related security risks have sparked discussions in recent years. Nowadays, practically any vehicle sold has a certain degree of connectivity, naturally this leads to a continuous and massive collection of information (sensitive or not), including for example: real-time location, driving patterns, biometric data, audio recordings, images from the Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems (ADAS) and more. For common people this might pass unnoticed but for governments, the fact of collecting and storing data or having the possibility to do so has become a critical point and a threat to their national security. After all, fear is real, and the more connected a vehicle is, the higher the chances that it can become a surveillance device, for example. The speculations can grow as much as our/their imagination leaves them, but after all, security risks and fear related to them exist. In line with the security risks, the possibility of software backdoors hidden in operating systems or telematic units is another possibility. Naturally, if exploited this possibility, these vulnerabilities could allow a remote shutdown of vehicles or fleets, manipulation of navigation systems or even data extraction could occur. In simple terms, this could open the door to cyberattacks, including the potential loss of control of a vehicle. Once again, the possibility of these ideas has reshaped and changed the paradigm of connected vehicles Actual measures and global regulatory trends As governments start recognizing these security threats associated with connected vehicles, many have begun implementing several regulations to protect their national security. For instance, the UK, Israel, the USA and the EU are among the most active actors. One of the branches of the economic war between the US and China is exactly the mobility industry, the fierce competition between both nations has tightened the nationalist policies of President Trump, in fact the US has rapidly adopted a national-security lens for automotive imports. There have been discussions in Congress and even the Commerce Department has proposed rules allowing Washington to prohibit connected car technologies linked to foreign adversaries. In addition, there is huge pressure over the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), specifically in the encouragement to revise the vehicles entering the US and the promotion of US vehicle-manufacturing companies. For those reasons, the US had imposed tariffs on Chinese-made vehicles (from 25% up to 100% on 2024 during Biden’s administration and later a 35.5% extra tariff on Chinese-made EVs) and had set several rules in line with the USMCA, to limit or protect the American market from Chinese vehicles, as it argued that China is taking advantage of the USMCA by using Mexico or Canada as the entry points to the American market, avoiding tariffs and minimizing costs. According to experts, this Chinese circumvention of US tariffs can occur in three main ways. First through transshipment – products enter Canada or Mexico and then they are shipped to the USA. The second way is by incorporating the Chinese products into the North American supply chains. And the third way is through direct Chinese investments in manufacturing facilities in Mexico or Canada. At the same time, across the Atlantic the EU has also been working on tightening regulations through the Cyber Resilience Act, as well as strengthening the General Safety Regulations, both focusing on the application of rigorous standards to vehicle cybersecurity, data governance, and supply-chain transparency. Also in Europe, recently, a British newspaper reported that military and intelligence chiefs had been ordered not to discuss official business while riding in EVs, and cars with Chinese components had been banned from sensitive military sites. In addition, the former head of the intelligence service MI6 claimed that Chinese-made technology, including cars, could be controlled and programmed remotely. Consequently, the UK has begun evaluating supply chains for hidden dependencies in infotainment systems, telematics, and semiconductors. In the same line, Israel has adopted rigid measures, the Israeli army has begun withdrawing Chinese-made vehicles from officers, citing espionage concerns. Other measures implemented include auditing imported vehicles to ensure no remote-access pathways existence, plus the encouragement of local automakers and tech firms to develop secure telematics modules to minimize foreign reliance. What is China’s role in this new paradigm? To understand the role of China in the EVs and connected vehicles is important to highlight the low labor costs in China, coupled with government subsidies and a well-structured and established supply chain, these three factors gave the Chinese firms huge advantages over their competitors. However, those are not the only factors involved in the equation, the promotion of EVs over internal combustion vehicles and the adoption and development of technologies that turn “simple” vehicles into connected vehicles are important to mention too. All these factors have been well capitalized by Chinese firms, in consequence, China has become the world’s largest EV exporter and somehow a threat for the West. As mentioned throughout the article, the security risks have sparked discussions and concerns, and it is fair, as Chinese-made vehicles have become competitive and technologically well-connected, much, that nowadays are in conditions to fight for the global automotive market. Therefore, there is a clear sense of concern among Western governments, especially in conditions of a politicized world that we live in nowadays. Naturally Beijing argues that bans and investigations on their Chinese-made vehicles are forms of economic protectionism and rejects any claims related to espionage, data leaks or misuse. While, it has also responded by tightening its own domestic rules: foreign vehicles are prohibited from accessing sensitive regions, including areas