Saturday, August 23, 2025

 GUN B0AT DIPLOMACY

US Deploys Warships to Venezuelan Coast, Raising Fears of Another 'Regime Change' War

"These aggressive policies seek to extend US dominance in Latin America, no matter the human cost," CodePink said.


Stephen Prager
Aug 21, 2025
COMMON DREAMS


The White House's announcement Wednesday that it had deployed three warships to the coast of Venezuela has raised fears among antiwar and human rights advocates of the US becoming embroiled in another potential "regime change" quagmire.

In recent weeks, the Trump administration has accused Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro of being one of the world's largest traffickers of illegal narcotics and of leading the cocaine trafficking gang Cartel de los Soles.

Together, we can defend the truth when it’s under siege.

Our fearless reporting exists only because of readers like you. With your support, we can continue delivering independent journalism that democracy depends on.

In 2020, Maduro was charged with narco-terrorism and conspiracy to import cocaine into the US, with the first Trump administration promising a $15 million reward for his arrest. The Biden administration increased that bounty to $25 million before Trump, earlier this month, doubled it to $50 million.

Trump also expanded the litany of accusations against Maduro, alleging that he is the kingpin of Mexico's Sinaloa cartel, an allegation that Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum says there is no evidence to support.

Even before Maduro's indictment, however, Trump had long sought to oust him from power. During his first term, he repeatedly suggested that the US should invade Venezuela to take Maduro out—an idea that his top aides rebuffed.

Trump instead dramatically escalated sanctions on Venezuela, which many studies have shown contributed to the nation's historic economic crisis. His former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo explicitly acknowledged that the goal of these sanctions was to push the Venezuelan people to topple Maduro.

In 2023, following his first presidency, Trump lamented at a rally that the US had to purchase oil from Venezuela, saying that if he were in charge, "We would have taken [Venezuela] over; we would have gotten to all that oil; it would have been right next door."

The exact objective of Trump's destroyers, which are expected to arrive on the Venezuelan coast as soon as Sunday, remains unclear. But the Venezuelan government and others in the region have perceived Trump's threats as a serious provocation.

On Monday, Maduro said he would mobilize 4.5 million militia members following what he called "the renewal of extravagant, bizarre, and outlandish threats" from Trump. After the announcement of approaching warships, those militias began to be deployed throughout the country.

Colombian President Gustavo Petro issued a harsh warning to Trump following the news.

"The gringos are mad if they think invading Venezuela will solve their problem," he said. "They are dragging Venezuela into a Syria-like situation, with the problem that they are dragging Colombia too."

The American antiwar group CodePink condemned the deployment of ships as a "reckless escalation" that "dangerously militarizes the Caribbean and brings our region closer to war."

The group argues that Venezuela's role in drug trafficking is being overblown to justify an invasion. They note that the US's own internal assessments of global drug trafficking have not identified Venezuela as a primary transit country. They also cite the UN's latest World Drug Report, which did not find Venezuela to be a central node of the drug trade.

The Washington Office on Latin America, a DC-based human rights group, has warned that a regime change war would likely be a catastrophe on par with the invasion of Iraq two decades prior.

"The 'victorious' US military would likely find itself governing an impoverished country with broken institutions, trying to hand over power to an opposition weakened by repression and exile, and probably facing an insurgency made up of regime diehards, criminal groups, and even Colombian guerrillas," they said. "There is no evidence that this approach would lead to a democratic transition in Venezuela."

"These aggressive policies seek to extend US dominance in Latin America, no matter the human cost," CodePink said. "The people of Venezuela, like the people of the United States, deserve peace, dignity, and sovereignty, not threats, blockades, and warships."

Two statements from Comunes (Venezuela): ‘Against the imperialist threat’ and ‘The Maduro government fears the people’



Comunes antes la amenaza imperialista

Translations by Federico Fuentes for LINKS International Journal of Socialist Renewal.

Against the imperialist threat

Comunes International Committee, August 21

Under the guise of fighting drug trafficking and narco-terrorism, an extraordinary deployment of US military forces in the southern Caribbean was recently announced. This clearly constitutes an open and brazen threat to the national sovereignty of any country in the region. We strongly condemn this deployment and call for mobilising the anti-imperialist spirit that has characterised the continent's progressive, democratic and revolutionary forces.

The tragedy is that this is happening at a time when Nicolás Maduro’s government has decided to implement the most brutal economic austerity measures against the working classban the revolutionary left and persecute social movements.

Now is the time for building authentic and popular national unity, which requires:

  • Organising the clamour of the popular majorities demanding procedural guarantees for those prosecuted, persecuted and criminalised for dissent,
  • Pushing for a general wage rise and the reopening of collective contract discussions, and
  • A return to the rule of law enshrined in the 1999 Constitution, especially with regards to the full restoration of freedom of speech, thought and peaceful assembly.

