Capture of Venezuelan President: Return of Colonial Seizure Politics

If reports of the capture and removal of Venezuela’s sitting president are even partially accurate, then what is unfolding is not a crisis of governance or an overdue act of justice. It is the unambiguous return of colonial seizure politics—the doctrine that powerful states may confiscate sovereignty itself when defiance becomes inconvenient.

This is not regime change as an accidental by-product of policy failure. It is regime removal as method. The familiar language of democracy, legality, and human rights is little more than ornamental cover. Strip it away and the operating logic is brutally clear: discipline the non-compliant, seize control, and reorder ownership. This is not the breakdown of the international system; it is the system functioning precisely as intended.

Venezuela was effectively subdued long before this moment. Years of sanctions did not merely “pressure” the state; they systematically dismantled its economic sovereignty. Revenues were strangled, institutions hollowed out, and governance rendered structurally unworkable. This was not unintended harm. It was preparation. Economic suffocation created the conditions in which intervention could later be marketed as inevitable rather than chosen.

When sanctions failed to produce surrender, political fiction followed. The US-engineered experiment of Juan Guaidó was not diplomacy but theater—an attempt to outsource sovereignty without tanks. When even that farce collapsed, escalation became the only remaining option. Empires do not retreat when resisted; they recalibrate.

The capture of a sitting president is not law enforcement—it is a declaration of ownership. By asserting jurisdiction over a foreign head of state, Washington is not upholding justice; it is asserting hierarchy. Venezuela is no longer treated as a sovereign political subject but as a managed space—its leadership provisional, its future externally arbitrated. This is not international law stretched beyond recognition. It is international law discarded outright.

Oil is not the subtext of this intervention; it is the text. Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves. Governments that privatize resources on Western terms are tolerated regardless of repression. Governments that insist on national control are destabilized regardless of elections. This is not hypocrisy. It is imperial consistency.

Dismissing Latin American resistance as “anti-Americanism” is willful blindness. From Guatemala and Chile to Panama and Nicaragua, the pattern is consistent: sanctions, destabilization, leadership removal, resource realignment. Venezuela fits perfectly—except this time, the mask is off.

This moment should not be personalized. Trump is not the cause; he is the instrument. The architecture of sanctions, energy interests, and bipartisan hostility to Venezuelan sovereignty predates him and will outlast him.

What is being normalized is more dangerous than Venezuela’s immediate devastation: the idea that sovereignty exists only by imperial permission, that sanctions are preparatory weapons, and that leaders may be seized rather than negotiated with. This is colonialism without occupation—domination without apology.

Why Trump Is Edging Toward a Serious Conflict with Venezuela?

US President Donald Trump has significantly escalated pressure on Venezuela and President Nicolás Maduro through sanctions, military action, and economic measures, raising concerns about a potential serious conflict. The latest flashpoint was the US seizure of a sanctioned oil tanker en route to Cuba, part of a broader campaign targeting Maduro’s government, which Washington labels illegitimate and accuses of leading a drug-trafficking network.

Trump has justified his actions on multiple fronts. Migration is a central issue, with the president frequently blaming Maduro for sending criminals, gang members, and former prisoners into the United States. While Venezuelans now number around 770,000 in the United States as of 2023, they represent less than 2 percent of the immigrant population. Most Venezuelan migrants—over 80 percent—remain in Latin America and the Caribbean. Nonetheless, the issue has gained urgency after a Supreme Court ruling led to more than 250,000 Venezuelans losing Temporary Protected Status following the program’s expiration.

Drug trafficking is another pillar of Trump’s campaign. The administration accuses the Maduro regime of facilitating narcotics flows into the US, citing this as justification for lethal strikes on suspected drug-smuggling boats near Venezuela. Since September, US forces have carried out at least 22 maritime strikes, killing dozens of alleged traffickers. These actions have sparked political controversy, particularly after reports that survivors of one strike were killed. While the administration claims these operations have sharply reduced maritime drug trafficking, lawmakers note that the vessels were believed to be carrying cocaine, not fentanyl, and that Colombia remains the region’s top cocaine producer.

Economic pressure, especially targeting oil, has intensified tensions. Oil accounts for nearly 90 percent of Venezuela’s export revenues. The seized tanker reportedly carried over one million barrels of oil, and analysts warn that continued seizures could amount to a de facto naval blockade, crippling Venezuela’s economy and limiting its ability to import food, weapons, and fuel.