near government buildings and military facilities. Benefits and challenges for other key players and global automakers Automakers from Korea, Japan or the European and American are being directly benefited from the rising Chinese scrutiny of connected cars, meaning that new export and investment opportunities could be achieved by them. If these countries can materialize transparent software supply chains, strong cybersecurity frameworks, and local data-storage compliance, their advantage would increase. Specifically Korean and Japanese firms – which are proven reliable players with a strong presence worldwide and strengths in battery technology and infotainment systems –, can position themselves as trusted suppliers in those markets that are worried about Chinese-made vehicles and their possible espionage or security risks. On the other hand, however, there are big challenges ahead. If each country or region decides to have proper regulations, major hurdles will appear. For example; compliance costs will rise as automakers must meet different cybersecurity rules across regions; the technology surrounding software auditing, and the transparency of the supply chains itself will require significant investments; the supply chain and design of vehicles will be affected and in consequence production cost will increase; and, if there are different digital standards or rules, it is likely that there could be some limitations in the global interoperability. Conclusions While the rapid growth of EVs worldwide can be considered a good sign for sustainability goals – as they displaced over 1 million barrels per day of oil consumption in 2024 –. Recently there have appeared certain concerns related to security risks – proven or not – trade protectionism and unfair competition. On top of that, the transformation of cars into fully connected digital platforms has created a new paradigm, in which certain nations – mostly western nations – have started to be worried and rethinking their mobility through the lens of national security. In consequence, governments have tightened rules related to data, cybersecurity and foreign software dependencies. This new vision is already changing and transforming the vehicle industry, while the most affected, being the Chinese firms – due the natural competition and geopolitical reasons – there are other global automakers that, if they take the chance, could become key players – as far as they prioritize transparency in supply chains, security and technological trust. The new paradigm has shifted what used to be an ordinary, everyday product into a critical national infrastructure that must be subject to regulation. Finally, this paradigm also highlights the importance of data sovereignty and how important it has become and will be in the future. Referencias Carey, N. (2025, December 2). China floods the world with gasoline cars it can't sell at home. Retrieved from Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/investigations/china-floods-world-with-gasoline-cars-it-cant-sell-home-2025-12-02/ European Commision. (2025, March 5). Industrial Action Plan for the European automotive sector . Retrieved from European Commision: https://transport.ec.europa.eu/document/download/89b3143e-09b6-4ae6-a826-932b90ed0816_en Financial Post. (2025, December 11). Why China's EVs are dangerous to Canada: CVMA. Retrieved from YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV7bn29lpOQ Grand View Research. (2025). Autonomous Vehicle Market (2025 - 2030). Retrieved from Grand View Research: https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/autonomous-vehicles-market IEA. (2025). Trends in electric car markets. Retrieved from IEA: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2025/trends-in-electric-car-markets-2 Introvigne, M. (2024, February 6). Should Chinese Electric Cars Be Banned in the West? Retrieved from Bitter Winter: https://bitterwinter.org/should-chinese-electric-cars-be-banned-in-the-west/?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=11726773838&gbraid=0AAAAAC6C3PdZ9Jx_edcTzlW0hHoO8yN2D&gclid=CjwKCAiA3L_JBhAlEiwAlcWO59TNJrosoZkG7MwAid0bRuGKs5KY0P7csiXimfUzLlbYshtFMafkdxoCqvQQAvD_Bw Leggett, T. (2025, June 10). China's electric cars are becoming slicker and cheaper - but is there a deeper cost? Retrieved from BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy8d4v69jw6o Meltzer, J. P., & Barron Esper, M. (2025, September 23). Is China circumventing US tariffs via Mexico and Canada? Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/articles/is-china-circumventing-us-tariffs-via-mexico-and-canada/#:~:text=Chinese%20intermediate%20goods%20used%20in,to%20the%20production%20of%20new: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/is-china-circumventing-us-tariffs-via-mexico-and-canada/#:~:text=Chinese%20intermediate%20goods%20used%20in,to%20the%20production%20of%20new Navarrete, F. (2024, May 21). Aranceles de EU a autos chinos ponen en aprietos a México. Retrieved from El Financiero: https://www.elfinanciero.com.mx/empresas/2024/05/21/aranceles-de-eu-a-autos-chinos-ponen-en-aprietos-a-mexico/ Oertel, J. (2024, January 25). European Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved from https://ecfr.eu/article/security-recall-the-risk-of-chinese-electric-vehicles-in-europe/: https://ecfr.eu/article/security-recall-the-risk-of-chinese-electric-vehicles-in-europe/ Radio biafra. (2025). Fearing data leaks, Israel bans Chinese-made cars for army officers. Retrieved from Radio biafra: https://radiobiafra.co/ Schuman, M. (2025, November). China’s EV Market Is Imploding. Retrieved from The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/2025/11/china-electric-cars-market/684887/ Zhang, Z. (2025, December 4). China’s EV dominance sparks EU retaliation. Retrieved from East Asia Forum: https://eastasiaforum.org/2025/12/04/chinas-ev-dominance-sparks-eu-retaliation/

