Tag: perpetual war

US intel contradicts Trump’s claims of fentanyl production in Venezuela: Report

US intelligence has assessed that little to no Fentanyl trafficked to the US is being produced in Venezuela, contradicting recent claims from US President Donald Trump to justify airstrikes on alleged drug boats, Drop Site News (DSN)reported on 24 October.

Trump claimed last month that boats targeted in US airstrikes in the Caribbean were carrying Fentanyl to the US.

“Every boat kills 25,000 on average — some people say more. You see these boats, they’re stacked up with bags of white powder that’s mostly Fentanyl and other drugs, too,” Trump said.

US strikes on vessels operating in international waters in the Caribbean Sea since September have killed at least 32 people.

However, a senior US official directly familiar with the matter stated that Fentanyl is not being produced in Venezuela and sent to the US.

“The official noted that many of the boats targeted for strikes by the Trump administration do not even have the requisite gasoline or motor capacity to reach US waters,” DSN reported.

The lack of intelligence linking Venezuela with fentanyl production is further evidence that the strikes are driven by an effort to topple the government of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

Trump has used allegations of Venezuelan drug trafficking, including claims without evidence that Maduro is leading a drug cartel, as the justification for overthrowing the socialist government.

In a post on social media, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth equated the alleged threat of Venezuelan drug cartels to that of Al-Qaeda.

“Just as Al-Qaeda waged war on our homeland, these cartels are waging war on our border and our people,” Hegseth said, adding that “there will be no refuge or forgiveness – only justice.”

His comments come just a few weeks after the founder of Al-Qaeda in Syria, Ahmad Al-Sharaa, met with US officials in New York. Sharaa seized power in Damascus in December, declaring himself president, with US backing.

Two sources familiar with discussions at the White House told DSN that Secretary of State Marco Rubio is the driving force behind the regime change effort.

Secretary Rubio has earmarked millions of dollars previously allocated for “pro-democracy” measures in Venezuela to prepare for a war.

The sources cited Rubio’s desire to access Venezuela’s vast oil resources as the reason for seeking regime change.

On Friday, the Pentagon confirmed it was deploying the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group to the Caribbean Sea, adding to the thousands of troops deployed to the Venezuelan coast.

Keep reading

Overnight Drone Attack Hits Moscow High-Rise As Putin Warns Of ‘Overwhelming’ Response

Ukrainian drones have once again reached the Moscow area, far away from the border, at a moment the Kremlin is strongly warning against Washington allowing the transfer of US Tomahawk missiles to Kiev.

The attack on a Moscow suburb was part of a broader wave of overnight drone attacks which hit multiple regions across the country, injuring at least five people, including a child, when one drone slammed into an apartment building near Moscow.

According to Moscow region Governor Andrei Vorobyov, the drone hit a 14th-floor apartment in a high-rise building in the city of Krasnogorsk, northwest of the capital.

Four adults were hospitalized with head injuries, fractures, and shrapnel wounds, and a boy suffered minor injuries in the attack. Circulating photos showed blown-out walls in an apartment. 

Russia’s Defense Ministry said that air defense forces intercepted and destroyed over 110 Ukrainian UAVs over 13 regions overnight. Several drones were also shot down as they approached the capital.

Ukraine appears to be feeling emboldened, as it has had a series of ‘wins’ on a global stage given this week’s new US and EU anti-Moscow sanctions. This new attacked marked the second consecutive night which saw more than 100 drones assault Russian territory.

Power outages resulted in some Russian areas, particularly the Rostov region, and drone impacts were reported also in Bryansk, Kaluga, Tula, and Tver.

Meanwhile President Vladimir Putin has warned in the face of new sanctions and the potential for new long-range weapons including Tomahawk missiles to be given to Ukraine that Moscow stands ready to respond with an “overwhelming” force:

“Dialogue is always better than confrontation or any disputes, and especially war. We have always supported the continuation of dialogue,” Putin told journalists. 

But if Russia was attacked with US Tomahawk missiles, which Ukraine seeks, the response would be “very strong, if not overwhelming. Let them think about it,” he added. 

So far Trump appears to have resisted Zelensky’s and Europe’s urging on this front, but shown willingness to later reverse his decisions on such Ukraine war-related issues.

