Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

The “Trump Doctrine” is all about the US’ continued military overmatch vis-à-vis China together with placing the US in a position where it can complementarily deny China access to the energy and markets that it requires to maintain its growth and thus its superpower trajectory.

Trump 2.0’s grand strategy has become much clearer over the past month since the US bombed ISIS in Nigeria on Christmas, executed its astoundingly successful “special military operation” in Venezuela, and is now threatening new strikes against Iran on the pretext of supporting anti-government protesters. What these three states have in common is their important roles in the global energy industry, whether present or potential (due to sanctions-related limitations), and in China’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI).

Accordingly, coercing those countries into subordinating themselves to the US (whether by tariffs, force, subversion, etc.) would result in Trump 2.0 obtaining influence over their energy exports and trade ties, which could be weaponized to pressure China.

What the US wants from China is for it to agree to a lopsided trade deal that would then be replicated with the EU and the US’ other partners for, as the new National Security Strategy states, “rebalanc[ing] China’s economy towards household consumption”.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

Russia’s Second-Ever Use Of The Oreshniks Was A Response To Three Recent Provocations These are Ukraine’s attempted assassination of Putin right before New Year’s, France and the UK’s official plans to deploy troops to Ukraine if a ceasefire is agreed to, and the US’ seizure of a Russian-flagged tanker in the Atlantic.

The Russian Defense Ministry confirmed on Friday morning that the Oreshniks were used for the second time ever after several were fired at targets in Lvov Region. Reports indicate that the Stryi gas field and gas storage facility were among those that were hit. The first time that the Oreshniks were used was in November 2024 after the US and UK allowed Ukraine to use their long-range missiles for strikes deep inside of Russia. Three recent provocations were arguably responsible for their second-ever use.

The confirmation above explicitly mentioned that Ukraine’s attempted large-scale attack against Putin’s residence in Russia’s Novgorod Region right before New Year’s was what prompted this retaliation. About that, it was assessed that “The CIA Is Manipulating Trump Against Putin” after he flipflopped from believing Putin’s claim that this attack was an assassination attempt to believing the CIA chief’s that it supposedly only targeted a nearby military site, so this can be interpreted as Putin’s retort to Trump.

Moving along, even though the Russian Defense Ministry didn’t mention any other recent provocations as being responsible for their country’s second-ever use of the Oreshniks, it can be reasonably argued that Putin probably had two others in mind too when he gave the authorization for this latest strike.

Mikhail Sinev
Газета.Ru

Zakharova stated that Western military facilities in Ukraine will become legitimate targets

Moscow will perceive the deployment of Western military units and facilities on Ukrainian territory under the Paris Declaration as an intervention, warned Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova. According to her, NATO soldiers and infrastructure will become legitimate combat targets for the Russian military. The State Duma emphasized that the West has "played a dirty trick" on the Ukrainian people, who were "seemingly seeing a glimmer of hope for peace."

The deployment of Western military units and infrastructure in Ukraine will be considered an intervention, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova stated, commenting on the signing of a declaration by Kyiv, London, and Paris, which calls for NATO military bases and weapons storage facilities in Ukraine.

Dmitry Medvedev / Telegram
Dept. Chairman of the Russian Security Council

1. First and foremost, its beginning will be remembered for Maduro's abduction. Of course, this is rude and despicable, or, to put it nicely, a universal catastrophe in the sphere of international relations.

And today, there are only two scenarios: either the US will quietly release the kidnapped Venezuelan president under a plausible pretext (the probability of this is insignificant), or he will become the new Latin American Mandela (most likely). Then his name will be inscribed in the annals of South American history alongside Bolívar, Miranda, and Chávez.

And even if Trump, out of stubbornness, does not pardon Maduro after some time, Vance or another successor to Trump will surely do so under public pressure.

Yes, oil is a key factor here. But even with oil, things will not be easy. What if the current Venezuelan authorities do not want to share it with the Americans in the long run? Will Trump really launch a ground operation? This would definitely require congressional approval, and it would be much bloodier than Maduro's brazen kidnapping. The Senate has just put a noose around Trump's neck, curbing his militaristic fervor. And does the current administration really need this? Doubtful.

And another thing. I noted this immediately after the sabbath staged by the Yanks: after this, the American elites – both Republican and Democratic – should stick their long tongues up their rickety asses for good. And simply acknowledge Russia's legitimacy during the SVO.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

The overarching trend is that the US is militarily reasserting its historical “sphere of influence” over the Americas, and enforcing the maritime component of “Fortress America” is so important for Trump 2.0 that it’s willing to risk an accidental war with Russia over it and even rubbish the “rules-based order”.

The Russian-flagged Marinera tanker was just seized by the US in the Atlantic. It was earlier named the Bella 1 and is under US sanctions due to connections to Hezbollah. It sailed under the Guyanese flag from Iran to Venezuela and attempted to break the US’ blockade. It failed, turned around, changed its name to the Marinera, and received a temporary permit to sail under the Russian flag before being seized. Russian then demanded that its citizens on board be treated humanely and returned home.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth posted that “The blockade of sanctioned and illicit Venezuelan oil remains in FULL EFFECT — anywhere in the world.”