The national government seems to want to use anti-imperialist rhetoric to maintain the solidarity of social movements and allied governments. Any strategy adopted to confront the imperialist threat must be built on ensuring that the suffering of a people who have endured the loss of waged employment, the dissolution of social security and deterioration of basic public services, is not made worse.

It is time to demand that those who have lived off Venezuela’s crisis — parliamentarians, judges, bankers, and senior government officials — be the ones who place themselves on the frontline of the military containment strategy, to prevent the poorest from once again bearing the brunt of this crisis.

The way to defend the homeland is through greater freedoms and more democracy, and never with authoritarianism and the persecution of those fighting for social justice. Therefore, we demand the national government cease the attacks it has unleashed on leftist organisations, social movements and political parties. National unity must include everyone, by overcoming wounds to strengthen democracy, and by fully restoring the rule of law and justice.

National unity must be built on the system of rights enshrined in the National Constitution!
We condemn any foreign interference!
End the threats and repression against popular movements demanding their rights!


The Maduro government fears the people

Comunes, August 20

In less than a week, the government has intensified its repression against social struggles and the left.

First, it attacked a group of mothers as they held a peaceful vigil outside the Supreme Court of Justice, demanding the release of their unjustly detained children.

Three days later, Martha Lía Grajales, a lawyer and human rights defender who had been supporting the mothers in their protests, was arrested and disappeared.

Martha Lía was released thanks to popular and international leftist protest. In response to this pressure, the government unleashed a campaign of lies to not only discredit her but human rights organisations and leftist intellectuals, paving the way for a new crackdown.

The following day, a retired workers’ leader and teachers’ union leader were detained in Maracay. All this in the same week that the government finally pulverised Venezuelan wages to below a dollar a month.

This is not the first time that this government, which increasingly resembles the right and has increasingly been exposed as such to the left inside and outside Venezuela, has persecuted popular struggles and progressive sectors.

Hundreds of social and union leaders have passed through Maduro’s prisons. Any popular mobilisation is brutally repressed.

Just seven months ago, the government imprisoned [presidential candidate] Enrique Márquez, harassed [REDES leader] Juan Barreto, and persecuted [leftist lawyer] María Alejandra Diaz, who had to seek refuge in an embassy. All for ​​simply putting forward a position that differed both from the government, which has betrayed the people, and the subservient neoliberal right.

As it shifts to the right and towards capital, this government further represses popular protest and becomes increasingly fearful of leftist and progressive positions that expose its betrayal. It prefers a thousand times over a false polarisation with [far-right opposition leader] María Corina [Machado], from which it benefits and is able to sustain its precarious internal cohesion, than to have to respond to people’s demands and criticism from the left.

Government spokespersons have justified this repressive barrage by arguing that the country is under siege from the US and right-wing terrorist threats. For government acolytes, it is never a good time to protest or criticise. They act like the “good cops” of the peace of the cemetery (“they are right, but this is not the time to raise such criticisms”).

However, these initial events (the attacks against the mothers, the arrest of Martha Lía) occurred before the US made its insane threats public. Furthermore, if the government is sincerely interested in calling on all Venezuelans to close ranks in the face of threats of imperialist aggression, why does it choose to repress, defame and persecute anyone who thinks differently? What is the purpose of persisting with an economic policy of starvation that sows hopelessness and discouragement in the vast majority, when they are needed to defend the homeland?

The government is not afraid of the US, to whom it sells oil and with whom it has not stopped negotiating; the government is afraid of the people.

Hence its vicious persecution of those who fight. Hence its campaign of lies against all those who question their neoliberal policies from the people’s side. If the government were serious about being anti-imperialist, and did not simply seek to use it as a red rag to negotiate with Washington, they would engage in dialogue with the people, not with [the big business federation] Fedecamaras and the gringos.

We, Comunes, have always confronted the positions of the fratricidal right, which prefers a scorched-earth policy and would not hesitate to hand the country over to the US to seize power. We have always stood up to US imperialism, which has sowed death and misery across the continent and the world. We have always insisted that the solution to the Venezuelan crisis must be a matter for us, Venezuelans, without interference or intervention.

We are prepared to confront any form of foreign intervention without hesitation. But that does not mean we renounce the need to denounce and confront a government that has destroyed popular sovereignty, eroded the constitution, imprisoned and repressed the humble, enriched the rich and impoverished the poor, trafficked our sovereignty, and surrendered itself to world powers in order to preserve power at all costs.

We will defend the homeland, confront imperialism, and once again denounce the interventionist and anti-democratic right, but we will also fight against this neoliberal and authoritarian government.


Is Venezuela the Next Target of the US Empire?

