Posted on Leave a comment

From Caracas to the Monroe Doctrine: State Kidnapping as Superpower Policy

The pre-dawn kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife on January 3rd was not a covert “operation.” It was a state-sponsored terrorist act, a public demonstration of raw imperial power. This event marks the explicit return of the Monroe Doctrine as active U.S. policy, where the Western Hemisphere is treated as a backyard to be policed through militarism, disruption, and brute force. Framed within a fabricated “war on drugs,” this action reveals a superpower logic that has abandoned all pretense of international law, offering only the stark choice between obedience and destruction.

Power from the current American Administration rarely arrives empty handed.
Those who claim to help are often drawn by what lies beneath the soil, the water, the oil, the gold, the soul of a nation. History has taught us this lesson more than once.

The Blueprint of a Bully: From “Drug War” to State Kidnapping
The operation followed a familiar, sinister blueprint: electronic warfare, systemic paralysis, and a precision military strike—not on a battlefield, but in a private residence. This was the culmination of months of escalated U.S. military presence in the Caribbean, reconnaissance flights, and blockades, all laundered under the hollow label of “fighting drug trafficking.” As even U.S. congressional critics noted, the official narrative was a pretext. The real target was never drugs; it was sovereignty.

Following the kidnapping, Donald Trump spoke not as a head of state, but as a colonial proprietor. He declared Venezuela must be “governed” by the United States, its resources “used correctly” for America’s share. The Monroe Doctrine was invoked not as history, but as a program for today: a divided world where security is synonymous with submission, and humanity is eliminated by softened force.Cyber Warfare: How Nations Are Preparing for Digital BattlesCyber Warfare: How Nations Are Preparing for Digital BattlesExploration conducted for this edition was supported by web searches, insights from open-source papers, and assistance from AI language modelsExploration conducted for this edition was supported by web searches, insights from open-source papers, and assistance from AI language models

Cyber warfare can be state-sponsored or carried out by non-state actors, such as terrorists or hacktivist groups, and often aims to achieve political, economic, or military objectives. The ambiguity surrounding the attribution of such attacks complicates international relations and raises concerns about how to respond appropriately to cyber threats.

The Hollow Pretext: Security as a Synonym for Militarism
The advertised framework—narco-terrorism, security, limited operations—is a manufactured cover. U.S. data itself confirms the primary drug routes run through Mexico and Central America, not Venezuela. For Trumpism, reality is irrelevant; the political label is sufficient. “War on drugs” has become the ideological camouflage for state terrorism and kidnapping. In this logic, “security” is stripped of any meaning beyond the institutionalization of bullying and the right of a superpower to eliminate any society that is not aligned or obedient.

Drug Trafficking routes within the Caribbean. Source: The Economist (2014, 24th May. Full Circle—An Old Route Regains Popularity with Drug Gangs).

The Multipolar Trap: Desperation, Escalation, and the Crushing of Sovereignty
But this policy isn’t just simple, one-sided bullying. It is the desperate reaction of a fading hegemon in an emerging multipolar world. When the U.S., feeling its unilateral dominance slip, resorts to state kidnapping as a tool of politics, it does more than violate sovereignty—it lowers the threshold for global conflict and provides a template for other powers. In a world with multiple centers of power, every act of aggression by the American superpower creates a moral and political justification for rivals to ask: “If the hegemon can abandon all rules, why should we restrain ourselves?”

The reactions from Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran were predictable condemnations. But beyond the statements, a more dangerous dynamic is set in motion: competitive destabilization. Every military shock creates a counter-shock. Every normalization of state violence sets a new, brutal standard. The world is not simply splitting into two camps; it is fracturing into a volatile arena where multiple powers, including a rising Global South, may feel empowered or compelled to use force to secure their interests, sacrificing law and human security in the process.

Within Venezuela as well, the outcome is clear: the militarization of political space. External bullying becomes the fuel for internal repression. This is the enduring rule: militarism and external aggression serve to justify oppressive domestic governance, crushing society between the twin forces of foreign intervention and state crackdown.

The engine of escalation: one act of aggression justifies the next, locking the world in a cycle of mirrored militarism.

Against the Inhuman Blocs, For a Crushed Society
The kidnapping in Caracas brought no liberation, only a clearer exposure of the bullying empire’s face. It underscores a world where capital blocs harden, and war becomes a routine tool for adjusting power. The masses are crushed between sanctions, proxy wars, and normalized aggression.

This moment demands a clear stance: alignment with power blocs is a dead end. Not with the desperate, repressive American empire, nor with the authoritarian powers of Beijing or Moscow that pose as counter-hegemons while oppressing their own people. The promise of a multipolar world is hollow if it merely replaces one master with several. True emancipation will not come from state kidnapping, imperial bombings, or the cynical projects of competing powers. Our place is alongside the people and societies being crushed under the wheels of this transition—in the Global South and within the heart of the empires themselves. The path forward is built in opposition to a world order that sacrifices humanity on the altars of hegemony and multipolar rivalry.