Abstract This paper analyses the escalating tensions between the United States and Venezuela as of 2025, focusing on the Caribbean regional security complex. Under President Donald Trump, U.S. - Venezuela relations have sharply deteriorated, marked by increased military deployments, including the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group, and over 4,000 troops near Venezuela. Operation Southern Spear targets alleged narco-terrorist groups linked to Venezuela, with numerous airstrikes on suspected drug-smuggling vessels resulting in significant casualties. Despite official claims of counternarcotics objectives, critics question the legality and evidence supporting these actions. Venezuela, backed by Russian arms and military support, has mobilised substantial forces and prepared for guerrilla resistance. The potential for full-scale conflict remains elevated but uncertain, complicated by domestic U.S. opposition, legal constraints, and regional diplomatic backlash. Additionally, Venezuela's rare earth mineral deposits add a strategic dimension to the conflict amid global supply chain concerns. The study highlights the multifaceted geopolitical, military, and economic factors shaping this volatile confrontation. Key Words: the U.S., Venezuela, Regional Security Complex Introduction Recently, the U.S.-Venezuela relations have deteriorated significantly under President Donald Trump, marking a continuation of longstanding tensions rooted in U.S. opposition to the socialist government led by President Nicolás Maduro, including past sanctions and diplomatic isolation. [1] The year 2025 has seen a sharp escalation in U.S. military posturing framed as a counternarcotics campaign, with Trump signing a secret directive in August authorising Pentagon forces against select Latin American drug cartels, including those allegedly tied to Venezuelan entities.[2] This has involved designating groups like Tren de Aragua (TdA) as a foreign terrorist organisation in February and the Cartel de los Soles as a transnational terrorist group in July, with unsubstantiated claims linking them to Maduro's regime in drug trafficking operations targeting the U.S.[3] Recent developments alarmingly include a U.S. military build-up in the Caribbean since August 2025, featuring assets such as Aegis-class destroyers, nuclear-powered submarines, the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group, over 4,000 troops deployed off Venezuela's coast, an additional 5,000 on standby in Puerto Rico, F-35 fighter jets, MQ-9 Reaper drones, and B-52 bomber demonstration flights over Caracas. Starting in September, the U.S. has conducted at least 16 airstrikes on suspected drug-running boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific waters, resulting in at least 67 deaths. However, critics argue that these lack sufficient evidence of drug ties and raise concerns over extrajudicial killings.[4] Administration officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, have emphasised that these operations are limited to maritime counternarcotics and intelligence gathering, with no current plans for strikes inside Venezuela itself, citing a lack of legal justification for land-based actions under existing Justice Department opinions. However, the administration is seeking a new legal opinion to potentially authorise future land strikes without congressional approval, aligning with Trump's hints that Maduro's leadership is nearing its end.[5] On November 6, 2025, the U.S. Senate rejected a bipartisan resolution under the 1973 War Powers Act that would have required congressional authorisation for any military attack on Venezuela, failing by a 51-49 vote, with only two Republicans — Sens. Rand Paul and Lisa Murkowski — joining Democrats in support.[6] Some have interpreted this vote as giving tacit approval to Trump's "America First" doctrine, which critics compare to past interventions in Panama (1989) or Iraq (2003), warning of risks like regional instability or failed regime change efforts. Economically, the intensified U.S. pressure has led to a surge in Venezuelan bond prices, reflecting investor speculation on the potential for regime change amid the country's $150 billion in defaulted debt and interest payments.[7] Broader implications include debates over Trump's endgame, with experts suggesting limited strikes to pressure elites around Maduro rather than a full invasion. However, this could echo U.S. misadventures in Afghanistan or Libya.[8] From Venezuela's perspective and allied views, these actions represent an imperialistic push to undermine the Bolivarian Revolution, potentially through fabricated pretexts or assassinations, with international actors like China and Russia conducting joint exercises in the region to counter U.S. moves.[9] Congressional Democrats have voiced scepticism over the campaign's legality and transparency, while Republicans largely support executive authority in combating drug threats.[10] Source: https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/instability-venezuela The U.S. military build-up towards Venezuela Diplomatic relations were terminated in 2019 following the United States' recognition of opposition leader Juan Guaidó as Venezuela's interim president. Consequently, as reported by the media, several South American nations, including Brazil, Colombia, and Peru, have also acknowledged Mr. Guaidó as the legitimate president of Venezuela.[11] In response to President Trump's recognition of the opposition leader, President Maduro severed diplomatic relations with the United States and mandated that its diplomatic personnel vacate Venezuela within 72 hours. He accused Washington of attempting to govern Venezuela remotely and alleged that the opposition was endeavouring to orchestrate a coup. Consequently, the U.S. embassy in Caracas remains closed. The United States continues to recognise the National Assembly elected in 2015, but ceased to acknowledge Guaidó's presidential claim in 2023. The U.S. government maintains that neither Maduro nor his affiliates represent the legitimate Venezuelan government. [12] Furthermore, the United States has markedly augmented its military presence in the Caribbean Sea as part of "Operation Southern Spear," purportedly to address drug trafficking. This initiative includes the deployment of the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier and thousands of military personnel, constituting the largest military deployment to the region in several decades.