Caracas has already mobilized millions of soldiers and militiamen in response to Washington’s “outlandish threats”

by  | Aug 22, 2025 |

President Donald Trump has deployed several warships and thousands of Marines to the southern Caribbean – just miles off the coast of Venezuela. The provocative mission was launched under the guise of an anti-narcotics crusade, but risks disastrous outcomes for both countries.

While a war with Venezuela might seem unlikely, the move is sure to radically escalate tensions with the Latin American state, and in the worst-case scenario could become a trip-wire for direct conflict with Caracas.

According to a recent New York Times report, the president has signed a secret directive authorizing military action against drug cartels designated as “terrorist” groups, having added several drug gangs to the terror blacklist since February. The new operation in the Caribbean is almost certainly based on that order.

One US official reached by Reuters earlier this week suggested the naval mission might involve lethal force, saying the warships could be used not only for “intelligence and surveillance operations, but also as a launching pad for targeted strikes.”

The deployment will include at least 4,000 sailors and Marines, and a wide range of military assets: three Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers, transport vessels, an amphibious assault ship, as well as a nuclear-powered attack submarine and P8 Poseidon reconnaissance planes.

That’s a lot of soldiers and hardware for a few drug busts, raising questions about how such an arsenal might be used in practice – and who it is intended for. (Granted, any major operation against Venezuela would require a much larger force, with the US’s 1989 invasion of Panama involving well over 25,000 troops.)

The ‘Cartel’ That Wasn’t

The latest criminal gang blacklisted by the Trump administration is the Venezuelan “Cartel de los Soles” (Cartel of the Suns), which was sanctioned by the Treasury in July. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has insisted that President Nicolas Maduro is the group’s “leader,” while top Venezuelan officials and military officers have long been accused of deep ties to the organization.

However, Washington has offered many allegations but little public evidence of Maduro’s supposed role in the group, and the often-repeated claims about senior officials are likely overstated.

Instead, the so-called ‘cartel’ appears to operate more like a loose-knit partnership of corrupt mid-level officials, opportunistic soldiers, and organized criminals – an arrangement tolerated and overseen, but not orchestrated, by the central government in Caracas.

“Today, the catch-all term ‘Cartel of the Suns’ masks the fact that the state-drug trafficking axis is now less a network run by the military and Chavista politicians and more a system that it regulates,” InSight Crime, a US government-funded think tank, acknowledged in its profile of the group. 

In a previous report, the same NGO all but demolished Washington’s narrative about Cartel de los Soles, saying it is not a “hierarchical organization with Maduro directing drug trafficking strategies,” but rather a “decentralized” group with no leadership structure to speak of. It went on to argue that “the removal of individual high-ranking officials would likely have zero impact on how the broader network operates.”

American officials have also accused Maduro of links to another Venezuelan crime ring known as Tren de Aragua (TDA). Though the Trump administration has accused the group of waging “irregular warfare” against the United States on Maduro’s orders, US intelligence agencies found no support for that claim.

“The Maduro regime probably does not have a policy of cooperating with TDA and is not directing TDA movement to and operations in the United States,” the National Intelligence Council concluded in an April 7 memo. The council added that it had “not observed the regime directing TDA, including to push migrants to the United States, which probably would require extensive coordination and funding between regime entities and TDA leaders.”

Another Rerun?

The latest military action in the Caribbean carries great risks of escalation with Caracas – up to and including a new hot war that’d devastate the region, squander US blood and treasure, and drive an unprecedented surge of immigration into the United States, among other unforeseeable consequences.

Already, Venezuela appears to be preparing for the worst, with Maduro mobilizing millions of militia fighters in response to the US deployment while condemning Washington for “bizarre and outlandish threats.” This comes just weeks after the State Department boosted its bounty on the leader’s head to $50 million.

However, those who paid attention during Trump’s first term are likely feeling a strong sense of déjà vu right about now. After all, between 2017 and 2021, the 45th president imposed waves of sanctions on Venezuela; mulled whether to label Latin American drug cartels as terrorist groups and deployed forces to the Caribbean to combat them; criminally charged Maduro for “narco-terrorism” and offered a reward for his capture; and even backed a (failed) coup attempt by Venezuela’s US-friendly opposition.

While none of the above resulted in full-blown conflict at the time, that’s little reason for optimism now, as the president has only grown more reckless since returning to office. To avoid the worst outcomes for our country and theirs, US troops must vacate the Caribbean immediately and leave socialist Venezuela to its own devices.

Will Porter is assistant news editor and book editor at the Libertarian Institute, and a regular contributor at Antiwar.com. Find more of his work at Consortium News and ZeroHedge.



Private Chinese Firm Invests $1 Billion to Pump 60,000 Bpd Crude in Venezuela

Private Chinese firm China Concord Resources Corp (CCRC) is developing two oilfields in Venezuela, from which it expects to produce 60,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude by the end of next year, thanks to a planned investment of $1 billion, an executive involved in the project told Reuters on Friday.