Keep reading

A Trumpian Headache

President Donald Trump’s use of the U.S. military to kill persons on speed boats in international waters, or in territorial waters claimed by other sovereign nations – all 1,500 miles from the U.S. – has posed grave issues of due process. The Constitution’s guarantee of due process requires it for every person, not just Americans. The operative language of the Fifth Amendment is that “No person… shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”

The Trump administration has claimed that it can kill whomever it designates as an unlawful enemy combatant – it prefers the political phrase “narco-terrorist” – and the due process it provides is the intelligence gathered by American spies and the White House analysis of that intelligence. This secret analysis, the government’s argument goes, satisfies the president that the folks he has ordered killed are engaging in serious and harmful criminal behavior, and somehow is a lawful and constitutional substitute for the jury trial and its attendant procedural protections that the Constitution commands.

To be fair, I am offering an educated guess as to the administration’s argument. The reason we don’t know the argument precisely is that the Department of Justice calls it classified. This is, of course, a non sequitur. How could a legal argument possibly be secret in light of well-settled First Amendment jurisprudence? It can’t. The Supreme Court has ruled consistently that there are no secret laws or secret rationales for employing the laws. Moreover, it has ruled that the First Amendment assures a public window on government behavior whenever it seeks to take life, liberty or property.

The last time we went through efforts to obtain the government’s legal argument for presidential targeted killing was during the Obama administration. When President Barack Obama ordered the CIA to kill Anwar al-Awlaki and his son – both natural born American citizens – it, too, claimed a secret legal rationale. Yet some brave soul who had access to that rationale leaked it to the press. The rationale likened killing al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son to police shooting at fleeing bank robbers who are shooting at the police.

The Obama justification was absurd, as al-Awlaki was not engaged in any violent acts. He had been followed by 12 intelligence agents during his final 48 hours of life. Those agents couldn’t legally arrest him, because he hadn’t been charged with a crime, but in the Obama logic, they could legally kill him.

When those of us who monitor the government’s infidelity to the Constitution publicly pointed out the flaws in the Obama argument, it reverted to the argument that I suspect the current administration is secretly using. Namely, that its secret internal deliberations are a constitutionally adequate substitution for traditional due process.

It gets worse.

Keep reading

Russian Official Confirms North Koreans Operating Along Ukraine Border

Alexander Khinshtein, governor of Russia’s Kursk region, said in a televised interview on Tuesday that North Korean troops are assisting with mine-clearing efforts along the border with Ukraine.

“Representatives of the Korean People’s Army have played a vital role in clearing the border area. Today, they are deeply engaged in demining efforts, which are crucial for the future reconstruction and security of the region,” Khinshtein stated.

The governor said the “camaraderie between the Russian and Korean peoples compels us to forge a unique partnership with North Korea.” To that end, he said a plan is under development to designate the city of Kaesong in North Korea as a “sister city” to Kursk.

Kursk was counter-invaded by Ukrainian forces in August 2024, 18 months after Russia invaded Ukraine. The Russians were taken completely by surprise, allowing Ukrainian forces to take and hold positions deep inside Kursk province.

In desperation, the Russians turned to North Korea for cannon fodder. Pyongyang sent about 12,000 troops to help the Russians recapture Kursk, a deployment both Russia and North Korea denied for months until finally providing official confirmation in April 2025. The Russian government announced Kursk had been recaptured from Ukrainian forces in the same month.

According to North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un, his forces were sent to “annihilate and wipe out the Ukrainian neo-Nazi occupiers and liberate the Kursk area in cooperation with the Russian armed forces.”

Kim declared the North Korean soldiers, who seemed baffled by modern drone warfare and took heavy losses in Kursk, to be “heroes of the motherland.” The North Korean regime held a ceremony to honor them in August 2025.

Khinshtein, who was appointed acting governor of Kursk by President Vladimir Putin in December, said on Tuesday that the border between Kursk and Ukraine remains “contaminated with land mines, unexploded ordnance, aerial bombs, and shells,” necessitating an extensive de-mining operation.

Khinshtein’s predecessor as governor, Alexey Smirnov, resigned due to public anger over his handling of the Ukrainian counter-invasion, particularly his failure to evacuate civilians from the occupied territory.

Keep reading

NATO Jets Scrambled Over Lithuania After Russian Aircraft Breach Airspace

NATO member Lithuania on Thursday alleged that a pair of Russian jets violated its sovereign airspace, in what the government quickly condemned as a breach the country’s territorial integrity.

“This evening, Russian military planes violated Lithuanian air space. This is a blatant breach of international law and territorial integrity of Lithuania,” the country’s President Gitanas Nauseda said in a statement.