Trump's Appointments Reflect a More Openly Hawkish Face of US Empire | Truthout
Trump’s Appointments Reflect a More Openly Hawkish Face of US Empire | Source: Truthout
twitterlinkedininstagramflickrfoursquaremail
Posted on Leave a comment

Peace Through Power or Peace Through War? The Militarization of Trump’s Doctrine

Introduction: The doctrine of “peace through power” has been a cornerstone of statecraft since the Roman Empire. But under Donald Trump, this historical concept has been reshaped into a tool for aggressive, unilateral action. This analysis argues that Trump’s version of the doctrine has not guaranteed peace but has instead fueled instability, humanitarian crises, and the erosion of international institutions, effectively becoming a doctrine of “peace through war.”

Roman Legionary - World History Encyclopedia
Note: The Roman legionary was a well-trained and disciplined foot soldier, fighting as part of a professional well-organized unit, the legion (Latin: legio), established by the Marian Reforms. While major tactical changes appeared during the final days of the Roman Republic and the early days of the Roman Empire, Roman armor and weapons, albeit with minor adaptations, remained simple.

From Hadrian’s Wall to the Cold War
The roots of “peace through power” run deep. The Roman Emperor Hadrian operationalized it by building his famous wall—a symbol of military strength meant to deter attacks and secure the empire’s borders. In modern times, U.S. leaders like Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan adopted this logic. Reagan, in particular, brought it to a crescendo during the Cold War, using massive defense budgets and arms superiority as a deterrent against the Soviet Union. The goal was to prevent war through undeniable strength.

President Trump will kick off Army's 250th birthday celebrations Tuesday at Fort Bragg - ABC7 Los Angeles
Trump kicks off Army’s 250th birthday celebrations at Fort Bragg, says he’ll restore base names

The Trump Transformation: From Deterrence to Aggression
Donald Trump has co-opted the phrase “peace through power,” but his application marks a significant shift. His policies have moved beyond deterrence towards what can be called “peace through aggressive military power.” This approach relies on:

  • Maximum Pressure: Severe economic sanctions and embargoes.

  • Military Threats: Overt and covert threats against adversaries.

  • Unilateral Action: Drone strikes and assassinations of key figures, such as Qasem Soleimani.

As Trump himself implied in a speech to the Israeli Knesset, his administration believed that military action (or its threat) was a necessary tool to force outcomes, like a peace agreement. This represents a fundamental change: military power is no longer just a shield for defense, but a sword to impose will.

The Destructive Age of Urban Warfare; or, How to Kill a City and How to Protect It
Note: Combat in urban areas is the most destructive type of warfare imaginable. Densely populated terrain, complex systems of systems that support human life, military weapons not optimized to these conditions, and asymmetric close-quarters battle tactics all make warfare in cities unforgiving for combatants, noncombatants, and cities alike. The unintentional—and at times intentional—destruction of the physical terrain, populations, and infrastructure of cities during combat leave effects that can be felt for generations.

The Cost of Militarism: Five Critical Failures
The real-world consequences of this aggressive doctrine reveal its profound flaws:

  1. It Fuels Instability, Not Security: Rather than preventing conflict, relentless threats and militarism spark arms races and regional tensions, creating a more volatile world.

  2. It Diverts Vital Resources: The trillions spent on expanding an already massive military budget are funds stripped from domestic needs like healthcare, education, and infrastructure, weakening the social fabric at home.

  3. It Erodes American Credibility: Unilateralism and constant threats have alienated traditional allies, weakened multilateral institutions like the UN, and driven some nations closer to America’s competitors.

  4. It Creates Humanitarian Crises: Airstrikes in Yemen, assassinations, and sanctions have resulted in thousands of civilian casualties, painting America as a nation that disregards international law and human rights.

  5. It Embraces Divisive Nationalism: The doctrine is often paired with a rhetoric of extreme nationalism, which deepens social divisions at home and exacerbates cultural and racial tensions abroad.

    Flags Handshake Stock Illustrations – 3,438 Flags Handshake Stock Illustrations, Vectors & Clipart - Dreamstime
    Note: A handshake between nations is a powerful symbol of peace and a commitment to cooperation, with its roots in showing peaceful intentions by demonstrating one is unarmed. While a handshake alone doesn’t guarantee peace, it is a crucial first step in a diplomatic process that can solidify agreements, build trust, and signify the end of conflict. It represents a mutual understanding and a desire for unity and collaboration.

Conclusion: The Need for a New Path
The “doctrine of peace through power” has been implemented under Trump in a way that guarantees the very opposite of peace. By choosing coercion over diplomacy and unilateral force over multilateral cooperation, this approach has damaged global stability and America’s moral standing. The world does not need more militarism. A secure and prosperous future must be built on the foundations of diplomacy, respect for international law, and genuine cooperation. The alternative—a path of endless conflict—is no path to peace at all.

Nationalism is blamed for this century’s wars, but nationalism need not mean militarism. And the nation-state has been the laboratory of liberty.

twitterlinkedininstagramflickrfoursquaremail