[13] As reported by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, recent operations have primarily targeted vessels suspected of drug smuggling. The initial attack was recorded on September 2 in the Caribbean, and since then, the frequency of these attacks has increased, extending into the Eastern Pacific.[14]    Reports suggest the strikes in the Caribbean have occurred near the Venezuelan coast. Previous analysis by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) described a potential U.S. surveillance operation off the coast, which the United States has purportedly established to detect and target potential drug traffickers before they integrate with the dense maritime traffic of the Caribbean.[15] Until late summer, the deployment of U.S. Navy ships to the Caribbean was relatively limited compared to previous years. However, as illustrated in Figure 2, this situation changed in August when the administration initiated a significant increase in forces to combat drug smuggling. Deployment levels further escalated with the arrival of the Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group (CSG).[16]    Recent deployments have also involved larger vessels, which bring substantial firepower and additional combat capabilities. A rudimentary method to quantify the enhancement in capability is to examine the displacement of the deployed ships. Figure 3 illustrates the significant increase in the displacement of deployed ships since the commencement of the second Trump administration. The initial major increase occurred with the deployment of the Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group; the arrival of the Ford CSG nearly doubled the number.[17]   Since September 2025, the U.S. has conducted a series of airstrikes on boats in the Caribbean and Pacific, which it claims are drug-trafficking vessels operated by "narco-terrorist" organisations like the Tren de Aragua gang.[18] On Monday, September 15, President Trump announced that, under his directive, United States military forces executed a second kinetic strike against drug trafficking cartels and narco-terrorists identified as extraordinarily violent within the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility. This strike was conducted while these confirmed narco-terrorists from Venezuela were in international waters, transporting illegal narcotics intended for the United States, which he described as a deadly weapon poisoning Americans. In the same announcement, President Trump asserted that these extremely violent drug trafficking cartels pose a threat to U.S. national security, foreign policy, and vital U.S. interests.[19] The strike on September 15 resulted in the deaths of three individuals aboard the vessel. Subsequently, on Friday, September 19, U.S. military forces executed an additional strike. President Trump asserted that, under his directive, forces conducted a strike against a designated terrorist organisation involved in narco-trafficking. Intelligence confirmed that the vessel was transporting illicit narcotics and was en route to harm Americans. The strike resulted in the deaths of three male narco-terrorists. It remains unclear which group within the USSOUTHCOM area of responsibility was targeted in the third airstrike.[20] On September 2, 2025, the United States military conducted its initial strike, resulting in the deaths of 11 individuals suspected of narco-terrorism. Following the third strike, the cumulative number of suspected drug traffickers killed reached 17. By mid-November 2025, at least 20 strikes had been announced, resulting in over 80 deaths, with most occurring in the Caribbean and several expanding to the Pacific off South America's coast.[21] U.S. officials, including President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, have justified the actions as part of a counternarcotics campaign against groups like TdA and the Colombian National Liberation Army (ELN), framing them as an "armed attack" on the U.S. and releasing videos of some strikes.[22] Maduro's government has denounced the U.S. actions as acts of aggression and "regime change through military threat," launching its own "massive mobilisation" of troops and military exercises in response.[23] Additionally, the Colombian president, Gustavo Petro, who is in the midst of a spat with Donald Trump over the boat strikes and tariffs, said: "The attack on another boat in the Pacific … killed people. It is murder. Whether in the Caribbean or Pacific, the U.S. government strategy breaks the norms of international law." Interestingly, María Corina Machado, a prominent Venezuelan politician and opposition leader, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2025 for her "unwavering commitment to promoting democracy and human rights in Venezuela", according to The Nobel Prize.[24] Following her award on October 10, 2025, Machado has called for increased international support, urging U.S. leaders like Donald Trump to intensify pressure on Maduro to facilitate a democratic transition, including by calling for military intervention.[25] The military build-up has fueled speculation of a potential U.S. invasion, though President Trump downplayed the possibility, saying he "doubts it". Experts disagree on the likelihood of a full-scale invasion, noting the U.S. has previously opted for sanctions and diplomatic pressure over direct military action. War Speculation As of mid-November 2025 (when this analysis is written), the likelihood of a full-scale war between the United States and Venezuela remains elevated but not imminent or inevitable.