DID THE USA USE EXOTIC WEAPONS IN VENEZUELA? A GEOPOLITICAL BACKDROP

We are back folks with our first blogs of 2026 and what looks like it will be a very bumpy and busy New Year. Before we get to that, I want once again to take the time to wish all of you Gizars a very happy and good New Year with every good thing for you and yours.

Over the holiday break I was on more than one occasion tempted to break radio silence in my vacation to comment on the goings on. These were, to my mind, chiefly three: (1) the emerging protests in Iran and the brutal pushback from that regime, (2) the murder of MIT plasma-fusion physicist Dr. Nina Loureiro, and (3) the USA covert action in Venezuela to retrieve its president, Nicholas Maduro, and return him to the United States to face "justice".   I decided not to comment on these three things other than briefly in last week's News and Views from the Nefarium because two of these events (Venezuela and Iran) were prompting me to reformulate some basic geopolitical assumptions as the context in which the events occurred as the interpretive template in which - for now and in my opinion - I believe they must be viewed and understood, and the third event I believe very strongly might also be related to this geopolitical template. I also hinted at this geopolitical template in Catherine Austin Fitts' year-end wrap up which we also recorded

So what exactly is this template?

If one listens to some commentators and observers, it is basically this: the Trump Administration has released a new long term strategic vision study for the United States. That study essentially is an admission that the United States is no longer in a bi-polar or uni-polar world, and that geopolitically, the world has returned to the same sort of multi-polar situation that obtained up until the end of World War Two, with several major powers defining and policing their own national interest within their own regional spheres of cultural, economic, and political influence. As a result, we may understand firstly that this strategic study and its conclusions probably would have been issued regardless of who was in the White House. It is less a product of the administration, and more a product of that faction of the deep state backing it. The presence of former US Senator Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State in the administration is a symbol of this factional influence.  Many people are misreading his presence as a return to "neo-conservativism". It may be that, but with the provision that the days of bi-polar or uni-polar neo-conservatism are over, and that the US must pivot to prioritize the protection of its own sphere of power and interest: North America and the Caribbean basin.

The current talk of annexing Greenland and the actions taken in Venezuela are thus the tangible expressions of this techtonic shift of the geopolitical plates. Venezuela is not just about drugs, or Maduro, nor is it even about "regime change" (one notices thus far a distinct lack of wanting to engage in Bush-era "nation-building". Whether that holds over time remains to b e seen). Drugs are only the narrative being used to "sell" the intervention. It is really about oil, Russia, China, and Cuba. The incursion was meant to solidify US influence in the region, to deny Venezuelan oil to China, and mortally cripple the Chinese, Iranian, and Russian commercial and intelligence presence in that country. Iran may seem like a stranger in that line-up, but it is   to be recalled that Venezuela under Maduro also sponsored a link between the cartels and various Iran-influenced terrorist organizations. The incursion was thus, from first to last, principally about geopolitics, and the USA's pivot to a multi-polar strategy, the essential component of which means asserting and maintaining its role as the regional hegemon, and the expulsion of competitors. In this view, the intervention was a classic example of Realpolitik, and the definite sending of a message to China, Russia, and Iran. (Consider: without Venezuelan oil, will China be strong enough to sustain an invasion of Taiwan and ongoing military occupation? especially with a re-arming Japan right next door, and especially with a wobbly and unstable regime in Iran? That would leave only Russia as the remaining supplier of oil...)

It goes without saying that this template also explains the current quest to obtain a complete redesign of relationships with Europe, including the quest to obtain Greenland, and the USA's Middle east policy which includes the current protests in Iran. We are not looking at an adminstration "out of control" and lashing out haphazardly in all directions with no clear plan or objective. One may agree or disagree, of course, with the policy. But haphazard it is not. It is very a deliberate, calculated, and a considered response to the growth of the BRICS alliances in the past decade and a half. This is evident when one considers Europe and the Middle East. The Greenland venture - whether successful or not - signals that the USA has made the long term calculation that it can no longer unquestionably support, nor maintain, its status as the leader of that alliance, and that it is prepared to walk away from Europe altogether if necessary. (That means something else, not well  appreciated, and that is that it has concluded that Russia is not a threat to European security, and even if it were, the experience in The Ukraine has shown the inability of American power to do anything about Russian interventions on the continent.) This means one significant thing, that if Europe is to maintain its security, Germany must rearm, significantly. (That in turn will mean Germany will have to reboot its energy and heavy industry. We've already heard and seen the calls for massive rearmament from Chancellor Merz, and the calls for expansion of its energy sector and protection of its heavy industry, including a reshoring of its manufacturing plant, will likely occur).   Against the backdrop of this template, the Venezuela action sent clear messages not only to China, Russia, and Iran, but also to Europe.

The other component of this template is the Middle East. Let me be clear here. I remain opposed to any policy which unquestionably supports any Israeli military action in that region that the Likudniks may take into their twisted little heads, especially when that action results in mass murder. I am equally opposed to any policy which would sanction any murderous incursion into Israel or the elimination of Israel as a sovereign nation. And that brings us to Iran. There is no doubt whatsoever that the current uprisings in Iran against the Islamic regime in that country are part of this geopolitical pivot. This may be appreciated by noting that Iran is the major power backer of the most radicalized Islamist elements within the Middle East, and the principal roadblock to the implementation of the Abraham accords. But the deeper agenda here is also manifest by the geopolitical template and pivot, for those accords are, in turn, designed to block the Islamic word from entering into the BRICS tapestry of alliances, to block, in other words, the continued expansion of China's belt and road initiative, much of which, it will be recalled, depended on Iran. Again, this means the unrest in Iran is not merely accidental; it is likely deliberate, and being aided by several agents provocatuer on the ground. It is designed to remove the key lynchpin piece blocking the attempt to keep that world out of the influence of the BRICS nations, chiefly China and Russia.