Private Chinese operators are a rare sight in Venezuela, where Chinese state-held majors have developed oilfields in the past.  

Yet, CCRC has signed a 20-year production sharing contract with Venezuela and is already producing 12,000 bpd from the two oilfields, Lago Cinco and Lagunillas Lago, the unnamed executive told Reuters.

The Chinese company’s plan entails pumping as much as 60,000 bpd from the two fields by the end of 2026 by reopening mothballed wells and developing new ones. The light crude from the fields would go to Venezuela’s state oil firm PDVSA, while the heavy crude is set to be shipped to China, according to the executive.

China’s state firms have stopped buying oil from Venezuela after the 2019 sanctions under President Trump’s first term in office. But independent Chinese refiners are key customers of Venezuela’s crude and have continued importing it through the years.

Large companies are also staying away from Venezuela, which has opened the door to private firms such as CCRC.

“Because of the U.S. sanctions on Venezuela's oil sector, no big-name companies would dare operate there, handing opportunities to small companies like Concord,” the executive told Reuters.

U.S. supermajor Chevron is a rare Venezuelan presence among the biggest international oil firms, now that its license to operate in the country holding the world’s biggest crude reserves has been reinstated. 

At the end of July, the Trump Administration granted Chevron a sanction exemption for its operations in Venezuela but only on the condition that no money from these operations would go to the Venezuelan government. 

Last week, Chevron dispatched the first two Venezuelan crude cargoes to the U.S. since Washington restored its license. The Mediterranean Voyager and Canopus Voyager left Venezuelan waters at the end of last week loaded with Hamaca and Boscan heavy crudes, bound for the U.S. West Coast and Port Arthur, Texas, respectively.  

By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com

Armenia and Azerbaijan


A Step Towards Resolving a Long-standing Territorial Conflict or a Leap into the Abyss?


A few days ago, Armenia and Azerbaijan published the text of the peace agreement, brokered by the United States. On paper, both sides pledged to respect each other’s territorial integrity and formally end the decades-long conflict. However, it remains a mystery, whether the countries will actually sign the agreement. Numerous mutual claims and disputes, the resolution of which cannot be expected in the near future, call into question the readiness for reconciliation demonstrated by Armenia and Azerbaijan. Moreover, the draft itself, as well as the additional agreements, raises many doubts about who would really benefit from a potential truce.

Thus, one of a few agreements that was actually signed and entered into force, gives the United States an exclusive right to develop the Zangezur Corridor (a strategic transport route between Azerbaijan and the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic) for 99 years. As usual, when it comes to America’s interests, it rushes to actions. According to the White House, the project — which has already been branded it the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity — is expected to strengthen economic ties with the region and increase energy exports. At the same time, the United States has cemented its presence in the South Caucasus, which is also being presented as another triumph of Washington’s diplomacy.

As for Baku and Yerevan – while the former is the primary beneficiary of the potential peace, the latter is relegated to the role of a bargaining chip. Azerbaijan gets the opportunity not only to legally strengthen its control over the territories it has gained, but also to become a key energy center in the South Caucasus. Moreover, one should not forget that restrictions on defense cooperation between Azerbaijan and the United States had also been lifted. The mere possibility of receiving weapons from the United States gives Azerbaijan more confidence and freedom of action, which leads to increased pressure on Armenia. Thus, President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan has already repeatedly tried to force relevant amendments to the Armenian Constitution, insisting to do it as quickly as possible.

It turns out that everyone, except Armenia, gains something. Trump receives the status of “peacemaker” and “noble tenant,” Aliyev – support from powerful patrons, while Nikol Pashinyan, Prime Minister of Armenia, is left with several problems which could lead to even greater weakening of the country’s geopolitical position. After losing Nagorno-Karabakh and failing to receive clear answers about the fate of political prisoners in Azerbaijan and the possibility of returning ethnic Armenians who fled hostilities in 2023, Armenia quickly lost its main negotiating tool, allowing the United States to take control of the Zangezur Corridor. In the future, this could lead to serious internal political instability and threaten the territorial integrity of Armenia.

Mihran Artemyan works in management consulting. At the age of three, he immigrated to the United States with his parents. They managed to instill in him a deep love for the native country, Armenia. This explains strong interest in the history, culture, and politics of his homeland. Read other articles by Mihran.

THE STALINIST LEFT

Russia Bad America Good


The demonization of Russia among Western journalists has gotten so perverse, if Vladimir Putin were to jump in an erupting volcano and rescue a family of four Americans, carrying them on his back hobbling along on the melted stumps of his legs to a hospital 50 miles away, the mainstream media in the U.S. would report that Vlad the Impaler in some disconnected attempt to reconstruct the Soviet Empire had personally kidnapped four defenseless U.S. citizens and was holding them in a labor camp in the Siberian tundra.