[I] While tensions have escalated dramatically through U.S. military build-up and operations in the Caribbean, several restraining factors—including domestic U.S. opposition, legal hurdles, and high risks of failure would suggest a medium probability of limited escalation to airstrikes or missile attacks on Venezuelan targets, but a lower chance of a ground invasion or prolonged conflict. As mentioned above, the U.S. did launch "Operation Southern Spear" on November 13, a joint task force under U.S. Southern Command aimed at defending against "narco-terrorists" allegedly tied to Venezuela.[26] The arrival of the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group on November 11 has shifted the focus toward potential anti-Maduro operations, supported by a build-up of over a dozen warships, an attack submarine, amphibious vessels, roughly 15,000 troops (including Marines in joint exercises with Trinidad and Tobago), 10 F-35 fighter jets, drones, and special operations forces in the region and Puerto Rico. [27] President Trump has authorised CIA covert operations in Venezuela and, on November 14, stated he has "sort of made up my mind" on military options after briefings from top officials like Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. [28] He has suggested "the land is going to be next" after maritime strikes, hinting at ground operations or strikes on Venezuelan soil, such as military facilities, drug routes, or even targeting Maduro directly.[29] However, Trump has also mentioned possible discussions with Maduro and expressed caution about actions that could fail or entangle U.S. troops. In response, Venezuela has mobilised around 200,000 military personnel, civilians, and militias in large-scale exercises, deploying aging Russian-made equipment like 5,000 Igla missiles and preparing for guerrilla warfare, sabotage, and "anarchization" strategies to make the country ungovernable for invaders[30] Maduro has warned that U.S. intervention would turn Venezuela into "another Gaza, Afghanistan, or Vietnam," emphasising national resistance.[31] What could enhance the likelihood of a war between the U.S. and Venezuela? The U.S. holds overwhelming advantages in air, sea, and missile capabilities (e.g., up to 170 Tomahawk missiles in the region, stealth bombers for long-range strikes), making initial air or missile campaigns feasible without ground forces.[32] Venezuela's forces are numerically larger on land but poorly trained, under-equipped, and focused on internal control, with limited operational aircraft and inoperable submarines.[33] Experts note that this imbalance could encourage U.S. escalation, similar to the 1989 invasion of Panama.[34] Trump's administration views the situation as an "armed attack" on the U.S. via drugs and migration, with regime change as a potential endgame to disrupt flows and secure oil deals.[35] The Senate's rejection of a War Powers Act resolution earlier in November gives tacit executive leeway. Analysts describe the region as "on the brink," with the carrier deployment starting a "shot clock" for action before unsustainable costs mount.[36] There are several arguments against a potential war. According to YouGov.US, polls show that 55% of Americans oppose a U.S. invasion, with only 15% in support, including majorities among Democrats, Independents, and even some Republicans.[37] Apparently, Trump's anti-war coalition, including figures like Vice President JD Vance and Hegseth, is sceptical of foreign entanglements.[38] According to experts, there is no current legal justification for land strikes, as the War Powers Act's 60-day limit has expired and Congress is pressing for transparency.[39] Regional leaders (e.g., Brazil's Lula, Colombia's Petro, Mexico's Sheinbaum) condemn the build-up as aggression, suspending intelligence sharing and evoking "gunboat diplomacy." What is more, the UN and human rights criticisms label U.S. actions as potential extrajudicial killings, risking broader isolation.[40] A full invasion could require 50,000 - 150,000 troops, facing guerrilla resistance in challenging terrain and leading to a failed state or protracted insurgency (comparisons to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya). Experts warn it won't solve drug or dictator issues, damaging U.S. credibility in Latin America (e.g., falling favourability ratings) and diverting from diplomatic alternatives. What about Russia? – Is there the potential for another Cuban Missile Crisis? Russia has been Venezuela's primary arms supplier since the early 2000s under former President Hugo Chávez, providing a wide array of military equipment that forms the backbone of the Bolivarian National Armed Forces (FANB) and plays a central role in its defence strategy amid escalating U.S. - Venezuela tensions in 2025.[41] This arsenal, largely Soviet-era designs manufactured or upgraded by Russia, distinguishes Venezuela's military from others in Latin America, which typically rely on U.S. or European weaponry, and is intended to deter external aggression, particularly from the U.S., through asymmetric warfare capabilities.[42] Among the most critical for countering U.S. air and naval superiority are Russian-derived air defence and missile systems. In this category, according to media, the key assets include: 12 batteries of S-300 long-range surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), nine Buk-M2E medium-range SAMs, 44 S-125 Pechora-2M short-range SAMs, and thousands of portable Igla-S shoulder-fired SAMs (with up to 5,000 units reported in some estimates).[43] The S-300 and Buk systems are positioned to protect key sites like oil facilities and radar installations, potentially threatening U.S. aircraft, helicopters, and drones at various altitudes. Igla-S launchers are distributed to regular troops and the Bolivarian Militia for low-altitude defence.