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

Ice, Minerals, and Power: What Trump Really Wants in Greenland

The sudden reappearance of Greenland on the U.S. foreign policy agenda is more than a bizarre headline. It is a stark symbol of the return of 19th-century expansionist logic to 21st-century geopolitics. Donald Trump’s revival of the idea to “purchase” or dominate the world’s largest island is not a personal whim, but a structural view that subordinates sovereignty and the foundational principles of the UN Charter to the interests of great powers. This move has triggered a transatlantic diplomatic crisis, revealing a deep clash between unilateral ambition and the established international legal order.

A map showing Greenland's location on the globe.
Greenland hosts Pituffik Space Base, formerly Thule Air Base, a U.S. military installation key to missile early warning and defense as well as space surveillance.

From Frozen Frontier to Geopolitical Prize
Once a remote, frozen periphery, Greenland has been thrust into the center of global power competition. Climate change is unlocking new shipping routes and, crucially, exposing vast reserves of rare earth elements and strategic minerals vital for advanced technology, renewable energy, and defense industries. This transformation has made the island a key geopolitical node, and the U.S., under Trump, is seeking to secure direct access, bypassing traditional diplomatic norms.

Geopolitical Interests Stock Photos - Free & Royalty-Free Stock Photos from Dreamstime
Trump, is seeking to secure direct access, bypassing traditional diplomatic norms.

The Tool: “Special Representative” or Agent of Pressure?
The appointment of a U.S. “Special Representative to Greenland”—a diplomatic tool typically reserved for crisis zones—was a provocative act. Denmark rightly condemned it as unacceptable intervention. Public musings about Greenland “joining” the U.S. stripped away any pretense, revealing an ambition that goes far beyond security cooperation. This move directly challenges Danish sovereignty and signals to allies and adversaries alike that Washington is willing to exert pressure wherever it identifies a strategic interest.

860+ Eu And Danish Flags Stock Photos, Pictures & Royalty-Free Images - iStock
Denmark alongside with the other EU countries shaping a united frontier.

Europe’s Response: A Line in the Ice
Denmark’s swift and firm response—”Greenland is not for sale”—represents a defense of a fundamental European principle: respect for territorial sovereignty. For the EU, this is a precedent-setting case. If pressure is accepted today on a European territory, it could target any member tomorrow. The Greenland crisis has thus become a rallying point for European resistance against a U.S. policy driven purely by a “power right” doctrine, reviving fears of a modern Monroe Doctrine applied to allies.

No photo description available.
Greenland holds vast, largely untapped mineral resources, including rare earth elements, graphite, lithium, and other critical minerals. 🪨⚡ These resources could play a key role in the future of green energy, technology, and global supply chains — making Greenland a potential hotspot for strategic development.  Source:https://www.facebook.com/groups/3623312684642776 Photo: Wall Street Journal

The True Prize and the Transatlantic Rift
Beyond the sensational headlines lies the cold reality: Greenland’s immense mineral wealth is the hidden driver of this crisis. Trump’s policy seeks a blend of resource dominance, strategic positioning, and political influence, treating an ally’s territory as a geopolitical chess piece.

This crisis exposes a foundational rift in transatlantic relations. Europe’s security is built on a framework of respected international law and multilateral cooperation, as embodied in the UN system, while Trump’s America operates on a logic of unilateral power and transactional gain. The aggressive pursuit of Greenland may offer Washington short-term strategic advantages, but it comes at a devastating long-term cost: eroding trust, fracturing alliances, and pushing Europe toward strategic independence. In the frozen waters of the Arctic, a new, colder chapter in U.S.-Europe relations is being written.

Crystal Clear Ice Cube Melting Dark Surface Water Droplets Stock Photos - Free & Royalty-Free Stock Photos from Dreamstime
The transient political cooperation is melting away to reveal hard, enduring interests. 
twitterlinkedininstagramflickrfoursquaremail