Nothing good about Russia ever makes the cut these days, only the bad, much of it fabricated by the U.S. government itself. Even indisputable facts of history take a back seat to vilifying everything Russian. With appalling disrespect, Western leaders snubbed Russia by refusing to take part in the 70th anniversary celebrations of victory over Germany held in Moscow in 2015. Likewise with the recent 80th anniversary victory day celebrations, attended by many top leaders from all over the world. Then at equivalent ceremonies in Europe, scant mention was even made of the Russian campaigns, which resulted in the deaths of over 10 million Russian soldiers. If you bother to check the record, you will discover it was not France, England, and the U.S. which defeated Hitler. It was Russia.

I don’t say this because I’m a Russia lover or a Putin apologist. This is a matter of historical record. Maybe to the propagandists in the West with their highly focused, patently obtuse agenda, facts don’t matter. But to you and I, if we are to have any shot at embracing harmony in the world, facts are vital to a greater appreciation of a nation of 146 million people whose government is armed with over 5,000 nuclear warheads.

Here are some more facts. Feel free to check the historical record:

1) Joseph Stalin proposed in 1952 that Germany be reunited as a single neutral country with free elections. A central condition was that Germany not be part of a NATO alliance, which it viewed as a military threat. Russia was under enormous pressure economically after being ravaged by World War II and wanted to reduce the growing tensions between the East and the West.

Of course, by ignoring and ultimately rejecting this proposal, it would take another forty years of Cold War hostility and posturing to reunite Germany, then as an loyal ally and military stronghold of the U.S., though ironically, Germany for decades — until fairly recently — has been one of Russia’s most important European trading partners.

2) Prior to the 1963 Cuban missile crisis, Nikita Khrushchev for almost a decade proposed substantial reductions in offensive weapons. While America was implementing the largest peace time military build-up in history, Russia was in fact reducing its military capability.

Khrushchev finally became convinced, especially after the U.S. placed in nearby Turkey nuclear-tipped Jupiter missiles which could easily reach Russia, that America was bent on attacking the Soviet Union. This was the underlying reason for deploying nuclear missiles in Cuba, precipitating one of the most dangerous crises in history. Perhaps not the wisest thing to do, given the level of tensions the U.S. maintained with its constant “better dead than Red” fear mongering, nevertheless the missiles in Cuba were basically the Soviet’s attempt to achieve some sort of parity, at least a minimal acceptable level of mutually assured destruction with America.

3) In 1983, the U.S. risked starting World War III with provocative and unnecessary probing of Soviet air defenses, a military exercise called Able Archer. This was purely a strategic and psychological maneuver intended to bolster support Reagan was soliciting from Congress and U.S. allies for his Star Wars missile defense system. Because at this same time the U.S. was deploying nuclear-tipped Pershing II missiles in Europe which only had a 5-minute flight time to key targets in Russia, Soviet leadership understandably viewed Star Wars not as a defensive system but as the means for establishing a first-strike capability. And it suspected the probing of its air space and testing of its defense systems via Able Archer, was a prelude to an attack. Speculation about a first-strike nuclear attack on Russia continues to this day. Extremely dangerous!

4) Reagan and Gorbachev in the end were quite sincere about totally eliminating nuclear weapons by the end of the 20th Century, thus their verbal agreement during a summit in Reykjavik, Iceland to work toward eliminating the nuclear arsenals of both Russia and the U.S. was quite authentic. It was not posturing. Moreover, the whole idea for eliminating the entire nuclear arsenals of both countries was initiated by Soviet Premier Gorbachev in a letter sent to President Reagan January 14, 1986. It was actually his idea.

5) Russia only has nine foreign military bases. This is in contrast to what many estimate to be 700-800 in at minimum 80 countries by the U.S. A cursory glance at a world map shows that a substantial number of these bases form a ring around Russia. Even the most impartial observer would not view this as a coincidence and would at least appreciate why Putin and company see much of what America does as provocative, if not blatantly confrontational — why some analysts on both sides conjecture that America is preparing to launch a “preemptive” nuclear attack on Russia, begging the question what such an attack would preempt other than the continuation of the human species.

6) Contrary to headlines which screamed foul in the American media, Russia never invaded Crimea. The simple fact is that there were 16,000 troops already stationed there, as per a standing treaty with the Ukrainian government. When the elected President of the Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych — certainly corrupt and questionable in his own right, like most Ukrainian politician — was driven out of the country by street thugs, these troops were instructed to protect key physical assets in the region, as well as make sure that the many native Russians who were living there remained safe. There was no firefight, no resistance. After 97% of voters demanded in an internationally-monitored referendum to rejoin Russia, the region which had been part of Russia going back to 1786, returned to Russian authority — hardly an invasion by any stretch of the imagination. No troops stormed over the border. No shots were fired.

