Click to see the full-size image
Written by Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions
The arrival of a major US aircraft carrier strike group in the Caribbean this week has sent shockwaves across Latin America, bringing back a new version of the Monroe Doctrine in the context of the New Cold War in the Hemisphere. The deployment marks the beginning of a massive Trump administration military operation framed as a twin “war on drugs” and “war on terror” campaign in a way that, ironically enough, is also reminiscent of the George W.
CNN Brasil reports that Caracas has mobilized thousands of Russian-supplied missiles in response.
Washington’s messaging has been sufficiently vague to allow multiple interpretations, but broad enough to justify a sweeping regional buildup. The operation is unprecedented in scale, which raises the stakes for Venezuela and its allies, with the US selling the operation as an “anti-cartel” surge across the continent.
Adding yet another layer of complexity, US President Donald Trump reportedly has simultaneously floated the possibility of talks with his Venezuela counterpart Nicolás Maduro, in a move that shows, once more, Trump’s erratic diplomatic zig-zags. So much for strategic coherence.
Be as it may, the current American presidency is inaugurating a new stage in Washington’s continental security doctrine — one blending counterterrorism rhetoric with narco-politics, producing an elastic justification for power projection anywhere from the Andes to the Antilles.
The “war on drugs” rhetoric can hardly be taken seriously: it is worth noting, for one thing, that most of the drug supply fueling the United States’ drug problems originates from Mexico and Colombia. According to estimates by US agencies themselves, around 90 percent of the cocaine consumed in the US comes from Colombia and is trafficked into the country via Mexico.
Back in August I wrote that the US naval buildup was “about intimidation, not invasion — at least for now… but history teaches us that intimidation often precedes escalation”. At that time, such an assessment seemed cautious enough. But circumstances evolve, and the sheer scale of current deployments raises the question: are we approaching the threshold where intimidation morphs into direct military action?
Officially, Trump’s advisers deny any intention of invading Venezuela. Yet “denials” have historically served as preambles to escalation. On the other hand, as Asia Times puts it, bellicose signaling toward Venezuela turns out to be a “gift to China” , strengthening Beijing’s argument that Washington uses militarized coercion instead of diplomacy. Global perceptions matter, after all.
In any case, Caracas believes it is under existential threat — and acts accordingly. CNN’s Latin America desk has reported that Venezuela has asked both Russia and China for security assistance while CNN Brasil has reported the same, with additional details on military coordination requests.
Thus far, Moscow and Beijing have responded with rhetorical firmness but calibrated restraint. Still, warning signs abound. Alexey Zhuravlyov (deputy head of the Russian parliament’s defence committee) has been quoted as saying that Moscow could provide Venezuela with its intermediate-range ballistic Oreshnik missiles. The Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, in turn, recently said that the Kremlin is “ready to fully act within the framework of the obligations that were mutually stipulated in this agreement with our Venezuelan friends.”
Beijing in turn has escalated its support by unveiling a new “zero-tariff” trade deal with Caracas during the Shanghai Expo 2025, an agreement announced by Venezuela’s Deputy Minister for Foreign Trade, Coromoto Godoy. For Beijing, it provides a commercial and strategic entry point into the Western Hemisphere at the very moment Washington is tightening its sanctions amid tensions.
Such an alignment should not be underestimated. The crisis provides a strategic opening for China to strengthen its presence in Latin America while portraying itself as a stabilizing force. Unlike Washington, Beijing does not carry the baggage of decades of military interventions in the region. Underreported economic ties, infrastructure investments, and energy partnerships give China substantial leverage — enough to reshape regional diplomacy without firing a single shot. No wonder Chinese analysts frame Trump’s operation as a self-inflicted geopolitical loss for Washington.
If one examines Trump’s pattern — improvisational enough to produce shocks but cautious enough to avoid prolonged troop commitments (hence “TACO”) — a full-scale invasion still remains unlikely. However, targeted strikes or special operations raids cannot be ruled out. Limited action could be sold domestically as “decisive,” without entangling the US in occupation duties. Yet even limited strikes would still carry vast escalation risks.
Back in July 2025, I argued that Trump’s Venezuela policy was driven by “hyper-pragmatism” and corporate cost-benefit calculations, particularly regarding Chevron’s return to Caracas. If strikes destabilize Venezuelan oil fields, global supply could tighten overnight, driving prices upward. This would erode the foundations of Trump’s domestic economic message, not to mention it would create headaches for US energy companies operating — or trying to operate — in the region. The problem is that Washington does not always act according to pure rational economic logic, so extreme scenarios should not be dismissed so quickly.
The standoff in any case is a sovereignty crisis for Caracas; but also an opportunity for Russia and China in the context of the New Cold War. Moreover, it is a unity test for Latin America — and a high-risk gamble for the US.
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
cold war would be preferable to the usa’s active support of proxy warfare. which employs wishful thinking in avoiding nuclear war while using useful idiots to do the fighting. though somewhat successful the blowback may come in the form of unpredictable consequences .
google is now paying $300 to $500 per hour for doing work online work from home. last paycheck of me said that $20537 from this easy and simple job. its amazing and earns are awesome. no boss, full time freedom and earnings are in front of you.
.
more details for us→→→→→→→ https://www.money63.com
in the term “useful idiots”, you have to include russia. they are perfectly right about the nazis and darwins mercenaries, but when they mention “root causes”, the big alarm bell should sound. the root cause are the existence of “us”, christianity, and probably faked “nuclear weapon”. as you maybe have observ, nobody are intimidated to not attack russia 😂
and …. upstairs for thinking downstairs for dancing twinkletoes do i have to spell it out ? rhetorical and just exactly what will that do for europe s ” confidence ” if it appears that , looks like america’s not going to rescue them when russia china turn the guns on their sorry arses?????
it is “us” which have told russia and china which arses they should point their guns at. exactly as with family bush finance of adolf hitler rothschild, another imbecille and suicidal clown 🤡 of european “elites”. he fell for his khazarian hate of russia, and the podels in today europe are ruled by the same hate. there are two proxies for satan, “us”, in ukraine. he could as well be in another galax, the atlantic protect him from his actions. version 2 of europe as scapegoat.