Alluding to recent EU plans to create a joint aerial defense and drone shield to protect European airspace from Russian incursions, he added: “Once again, it confirms the importance of strengthening European air defense readiness.”

Nauseda further announced that his foreign ministry will be summoning Russian diplomatic representatives, to lodge formal protest against the “reckless and dangerous behavior”.

Lithuania’s military said it scrambled jets in response to the brief incursion. It said:

Today, Russian military aircraft briefly entered Lithuanian airspace. Our forces acted quickly with NATO jets on patrol. Lithuania remains strong and ready. Every inch of our country is protected.

Initial reports say that two Russian military planes violated the airspace for a mere 18-seconds.

Baltic and Eastern European countries, including Poland, have for several weeks been complaining of Russian aerial incursions. This month Denmark hosted a summit where a ‘drone wall’ was the focus:

Fortified by intense security measures after a wave of drone incursions above airports and sensitive sites, two high-stakes summits in the Danish capital offered a mounting sense of collective clarity — and a possible solution that sounds like science fiction: a “drone wall.”

“There is only one country that are willing to threaten us, and it is Russia,” Danish President Mette Frederiksen told reporters on Wednesday, adding that Europe was in the middle of a “hybrid war.”

“I think we are in the most difficult and dangerous situation since the end of the Second World War,” she added. “I want us to rearm. I want us to buy more capabilities. I want us to innovate more.”

Likely Thursday’s event happened off Lithuania’s coast over the Baltic Sea, where Russian and NATO planes frequently patrol.

Keep reading

China Is Smuggling Fentanyl to US Through Venezuela, Trump Says

U.S. President Donald Trump confirmed on Oct. 23 that China is smuggling fentanyl into the United States through Venezuela to bypass U.S. and Mexican controls.

“They are doing that, yes, but they are paying right now 20 percent tariff because of fentanyl,” Trump told reporters.

Trump said it is one of the issues he will bring up with Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leader Xi Jinping at their bilateral meeting next week.

“The first question I’m going to be asking them about is fentanyl,” he said.

Trump said that with the tariffs on China, which will rise by an additional 100 percent on Nov. 1 if no deal is made, the fentanyl operation will no longer be sustainable for China.

“They make $100 million sell[ing] fentanyl into our country … they lose $100 billion with the 20 percent tariff. So it’s not a good business proposition,” Trump said. “They pay a very big penalty for doing that, and I don’t think they want to be doing it.”

Trump’s meeting with Xi will come at the tail end of his Asia tour, for which he is departing on Oct. 24.

Earlier this year, FBI Director Kash Patel told lawmakers he had spoken to counternarcotics authorities in China and urged them to restrict exports of more fentanyl precursor chemicals.

The Chinese Ministry of Public Security in August added seven chemicals to an export control list, three of them central to producing fentanyl. The restrictions went into effect Sept. 1.

The United States has determined that China is the main supplier of the deadly illicit drug in the United States, and Trump in an executive order on Feb. 1 imposed initial tariffs on China for its “central role” in the fentanyl crisis.

In the order, Trump noted that despite a long history of discussions over the years, Chinese regime officials “have failed to follow through with the decisive actions needed to stem the flow of precursor chemicals.”

According to the order, in addition to subsidizing and incentivizing chemical companies to create and export fentanyl precursors, the regime has also provided “support and safe haven” for transnational criminal organizations that launder the related profits.

“The CCP does not lack the capacity to severely blunt the global illicit opioid epidemic; it simply is unwilling to do so,” the order reads.

In recent weeks, Trump has authorized nine strikes on vessels suspected of trafficking drugs.

Keep reading

Western Media Use ‘Peace’ Prize to Fuel War Propaganda

The awarding of the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize to Venezuelan far-right leader María Corina Machado took nearly everyone by surprise (with the exception of insiders who apparently used advance knowledge to profit on betting markets—New York Times, 10/10/25).

The Nobel Committee justified the award on the basis of Machado’s “tireless work promoting democratic rights” and “her struggle to achieve a just and peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy.” However, Machado’s track record paints a very different picture (Sovereign Media, 10/11/25; Venezuelanalysis, 7/8/24).

Rather than scrutinize the opposition politician’s credentials, the media establishment seized the opportunity to whitewash the most unpeaceful elements in her background in order to advance its cynical pro–regime change agenda targeting Venezuela’s socialist government (FAIR.org, 2/12/25, 1/11/23, 6/13/22, 4/15/20). Not coincidentally, Machado’s award coincided with an escalation of US military threats against Venezuela, meaning that corporate pundits used a “peace” prize as a platform for war propaganda.