7) Far from being the instigator of the current crisis in the Ukraine, Putin has consistently played peacemaker and attempted to defuse the situation, even as native Russians came under threat from the new government in Kiev, and now Russian civilians are still being attacked daily with drones. Battalions of neo-Nazi fighters now comprise key sectors of Ukraine’s military forces. These were among the shock troops which originally rampaged through the eastern regions, attacking Donetsk and Lugansk, two strongholds of pro-Russian separatists and home to a majority of Russians, after the Maidan uprising.

8) Contrary to the narrative being pushed by the White House — obviously the creation of neocon ideologues swarming like locusts at all levels of the bureaucracy, especially in the State Department and think tanks within the beltway — the evidence is quite clear that the entire coup was engineered and directed by the U.S., using agent provocateur NGOs, funded by National Endowment for DemocracySenator John McCain and Asst. U.S. Secretary of State Victoria Nuland were even on the front lines during the demonstrations. This is, of course, not what you were being told by the American press, which still leads the charge in continuing to pin all blame on Russia and Putin.

Now am I making a one-sided case here? Of course not. For over six decades, extending right up till the present, there have been gross deceptions and blunders on both sides. I bring up the above examples because the collective memory of the American public seems to be very short. Or more likely, many well-meaning Americans may not even be familiar with these particular facts in the first place. Anything good about the Soviets — and now the Russians — tends to be overwhelmed and replaced by the fiercely promoted and much easier to embrace “black hat” characterization we hear regurgitated over and over.

What I am saying is there has already been so much misunderstanding, miscalculation, and missed opportunities, that to compound our bleak and tendentious relationship with Russia with yet more misunderstanding, miscalculation, and missed opportunities, is courting disaster. It’s that simple. What’s been going on is not working. Time for a new approach.

And I am also saying that America lately bears more than its share of responsibility for the distortions, the slander, the disinformation, which has aggravated hostility toward Russia both by American and European leaders in their official capacities, and by American citizens, who never seem to run out of foreign peoples to fear, mistrust, even hate.

Let me throw something else into the mix here. This is probably the most important factor whenever we look at Russia and try to gauge her motives and intents.

The Soviet Union lost more than 27,000,000 people in World War II. Most were killed in the Russian homeland itself as a result of the overwhelming German Nazi blitz. Over a half million died in the Battle of Stalingrad alone.

That is why they are fearful of having troops and/or ballistic missiles on their borders — as in the Ukraine or Georgia. They have been gritting their teeth as NATO has edged its way closer and closer to Russia — contrary, by the way, to reassurances given right after the fall of the Berlin wall and the reunification of Germany. America lost 420,000 soldiers during all of World War II, fighting on two fronts, in Europe and the Far East. If we had seen 27,000,000 Americans killed, the blood of the majority spilled right here on our own soil, how would we feel about having troops, nuclear-tipped tactical missiles, and ballistic missile defense radars and interceptors arrayed along the Canadian or Mexican borders? How would we read the intention of any nation insisting on putting these on our borders?

As they say, this is not rocket science.

What might require the intellectual aptitude of a rocket scientist is trying to understand what America’s strategic planners have in mind in promoting this agenda. It undermines any possibility of peace between the two great powers and risks thermonuclear war.

Am I a Russia lover?

An America hater?

Neither.

I just think that before we kill a few more million people or destroy the world, we might want to look at both sides of each issue, maybe mentally trade places, try to be fair and reasonable, give our all to try to understand exactly what is going on.

And a big part of understanding issues is knowing history, taking into consideration what has been occurring for decades, sometimes even centuries. To paraphrase George Santayana: “Those who do not remember their past are condemned to repeat their mistakes.”

Yet, the drama continues and intensifies. Confrontation and intimidation of Russia is ongoing. Massive military exercises on Russia’s borders have become frequent: Griffin LightningOperation HedgehogNordic ResponseDynamic Front 25. These follow numerous previously held on Russia’s borders in Poland and substantial increases in troops and equipment in Poland and the Baltic states. A new ABM system was deployed in Romania back in 2016. Romania is now in the final stages of constructing the largest NATO military base in Europe. In 2024, NATO opened a new missile defense base in Redzikowo, Poland. Military war games are also held in the Black Sea, like Sea Breeze 2015 and Sea Breeze 2021, sailing war ships and aircraft carriers into the “Russian lake”, surveilling and testing Russia’s littoral defenses.

While all of this display of firepower is allegedly to prepare for a Russian offensive, it only serves to provoke Russia and test its patience. Propaganda from the West would have it that Russia is aggressively re-building the Soviet Empire and is preparing to attack Europe. Looking at what comes out of U.S. think tanks would suggest the opposite, that it is the US/UK/EU/NATO which is preparing to attack and dismember Russia, then plunder its vast resources.