Finally, regime change remains an underlying concern. Trump has said Maduro’s days are “numbered” and has deployed an unprecedented US military presence in the region, though he has not ruled out negotiations. Senior officials deny seeking regime change outright, but skepticism remains over whether any agreement with Maduro could be enforced.

US strikes vessel operated by Venezuelan drug gang

According to media reports, President Donald Trump said Tuesday the US has carried out a strike in the southern Caribbean against a drug-carrying vessel that departed from Venezuela and was operated by the Tren de Aragua gang.

The president said in a social media posting that 11 people were killed in the rare US military operation in the Americas, a dramatic escalation in the Republican administration’s effort to stem the flow of narcotics from Latin America. Trump also posted a short video clip of a small vessel appearing to explode in flames.

“The strike occurred while the terrorists were at sea in International waters transporting illegal narcotics, heading to the United States,” Trump said on Truth Social.

“No U.S. Forces were harmed in this strike. Please let this serve as notice to anybody even thinking about bringing drugs into the United States of America.”

The video appears to show a long, multi-engine speedboat traveling at sea when a bright flash of light bursts over the craft. The boat is then briefly seen covered in flames.

The video, which is largely in black and white, is not clear enough to see if the craft is carrying as many as 11 people. The video also did not show any large or clear stashes of drugs inside the boat.

Tren de Aragua originated more than a decade ago at an infamously lawless prison with hardened criminals in Venezuela’s central state of Aragua. The gang has expanded in recent years as more than 7.7 million Venezuelans fled economic turmoil and migrated to other Latin American countries or the US.

Trump and administration officials have repeatedly blamed the gang for being at the root of the violence and illicit drug dealing that plague some cities. And the president on Tuesday repeated his claim — contradicted by a declassified US intelligence assessment — that Tren de Aragua is operating under Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s control.

The White House did not immediately explain how the military determined that those aboard the vessel were Tren de Aragua members. The size of the gang is unclear, as is the extent to which its actions are coordinated across state lines and national borders.

 

US troops to stay in Afghanistan forever

I started writing blogs under Geo politics in South Asia and MENA about five years back. The objective was to share my views with global readers, particularly the Think Tanks operating in the US. Most of the topics I picked up over the years were: 1) proxy wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, 2) imposition of economic sanctions on Iran for decades, 3) use of crude oil as weapon, 4) melodramas in the name of change of regime, 5) creations of phantoms like Taliban, Al Qaeda and ISIS and 6) dishonest western media.

The title of one of my second blog written in August 2012 was Will US pull troops out of Afghanistan? Despite having little knowledge about international relations or geopolitics at that time, my conclusion was that the US will never pull its troops out of Afghanistan. My conclusion was based on the fact that presence of the US troops in Afghanistan provides it a safe haven for undertaking cross border actions in Pakistan, Iran, China and some of the energy rich Central Asian countries.

I had deliberately avoided mentioning drug as one of the prime reasons for the US troops for occupying Afghanistan, but one of the readers of my blog was prompt in raising this point. If one thinks with a cool head this may be the key reason because it gives control on drug trade and also the money to be paid to militants for killing the innocents ruthlessly and to keep the world permanently under fear. It may also be said that Afghanistan has become a nursery for growing mercenaries and people from around the world get training in the rugged mountains of Afghanistan. They are also paid from the money earned from cultivation of poppy.

Having born and grown in war-ridden Afghanistan, the locals have become ‘blood thirsty’ and suffer from restlessness unless they kill a few people every day. Ironically they not only kill their own countrymen but also go to places where conflicts have been created by the super powers to satisfy their lust.

The conclusion of my today’s blog is that after fighting two world wars, super power have decided to fight proxy wars, sell arms to the governments where rebel groups have been created by them, use income from drugs and oil for buying arms. The job becomes easier through propagation of regime change mantra.

These super powers are among the sponsors of the UN, created for restoring peace in the world. However, now the only role of Security Council is to grant permission for attacking a country chosen for the proxy war. Two of the worst examples are Afghanistan and Iraq and many other countries are also the victim of super powers. Usually the military dictators are made head of state and often the drama of sham democracy is also staged.