The Nobel Prize meant corporate outlets had to give their readers an idea of Machado’s political trajectory. And though some had profile pieces (Reuters, 10/10/25; New York Times, 10/10/25), there was a concerted effort to conceal the most unsavory elements. The Financial Times (10/10/25) euphemistically stated that Machado “enter[ed] politics in opposition to Hugo Chávez”—president of Venezuela from 1999 through 2013—while the Guardian (10/10/25) summed up that she has been “involved in politics for more than two decades.”

Keep reading

Washington’s Deadly Lack of Foreign Policy Empathy Toward Russia

It is hard to believe that U.S. and other Western officials actually are surprised at the consequences of their habitually tone-deaf policies toward Russia.  Are they truly shocked that a major power, already humiliated by its defeat in the Cold War, resented having the most powerful military alliance in history steadily expand toward its borders?  One need only look at a current map and compare it to a map of Eastern Europe in 1990 at the time of Germany’s reunification to see the geographic extent of NATO’s expanded military power.  The encroachment on Russia’s core security zone is blatant.  Yet, U.S. leaders in five administrations ignored repeated, escalating admonitions and warnings from Moscow as those provocations took place.

The culmination – so far – of such policy arrogance and ineptitude is a dangerous proxy war between NATO and Russia, with NATO using Ukraine as its principal weapon.  Most worrisome of all, the proxy war is a conflict that could, given the slightest miscalculation by either side, escalate to the nuclear level.

Members of America’s foreign policy elite fail to exhibit even a modicum of strategic empathy, and that deficiency urgently needs to be corrected.  The principal global nightmare in the coming decades is likely to be a possible military collision between the United States and the People’s Republic of China (PRC).  If the new generation of U.S. policymakers cannot do a far better job than the current crop has done with respect to policy toward Russia, a catastrophe becomes much more likely.

Aspiring and current U.S. policymakers should be compelled to conduct mental exercises in which they genuinely attempt to view a geostrategic issue from the perspective of an opponent or competitor of the United States.  As an important corollary, there needs to be a more serious effort to comprehend how the other party seems to view specific U.S. actions and initiatives.  Such an approach requires sincere, in-depth intellectual role reversals.

An attempt to achieve something at least resembling strategic empathy would, for example, try to determine how a defeated and humiliated United States would react to a victorious Russia expanding a powerful military alliance it controls ever closer to the American homeland.  Let’s say that the encroaching Russian great power started by adding small nations in the Caribbean and Central America as new alliance members and then moved on to admit larger countries possessing more significant military assets, such as Colombia and Venezuela.  Not content with implementing those provocations, Moscow then seeks to make Canada or Mexico a front line alliance member against the United States.

Substitute the Baltic republics for the small Caribbean or Central American countries, and substitute Poland, the Czech Republic, and Romania for Colombia and Venezuela, and one has the mirror image of what the U.S. and NATO did in Eastern Europe between 1998 and 2004 with the initial stages of NATO’s expansion.  Throughout that period, Washington and other leading NATO powers kept insisting that the moves were not hostile measures directed against Russia – an assertion that had little credibility even during the early phases of expansion and ultimately had no credibility with Russian leaders.  When Anti-Russia hawks began to do their utmost to admit Ukraine to NATO during George W. Bush’s administration, the provocations reached an intolerable level.

Adding Ukraine as a NATO military asset, whether or not Kiev was granted formal membership, was the functional strategic equivalent of a victorious Russia trying to add Mexico or Canada to the looming military power already arrayed against Washington.  In this alternate universe, would anyone be surprised if the increasingly beleaguered United States took decisive steps to prevent Mexico or Canada from becoming a crucial Russian geostrategic asset?  Would we be surprised if U.S. leaders and the American people concluded that they faced an existential security threat and decided that decisive action to neutralize that threat must be taken, whatever the risk?  It is nearly certain that both the public and the government would reach such a conclusion.

Why, then, do U.S. leaders and their NATO allies profess to be surprised and outraged that Russian officials and the Russian people seem to view matters in a similar fashion about the threat their country faces?  The total lack of strategic empathy on the part of Western – especially U.S. – policymakers has produced a predictable, disastrous outcome.

Keep reading

Who Would Jesus Bomb? The Gospel According to the Military-Industrial Complex

“Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.”—Thomas Jefferson

For a man supposedly intent on winning a Nobel Peace Prize, Donald Trump spends an extraordinary amount of time waging war, threatening to wage war, and fantasizing about waging war.