If there is a message behind all this geopolitical template, it is that the multi-polar world is a cultural version of the old maxim of the Peace of Westphalia (it will be recalled that the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed called explicitly and precisely for such a thing a few years ago): cuius regio eius religio, whose the region, his the religion, with the general political-cultural context replacing the religion aspect of the maxim. In other words, the geopolitical template is being driven by general culture: in effect, the US is saying the following to the various players:

To India: fine, have your Hindu civilizational state and hegemon; to China: fine, have your Marxist version of a Han dynasty and Confucian state; to Russia, fine, have your Orthodox civilization state; to the Islamic world: fine, have your Islamic civilization (but do not encroach on the rights of other groups in your sphere); and to Europe: fine, have your goofy globalist-fascist "pasteurized and processed" union where banksters run everything. But if so, we, the United States, are going to have our own hegemon in the Western hemisphere. 

Now, believe it or not, all of the above was background to the following article, but having read all of that, I think it is apparent why I chose to wait through the vacation to outline it as the necessary template from which to view recent events on the geopolitical stage, including the incursion into Venezuela, and this important story shared by one of our regular article contributors, V.T.:

The article contains some astonishing statements, which I have italicized in context:

According to an eyewitness account, the US military used weaponry and technology unlike anything he had ever seen.

“On the day of the operation, we didn’t hear anything coming. We were on guard, but suddenly all our radar systems shut down without any explanation. The next thing we saw were drones, a lot of drones, flying over our positions. We didn’t know how to react,” the security guard recounted.

After those drones appeared, some helicopters arrived, but there were very few. I think barely eight helicopters. From those helicopters, soldiers came down, but a very small number. Maybe twenty men. But those men were technologically very advanced. They didn’t look like anything we’ve fought against before.

“And then the battle began?” the interviewer asked.

“Yes, but it was a massacre. We were hundreds, but we had no chance. They were shooting with such precision and speed. It seemed like each soldier was firing 300 rounds per minute. We couldn’t do anything,” the witness said.

“And your own weapons? Didn’t they help?” the interviewer asked.

“No help at all. Because it wasn’t just the weapons. At one point, they launched something—I don’t know how to describe it. It was like a very intense sound wave. Suddenly I felt like my head was exploding from the inside. We all started bleeding from the nose. Some were vomiting blood. We fell to the ground, unable to move,” he said.

“Those twenty men, without a single casualty, killed hundreds of us. We had no way to compete with their technology, with their weapons. I swear, I’ve never seen anything like it. We couldn’t even stand up after that sonic weapon or whatever it was,” the eyewitness said.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt appeared to validate the eyewitness’s claims and said, “Stop what you are doing and read this.”

Some suggested this is just propaganda, but if so, word is spreading across Latin America: Don’t mess with the United States.  (Italicized emphasis added)

So note the following: (1) Venezuelan radar suddenly shut down, thus beginning the operation in the classical military way by blinding command and control. No surprise there. Then (2) American soldiers which "didn't look like anything" the Venezuelan soldiers had ever seen before began the assault, which (3) apparently achieved a volume, speed, and precision of fire that was a "force multiplier" (to invoke the military jargon) that enabled the 20 or so American soldiers to be the equivalent of hundreds of Venezuelan soldiers...an implied "kill ratio" of - minimally -  10 to 1, and on top of this, (4) a sonic "non-lethal" weapon was deployed that interfered with the ability of the Venezuelan soldiers to carry out their protective duties, yet another force multiplier.

In the geopolitical context, this unveiling and use of exotic technology to carry out an otherwise conventional covert operation is a clear message, not (as the article implies) just to the rest of Latin America, but even more so to China (consider that 10-1 kill ratio and its meaning to the Chinese military), and Russia (a country recently displaying its own exotic weapons technology in the Ukraine). The message is clear and unmistakable: "we have it, and we will use it to secure our hegemon".

What's the take-away from all of this? I fear that the lesson of the use of exotic technology and covert operations against the backdrop of the geopolitical template are clear: you're already in World War Three, but  it's looking more and more like that war will be fought by such means and over a long time... much like the Thirty Years' War that led to the original Peace of Westphalia... And that template, and the use of exotic technologies in conjunction with covert operations, means that the USA, like England before it during that earlier lengthy world war, intends the fighting to be fought everywhere except North America and on its own soil. Whether it will be successful in that goal remains to be seen. But either way, if this interpretation of events be correct, it will be a long and bumpy ride...

And one final thing: since the USA seems incapable of bringing its own protected criminal class to any sort of justice, perhaps Russia, which has an outstanding arrest warrant for certain palindromically surnamed billionaire busybodies, can mount its own covert operation inside the United States, and bring said palindromically surnamed individuals to stand before a Russian court... Just a thought...

...see you on the flip side...

(If you enjoyed today's blog please share it with your friends.)