Russia does not want war with Ukraine, the US, or any country in Europe. Recognize, no one can point at any actual aggression on Russia’s part, other than the trumped up and discredited accusations of fighting in eastern Ukraine and having invaded and seized control of Crimea and four oblasts. Russia’s coming to the defense of the people there is completely understandable. The people in these five regions are mostly Russian. Ukraine has systematically targeted them for elimination. Even before the 2022 Special Military Operation began, over 14,000 were killed in Donbas alone. These five zones have been actively wanting to leave Ukraine and join Russia since 2014. They each held referendums and by huge majorities — 97% in Crimea! — voted to do just that.

Now the rhetoric from the U.S. and NATO is becoming even more skewed and provocative. At the July 2016 NATO meeting in Warsaw, Russia was declared the major threat to peace and stability in Europe. Nothing has changed except to get worse. Great Britain is talking about sending its troops to UkraineGermanythe Baltic and Scandinavia nations, and the UK open talk about having a war with Russia. These people are relentless. And apparently merciless. They are willing to sacrifice the lives of their citizens in a major war that need not happen. All Russia wants is a neutral Ukraine — free of US/EU/NATO troops, no missiles and other lethal weaponry pointed at Russia — and a Ukrainian government which is free of Russia-hating neo-Nazis.

Russia has made clear its position over and over. Putin, forcefully and frankly, expressed his concerns about NATO expansion in 2007 in his historical address at the Munich Conference. The West was then and still is unable to listen. Or simply refuses.

The reality is, facts don’t discourage western politicians and U.S. media from beating the drums of war, increasing tensions, and risking a major military confrontation. When you wear a white hat, you alone get to decide who the black hats are.

Frankly, it’s shocking what comes out of the mouths of the spokespersons for the U.S. government. There is no equivalent that I can see coming from the Russian side. Russians tend to be restrained, diplomatic, and at least on the public side very respectful and statesmanlike. Trump, and Biden and Obama before him have, for example, in a number of high-visibility public forums made it their personal mission to insult Vladimir Putin and propagate what are proven lies about Russia. If our political leaders believe any of this stuff, then instead of attending foreign policy and intelligence briefings, they must have been reading comic books or getting their information from Garry Kasparov’s website. But to be honest, I’ve concluded they know the truth and these endless propaganda assaults are quite intentional. The big plan is still to destroy Russia, break it up into little pieces, a loot its rich national resources and treasures.

Back to Russia …

Despite the barrage of vituperation and insults from the West, you cannot find one instance of Putin, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, former Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, current Defense Minister Andrei Belousov, Director of Information and Press Department Maria Zakharova, Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov, or any other high official in the ranks of power in Russia, conducting themselves with anything other than extreme courtesy and professionalism.

Frankly, it’s often embarrassing to see the way U.S. diplomats swagger around like they’re on their way to a barroom brawl in America’s Old West. The contrast with Russia’s spokespersons is stark and revealing.

Final thoughts …

It would be one thing if the feud between the U.S. and Russia were just some schoolyard scrap between two pubescent boys. But these two major countries armed to the teeth with nuclear missiles, burdened with almost seven decades of bad blood between them, much of the bad blood alarmingly the product of gross misunderstanding.

The price of more of the same aggravation and contentiousness is at best wasting valuable resources and energy which could be devoted to other mounting crises — climate change, the rapid destruction of the oceans, the spread of antibiotic-resistant disease, desertification of farmland, depletion of water resources throughout the world, increasing risk of widespread famine, the urgent need to secure vast stockpiles of nuclear weapons from access by terrorists — at worst an epic nuclear holocaust which puts the human race in a giant coffin.

Isn’t it time to stop the name-calling?

Isn’t it time to put away the gang colors?

The black hats and the white hats?

Russia Bad! America Good!

Nothing is that simple.

Unless you’re simpleminded.
[ This is an excerpt from my upcoming book, America’s Hijacked Peace Dividend, available late October or November at fine bookstores across the globe. ]Facebook
John Rachel has a B.A. in Philosophy, has traveled extensively, is a songwriter, music producer, neo-Marxist, and a bipolar humanist. He has written eight novels and three political non-fiction books. His most recent polemic is The Peace Dividend: The Most Controversial Proposal in the History of the World. His political articles have appeared at many alternative media outlets. He is now somewhat rooted in a small traditional farming village in Japan near Osaka, where he proudly tends his small but promising vegetable garden. Scribo ergo sumRead other articles by John, or visit John's website.

French Monitor: Ukraine, NATO Provoked

Russia in Donbass War


Benoit Paré is a former French defense ministry analyst who worked as an international monitor in eastern Ukraine from 2015 to 2022.

In his first interview with a US outlet, Paré speaks to The Grayzone’s Aaron Maté about the hidden reality of the Ukraine war in the Donbas region, where the US-backed Kyiv government fought Russia-backed rebels following the 2014 Maidan coup. Russia now demands that Ukraine accept its capture of the Donbas as a condition for ending the war.