Notwithstanding his dubious claims about having ended “seven un-endable wars,” Trump has continued to squander the American people’s resources and moral standing by feeding the military-industrial complex’s insatiable appetite for war—preemptively bombing nuclear facilities in Iran, blowing up fishing boats in the Caribbean, and flexing military muscle at every opportunity.

Even the Trump administration’s version of “peace through strength” is filtered through a prism of violence, intimidation and strongman tactics.

It is the gospel of power, not peace—a perversion of both Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount and the U.S. Constitution.

Thus we find ourselves at this peculiar crossroads: a president hailed by his followers as an “imperfect vessel” chosen by God to save the church and restore Christianity—while they turn a blind eye to his record of adultery, deceit, greed, cruelty, and an almost religious devotion to vengeance and violence.

If anything captures Trump’s worldview, it is the AI-generated video he shared on social media: a grotesque fantasy of himself wearing a golden crown, flying a military fighter jet, and bombing a crowd of protesters with brown liquid feces.

This is the man who claims to be “saving God”?

Dismissed by his devoted base as harmless humor—a cheeky response to the millions nationwide who took part in the “No Kings” protests on Oct. 18—Trump’s crude fantasy of assaulting critics with fecal bombs nevertheless begs the question: Who would Jesus bomb?

That question, of course, is meant less literally than morally.

To answer it, we must first understand who Jesus Christ was—the revered preacher, teacher, radical, prophet and son of God—born into a police state not unlike the growing menace of America’s own police state.

When he came of age, Jesus had powerful, profound things to say, about justice, power and how we are to relate to one another. “Blessed are the merciful,” “Blessed are the peacemakers,” “Love your enemies.”

A revolutionary in both spirit and action, Jesus not only died challenging the police state of his day—the Roman Empire—but left behind a blueprint for resisting tyranny that has guided countless reformers and freedom fighters ever since.

Far from the sanitized, domesticated figure presented in modern churches, Jesus was a radical nonconformist who challenged authority at every turn. He spoke truth to power, defied political and religious hierarchies, and exposed the hypocrisy of empire.

Keep reading

Trump Suggests US Strikes on Alleged Drug Shipments on ‘Land’ Are Coming Soon

President Trump on Wednesday suggested that US strikes on alleged drug shipments “on land” could be coming soon amid the US bombing campaign targeting boats in Latin America.

Trump has made similar comments before, and according to multiple media reports, the US is preparing to bomb Venezuela with the goal of ousting Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and is using cracking down on drug trafficking as a pretext.

The president claimed to reporters at the White House that he had “legal authority” to launch the strikes, but Congress hasn’t authorized the bombing campaign, which the Constitution requires for launching a war. Trump said he may notify Congress of the plans to launch strikes on land targets, but didn’t say he would seek authorization.

“We will hit them very hard when they come in by land. And they haven’t experienced that yet, but now we’re totally prepared to do that. We’ll probably go back to Congress and explain exactly what we’re doing when [they] come to the land,” the president said.

The president previously told Congress that he believes the US is now in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels. Trump has framed the airstrikes as self-defense, pointing to the large numbers of drug overdoses in the US, but they are primarily caused by fentanyl and other synthetic opioids, which don’t come from Venezuela, something Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who has been very critical of the campaign, has pointed out.

“There is no fentanyl made in Venezuela. Not just a little bit, there’s none being made. These are outboard boats that, in order for them to get to Miami, would have to stop and refuel 20 times,” Paul told British journalist Piers Morgan this week.

“It’s all likely going to Trinidad and Tobago. There are a lot of reasons to be worried about this. Number one is the broader principle of when can you kill people indiscriminately when there’s war. That’s why when we declare war is supposed to be done by Congress. It’s not supposed to be done willy nilly. When there’s war you just kill people in the war zone, there are rules of engagement,” Paul added.

Since September 2, the US has bombed at least seven boats in the Caribbean and one in the eastern Pacific near Colombia, extrajudicially executing 34 people at sea, according to numbers released by the Trump administration, without providing evidence to back up its claims about the targets. Sources told The Washington Post on Wednesday that any US airstrikes in Venezuela would likely first target alleged trafficker encampments or clandestine airstrips, but regime change remains the ultimate goal.

“There really is no turning back unless Maduro is essentially not in power,” a person familiar with the administration’s deliberations told the Post.

Keep reading