[44] As for the aircraft and anti-ship capabilities, experts estimate around 20-30 Sukhoi Su-30MK2 multirole fighter jets, armed with Kh-31 "Krypton" anti-ship and anti-radar missiles, serve as the core of Venezuela's air force. [45] These jets, equipped with long-range air-to-air missiles, could challenge U.S. naval vessels in the Caribbean by launching sea-skimming attacks, forcing U.S. forces to operate under heightened risk. Russia has also provided Mi-17 and Mi-35 helicopters for transport and attack roles.[46] As for ground and artillery systems, Venezuela fields 92 T-72B1 main battle tanks, 123 BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicles, Msta-S self-propelled howitzers, and Smerch multiple rocket launchers.[47] Infantry weapons include Kalashnikov rifles (e.g., AK-103) and Dragunov sniper rifles, with a new factory opened in July 2025 for producing Kalashnikov munitions to sustain supply.[48] Finally, as for other support systems, Russian radar arrays and electronic warfare tools, integrated with Chinese communications, enable jamming of U.S. signals, creating a contested electromagnetic environment.[49] These systems contribute to Venezuela's overall force of about 150,000 active personnel, plus a Bolivarian Militia estimated at 220,000 - 1 million (with government claims up to 8 million), which could use Russian arms for guerrilla-style resistance.[50] Amid heightened U.S. pressure, President Nicolás Maduro drafted a letter in October 2025 requesting additional Russian missiles, radars, drones, upgraded aircraft, and other support directly from Vladimir Putin.[51] According to the media, a Russian Ilyushin Il-76 cargo plane, linked to military or Wagner Group operations, landed in Caracas in late October to deliver cargo, potentially including arms or parts.[52] Russia has also allegedly assisted in maintenance and opened a Kalashnikov munitions factory in Venezuela in July 2025. However, experts caution that Russia's commitments may be limited due to its focus on Ukraine, economic strains, and reliance on allies like China and Iran for broader support, suggesting more symbolic gestures (e.g., past bomber deployments in 2018-2019) than substantial reinforcements.[53] This aid seems to be part of a multipolar strategy involving China and Iran, but Russia's role remains pivotal in sustaining Venezuela's deterrent posture. Conclusion What about Venezuela's rare earths? Venezuela does have deposits of rare earth elements (REEs), though they are not among the world's largest or most developed reserves. Known occurrences include the Navay phosphate deposit in southwestern Venezuela, where phosphorites contain REE concentrations averaging around 208 parts per million, with potential for extraction as a byproduct of phosphoric acid production.[54] Additional deposits occur in the Amazon Basin and the Guiana Shield, particularly in the Bolívar and Amazonas states, where REEs are found alongside other critical minerals, such as coltan (a source of tantalum), tin, and tungsten.[55] These areas feature preliminary survey results indicating reserves of around 43 million tons of ore with REE oxide concentrations averaging 1.5%, though much of the extraction is informal and unregulated.[56] Historically, Venezuela has exported small amounts of REE compounds, such as $27,600 worth in 2003, but current production is limited and often tied to illicit mining.[57] REEs play a minor but notable role in the ongoing tensions between the U.S. and Venezuela, primarily as part of broader competition over critical minerals rather than as a central driver of the conflict. The main issues in US-Venezuela relations remain oil sanctions, political disputes over the Maduro regime, and human rights concerns, but Venezuela's mineral resources—including REEs and coltan—have drawn international attention amid global supply chain vulnerabilities.[58] The U.S. defence and technology sectors rely on these materials for applications such as fighter jets, missiles, and electronics, and Venezuela's deposits are seen as potential alternatives to China's dominant supply, especially after China's recent export restrictions heightened Western diversification efforts.[59] Mining in these areas is often controlled by armed groups like the ELN and FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) dissidents—designated as terrorist organisations by the U.S.—leading to smuggling, environmental damage, and human rights abuses that complicate international involvement.[60] Some analysts suggest that U.S. policies, including sanctions and border measures, may indirectly aim to secure access to these resources to counter China's influence, viewing Venezuela's alliances with Beijing as a strategic threat in the context of rare-earth dependencies.[61] However, REEs are not the primary motivator compared to oil, and their extraction remains largely illicit rather than a formalised point of diplomatic contention.[62] Notes [I] Importantly, on November 29, 2025, President Donald Trump declared that the airspace "above and surrounding" Venezuela should be considered "closed in its entirety. See more at: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/29/trump-venezuelan-airspace-military-00670743 References [1] U.S. Relations With Venezuela. (2024, July 18). U.S. Department of State. https://2021-2025.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-venezuela/ [2] U.S. Confrontation With Venezuela. (2025, July 11). Global Conflict Tracker. https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/instability-venezuela [3] The United States Continues Its Attempt to Overthrow Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution: The Forty-Fifth Newsletter (2025). (2025, November 6). Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. https://thetricontinental.org/newsletterissue/us-threats-venezuela/ [4] Bertrand, N., Hansler, J., Lillis, K. B., Cohen, Z., & Atwood, K. (2025, November 7). Trump admin tells Congress it currently lacks legal justification to strike Venezuela. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/06/politics/trump-venezuela-legal-congress-land [5] War looms in Venezuela as Trump tests an “Americas First” doctrine. (2025, November 6). The Economist. https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2025/11/06/war-looms-in-venezuela-as-trump-tests-an-americas-first-doctrine [6] O’Brien, C., & Gould, J. (2025, November 6). Senate sinks measure to block military action against Venezuela. POLITICO. https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/11/06/congress/senate-venezuela-vote-00640088 [7] Campos, R. (2025, November 7). Venezuela bonds surge as US pressure intensifies on Maduro. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/venezuela-bonds-surge-us-pressure-intensifies-maduro-2025-11-06/ [8] Kroenig, M., & Marczak, J. (2025, November 6). The expert conversation: What’s Trump’s endgame in Venezuela? Atlantic Council. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/the-expert-conversation-whats-trumps-endgame-in-venezuela/ [9] The United States Continues Its Attempt to Overthrow Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution: The Forty-Fifth Newsletter (2025). (2025, November 6). Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. https://thetricontinental.org/newsletterissue/us-threats-venezuela/ [10] Bertrand, N., Hansler, J., Lillis, K. B., Cohen, Z., & Atwood, K. (2025, November 7). Trump admin tells Congress it currently lacks legal justification to strike Venezuela. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/06/politics/trump-venezuela-legal-congress-land [11] Juan Guaidó: US backs opposition leader as Venezuela president. (2019, January 24). BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-46980913 [12] Lee, D. D., & News Agencies. (2025, October 7). Venezuela’s Maduro says US embassy ‘false flag’ bombing foiled in Caracas. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/10/7/venezuelas-maduro-says-us-embassy-false-flag-bombing-foiled-in-caracas#:~:text=Following%20the%20rupture%20of%20diplomatic,and%20upkeep%20of%20the%20premises. [13] Operation Southern Spear: Latest Development in Operationalizing Robotic and Autonomous Systems. (2025, January 28). America’s Navy. https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/Press-Releases/display-pressreleases/Article/4044322/operation-southern-spear-latest-development-in-operationalizing-robotic-and-aut/ [14] Cancian, M. F., & Park, C. H. (2025, November 10). Trump’s Caribbean Campaign: The Data Behind Operation Southern Spear. https://www.csis.org/analysis/trumps-caribbean-campaign-data-behind-developing-conflict [15] Ibidem. [16] Ibidem. [17] Ibidem. [18] Ducharme, J. (2025, September 22). Trump’s Caribbean Campaign: The Data Behind Operation Southern Spear. Orion Policy Institute. https://orionpolicy.org/airstrikes-on-drug-traffickers-in-the-caribbean/ [19] Ibidem. [20] Madhani, A. (2025, September 19). Trump says U.S. has carried out another fatal strike targeting alleged drug-smuggling boat. CNBC. https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/trump-us-strike-drug-smuggling-boat/3694397/ [21] Flaherty, A., & Pereira, I. (2025, November 17). Timeline: US strikes on alleged drug boats. CBCNews. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/timeline-us-strikes-alleged-drug-boats/story?id=126940218 [22] Jaffe, A. (2025, October 30). Assessing the Facts and Legal Questions About the U.S. Strikes on Alleged Drug Boats. FactCheck.Org. https://www.factcheck.org/2025/10/assessing-the-facts-and-legal-questions-about-the-u-s-strikes-on-alleged-drug-boats/ [23] Lowell, H., & staff, G. (2025, October 23). US military kills five people in strikes on alleged drug-trafficking boats in Pacific. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/22/military-boat-strike-pacific-pete-hegseth [24] Maria Corina Machado Facts. (2025, November 20). The Nobel Prize. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2025/machado/facts/ [25] Nobel Peace Prize Winner: US Escalation Is “Only Way” to Free Venezuela. (2025, October 31). Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2025-maria-corina-machado-weekend-interview/?embedded-checkout=true [26] Cancian, M. F., & Park, C. H. (2025, November 10). Trump’s Caribbean Campaign: The Data Behind Operation Southern Spear. CSIS. https://www.csis.org/analysis/trumps-caribbean-campaign-data-behind-developing-conflict [27] Ibidem. [28] Klein, B., Liptak, K., Britzky, H., & Atwood, K. (2025, November 17). Trump has suggested he’s made a decision on Venezuela military operations. Here’s what we know. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/15/politics/venezuela-trump-military-what-we-know [29] Reuters. (2025, November 12). Venezuelan military preparing guerrilla response in case of US attack. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/venezuelan-military-preparing-guerrilla-response-case-us-attack-2025-11-11/ [30] Venezuela announces ‘massive mobilization’ of military forces as America’s largest warship sails into region. (2025, November 12). CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/11/americas/venezuela-military-mobilization-us-buildup-intl-latam [31] Venezuelan military preparing guerrilla response in case of US attack. (2025, November 12). Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/venezuelan-military-preparing-guerrilla-response-case-us-attack-2025-11-11/ [32] Cancian, M. F., & Park, C. H. (2025, November 10). Trump’s Caribbean Campaign: The Data Behind Operation Southern Spear. CSIS. https://www.csis.org/analysis/trumps-caribbean-campaign-data-behind-developing-conflict [33] Ibidem. [34] Cancian, M. F., & Park, C. H. (2025, November 10). Trump’s Caribbean Campaign: The Data Behind Operation Southern Spear. CSIS. https://www.csis.org/analysis/trumps-caribbean-campaign-data-behind-developing-conflict [35] Vidaurri, M., Marckwardt, J., & Gedan, B. N. (2025, November 14). A War in Venezuela Would Not Solve Latin America’s Drug and Dictator Problems. STIMSON. https://www.stimson.org/2025/a-war-in-venezuela-would-not-solve-latin-americas-drug-and-dictator-problems/ [36] Cancian, M. F., & Park, C. H. (2025, November 10). Trump’s Caribbean Campaign: The Data Behind Operation Southern Spear. CSIS. https://www.csis.org/analysis/trumps-caribbean-campaign-data-behind-developing-conflict [37] Rossell Hayes, A., & Orth, T. (2025, October 31). The U.S. Navy deployment near Venezuela has become even less popular in the past month. YouGov.US. https://today.yougov.com/international/articles/53298-the-us-navy-deployment-near-venezuela-has-become-even-less-popular [38i] Klein, B., Liptak, K., Britzky, H., & Atwood, K. (2025, November 17). Trump has suggested he’s made a decision on Venezuela military operations. Here’s what we know. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/15/politics/venezuela-trump-military-what-we-know [39] Vidaurri, M., Marckwardt, J., & Gedan, B. N. (2025, November 14). A War in Venezuela Would Not Solve Latin America’s Drug and Dictator Problems. STIMSON. https://www.stimson.org/2025/a-war-in-venezuela-would-not-solve-latin-americas-drug-and-dictator-problems/ [40] Tisdall, S. (2025, November 16). The US is now a rogue state - look at its extrajudicial killings off Venezuela’s coast. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/nov/16/us-rogue-state-extrajudicial-killings-venezuela [41] Padinger, G. (2025, November 14). How Venezuela’s aging Soviet-era military stacks up against US forces in the Caribbean. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/13/americas/venezuela-military-us-tensions-explainer-intl-latam [42] Frazier, A. (2025, October 20). What U.S. Forces Face as Venezuela Puts Russian-Armed Military on Wartime Alert. MIlitary.Com. https://www.military.com/daily-news/investigations-and-features/2025/10/20/what-us-forces-face-venezuela-puts-russian-armed-military-wartime-alert.html [43] Ibidem. [44] Padinger, G. (2025, November 14). How Venezuela’s aging Soviet-era military stacks up against US forces in the Caribbean. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/13/americas/venezuela-military-us-tensions-explainer-intl-latam [45] Frazier, A. (2025, October 20). What U.S. Forces Face as Venezuela Puts Russian-Armed Military on Wartime Alert. MIlitary.Com. https://www.military.com/daily-news/investigations-and-features/2025/10/20/what-us-forces-face-venezuela-puts-russian-armed-military-wartime-alert.html [46] Ibidem. [47] Padinger, G. (2025, November 14). How Venezuela’s aging Soviet-era military stacks up against US forces in the Caribbean. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/13/americas/venezuela-military-us-tensions-explainer-intl-latam [48] Bayoumi, I., & Magid, S. (2025, November 4). Facing the threat of US strikes, Maduro has requested Russia’s help. He shouldn’t expect much. Atlantic Council. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/facing-the-threat-of-us-strikes-maduro-has-requested-russias-help-he-shouldnt-expect-much/ [49] Frazier, A. (2025, October 20). What U.S. Forces Face as Venezuela Puts Russian-Armed Military on Wartime Alert. MIlitary.Com. https://www.military.com/daily-news/investigations-and-features/2025/10/20/what-us-forces-face-venezuela-puts-russian-armed-military-wartime-alert.html [50] Romero, S. (2025, November 5). How Venezuela’s Military Might Respond to U.S. Attacks. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/05/us/venezuela-military-maduro-coup.html [51] Bayoumi, I., & Magid, S. (2025, November 4). Facing the threat of US strikes, Maduro has requested Russia’s help. He shouldn’t expect much. Atlantic Council. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/facing-the-threat-of-us-strikes-maduro-has-requested-russias-help-he-shouldnt-expect-much/ [52] Romero, S. (2025, November 5). How Venezuela’s Military Might Respond to U.S. Attacks. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/05/us/venezuela-military-maduro-coup.html [53] Bayoumi, I., & Magid, S. (2025, November 4). Facing the threat of US strikes, Maduro has requested Russia’s help. He shouldn’t expect much. Atlantic Council. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/facing-the-threat-of-us-strikes-maduro-has-requested-russias-help-he-shouldnt-expect-much/ [54] Linares, E., Velasquez, G., Manrique, J., Monsalve, J., Lo Mónaco, S., & Shumlyanskyy, L. (2026). REE + Y signatures of the Navay phosphate deposit, SW Venezuela: Seawater paleoredox conditions and diagenetic implications. Journal of South American Earth Sciences, 129. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsames.2023.104532 [55] Venezuela’s rare earth rush. A growing supply chain risk. (2025, November 12). Southern Pulse. https://southernpulse.substack.com/p/venezuelas-rare-earth-rush [56 Killeen, T. J. (2024, July 12). Industrial minerals in the Pan Amazon. MONGABAY. https://news.mongabay.com/2024/07/more-industrial-minerals-on-brazils-borders-with-ecuador-venezuela-and-colombia/ [57] Rare-Earth Metal Compounds in Venezuela. (2025, November 25). OEC. https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-product/rare-earth-metal-compounds/reporter/ven [58] Garcia, J. (2025, October 26). Trading Oil for Influence. The Heights. https://bcheights.com/224288/opinions/column/trading-oil-for-influence/ [59] Russell, M., & Ellner, M. (2025, November 15). The US War on China, Venezuela, and the Global Left. Common Dreams. https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/us-war-china-venezuela [60] bus, B. (2025, November 7). ‘Drug trafficking, extortion, kidnapping’: the lawless rush for rare earth minerals in Venezuela. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2025/nov/07/drug-trafficking-extortion-kidnapping-the-lawless-rush-for-rare-earth-minerals-in-venezuela [61] Giunta, C. (2015, May 6). Follow the Minerals: Why the US is Threatened by Venezuela’s ‘Blue Gold.’ Venezuelanalysis. https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/11372/ [62] Blakemore, R., Harmon, A., & Engelke, P. (2025, November 19). Critical minerals in crisis: Stress testing US supply chains against shocks. Venezuelanalysis. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/issue-brief/critical-minerals-in-crisis-stress-testing-us-supply-chains-against-shocks/