When it comes to which party is responsible for the failure to implement the Minsk accords, the 2015 peace pact that could have prevented the 2022 Russian invasion, Paré says. “I will be very clear. For me the fault lies on Ukraine… by far.” Paré also warns that Ukrainian ultra-nationalists, who violently resisted the Minsk accords, remain a major obstacle to peace.

Paré worked as a monitor for the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), a predominately European group. He recounts his experience as an OSCE monitor in Ukraine in his new book, “What I saw in Ukraine: 2015-2022, Diary of an International Observer.”

The Grayzone is an independent news website dedicated to original investigative journalism and analysis on politics and empire. Read other articles by The Grayzone, or visit The Grayzone's website.

What Do We Know About Zelensky and the Seven Dwarfs Visit to the White House?


With the usual qualifier that I could be entirely wrong, my sense is that both the Alaska Summit and Monday’s meeting at the White House were reality checks. They revealed that Putin was finally able to convince the “collective Trump” (Gilbert Doctorow’s term), that the war in Ukraine did not begin with the Russian invasion of February 2022 but with the February 2014 Maidan coup in Kiev that overthrew the democratically elected Ukrainian president Victor Yanukovych. It was part of the neocon’s grand strategy of using Ukraine in a proxy war to bleed Russia before taking on China.1 This faction of the permanent government or Deep State has been defeated on the battlefield.

The filter to which to view recent events is that the other faction of the US ruling elite, the one to which Trump is nominally connected, “only” wants domination of one-third of the globe and they have correctly concluded that Russia has already won the war in Ukraine. Trump does not want to be associated with a war that ends like Vietnam or Afghanistan. Putin was offering Trump an exit and he pulled the plug onUkraine or, to mix metaphors, took Ukraine off the neocon’s global chessboard.

At Monday’s White House meeting, the now neutered and obsequious Zelensky (who at least wore a coat) set a world record for uttering the words “Thank you, Mr. President”and the fact the Trump despises the back-stabbing, groveling European vassals was on full display as he humiliated them. I was reminded of disobedient school children sitting in the principal’s office. In any case, as each one offered his or her portion of the prepared script, the high (or low) point was when Merz pitifully raised the dead letter “ceasefire” demand for the umpteenth time and Trump pretended to listen before offering an offhand patronizing comment.

The question arises why these Europeans will feverishly continue to sabotage the peace process? There might be a few leaders who believe the nonsense about a “Russian threat” but as Vijay Prashad  has cogently argued, “European elites are primarily interested in protecting their legitimacy. They have invested too much political capital in their goal of ‘victorious peace’ to walk away.” As I’ve noted in previous posts, how else can the European ruling class justify massive increases in arms spending which requires dismantling the welfare state if they can’t maintain the narrative that the Kremlin plans to invade Europe? More critically, how can they maintain their power and privilege if ordinary citizens realize they’ve been lied to over so many decades? In sum, this is the “existential threat” facing European governing elites and they’re living on borrowed time.

In the near future, Putin will meet with Ukrainian negotiators, probably in Istanbul but because both sides are so far apart, no compromise is possible. Putin will enforce a resolution of the conflict on Zelensky which will be a surrender, a capitulation. Trump won’t be there because he wants to evade responsibility when everything collapses.

Finally, Alaska and Washington were limited but positive first steps in transforming US-Russia relations and that’s good news for those aware of the real danger of nuclear war. Further, there’s a better than fifty percent chance that the Ukraine war will end in the near future and that tens of thousands of lives will be spared. And lest I be misunderstood, this isn’t because Trump is a “good guy” or US imperialism is softening but because of the aforementioned, array of highly unusual circumstances the US was forced to retreat. If there are folks out there who miss the truth that at this narrow, isolated point in time that’s a positive development, I can only say “pity on them.” Of course this “good news” must be quickly tempered by the fact that US “Project Ukraine” has already cost the lives of 1.1 million Ukrainians and Russians in a totally unnecessary war.

Note: The entirely disingenuous question of so-called “security arrangements” must be taken up another day.

ENDNOTE:

  • 1
    Thomas I. Palley, “The War in Ukraine — A History: How the US Exploited Fractures in the Post-Soviet Order,” New Left Review, June 1, 2025; John J. Mearsheimer, “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault. Foreign Affairs, September/October 2014. We know now there was a covert CIA plan to invade Ukraine by special forces as early as 1957. See, Kit Klarenberg, “Declassified: CIA’s Covert Ukrainian Invasion Plan,” MRonline, Aug 19, 2025.
Gary Olson is Professor Emeritus at Moravian College, Bethlehem, PA. Contact: glolson416@gmail.com. Per usual, thanks to Kathleen Kelly, my in-house ed. Read other articles by Gary.