This preceded Attorney General Pam Bondi threatening that criminal charges might be pursued against the crew. Her tweet and Hegseth’s other one about how the US will only permit “legitimate and lawful” energy commerce with Venezuela shows that it’s once again assuming so-called “police” functions. Here are three takeaways from this incident:

Elena Panina
Елена Панина (Telegram)

Miller also commented on Venezuela, clearly referring to the rest of Latin America:

Miller also touched on Greenland:

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

Reviewing The Russian UN Representative’s Response To The US’ Capture Of Maduro

Russian Permanent Representative to the UN Vasily Nebenzia shared his country’s official response to the US’ capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. He condemned it as “a harbinger of a return to an era of lawlessness and US domination by force, chaos and injustice, which continues to inflict suffering on dozens of countries in various regions of the world” before calling for his and his wife’s release. He then pointed out the US’ long-running hypocrisy in selectively invoking the UN Charter. Russia...

This suggests that the US’ capture of Maduro might have already intimidated scores of foreign leaders.

Thomas Fazi
The Telegraph

Trump’s raid on Venezuela will drive even more countries away from the Western system

It has finally happened. After months of military build-up in the Caribbean, the illegal killing of more than a hundred people on Venezuelan fishing boats – many of them civilians – and the equally illegal seizure of Venezuelan oil tankers, the Trump administration has dramatically escalated its aggression against Venezuela.

In the early hours of Saturday morning, US forces launched a large-scale military attack on several sites, including the capital Caracas, that resulted in the capture – or more accurately, the kidnapping – of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro.

The groundwork for this operation has been laid for months. Chief among the justifications was the claim that Venezuela is a “narco-terrorist” state at the centre of the fentanyl trade responsible for the US overdose crisis, an accusation that has been thoroughly debunked.

Other allegations were quickly added to the mix: that the country hosts “Iran-backed terrorists” (another unsubstantiated claim) and, inevitably, the assertion that regime change is about bringing “democracy” and “freedom” to the Venezuelan people.

But ultimately, once all the layers of propaganda are stripped away, this attack boils down to just one thing: a completely unprovoked and blatantly illegal act of aggression against a country that posed no real threat to the United States.

The real objectives are transparent. First, to gain control over Venezuela’s vast oil reserves – the largest in the world. Second, to topple a key ally of the non-Western geopolitical bloc aligned with China and Russia. In short, this is yet another regime-change war, from a president that campaigned precisely on putting an end to the US’s “forever wars”.

Ove Bengt Berg
Politicus

An imperial power in decline and desperation is a dramatic warning sign

In violation of all international rules and contrary to Trump's political promises not to involve the US in new wars, Trump took up the Nobel Committee's call, and attacked Venezuela, capturing the head of state and bringing him to the US. Why?

Not for drugs, possibly to secure US-controlled states in South America. A likely reason is to secure control over Venezuela's oil resources, one of the largest in the world. Most important, however, is probably to support Israel's desire to break the alliance between Iran and Hezbollah. Venezuela's oil resources have been a risk factor for Israel. Secretary of State Rubio is a power broker in the US, financed by a wealthy Israeli widow.

In his commentary, Helge Lurås of iNyheter highlights several points that suggest that Trump and the US are “recipients of other people's agendas” – rather than actors acting on their own overarching strategic interests. This is because it violates the MAGA movement's policy. Lurås writes...

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

Regime Tweaking, Not Regime Change, Is What The US Just Achieved In Venezuela. This refers to keeping the targeted state’s power structure in place but after some (at times significant) changes that advance the meddling state’s interests.

Some critics of the US’ “special military operation” in Venezuela claim that it didn’t succeed despite President Nicolas Maduro’s capture since the “Chavismo deep state” that he presided over remains in place. This refers to the explicitly ideological elements of his country’s permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies but can be expanded to include governors and trade unions among other groups. The point is that removing Maduro from the political equation didn’t result in regime change.

That’s true, but the premise that US wanted to achieve such a goal is debatable since Trump 2.0 is comprised of figures who’ve criticized previous regime change operations for destabilizing their regions and leading to unpredictable consequences that ultimately harmed US interests. It’s therefore plausible that they never intended to forcibly carry out regime change in Venezuela due to concerns that a civil war might follow, which could engender a large-scale migrant crisis and destroy energy infrastructure.

Rather, the immediate goal can be described as regime tweaking, which refers to keeping the targeted state’s power structure in place but after some (at times significant) changes that advance the meddling state’s interests. In the Venezuelan context, the US forcibly removed Maduro so that he’d be replaced by his Vice President Delcy Rodriguez, who Trump publicly expects to “do what we want” (likely at Marco Rubio’s direction). That’s arguably what he meant by “running the country” till its transition is complete.

Militarist
Милитарист (Telegram)

The first statement by the Venezuelan government under the leadership of Nicolas Maduro

Elena Panina
Елена Панина (Telegram)
Елена Панина (Telegram)

Since late December, Iran has seen a wave of socio-economic protests, beginning with small traders and gradually spreading to students and the urban poor. The formal trigger was the latest collapse of the rial, the inflationary shock, and the rise in prices of basic goods. Clashes with security forces have already resulted in casualties and mass arrests. According to Al Jazeera , at least six people have been killed, including a member of the security services: a 21-year-old member of the Basij organization, affiliated with the IRGC.

The situation appears serious, but it's too early to talk about a critical threat to the ruling regime—despite the inevitable exploitation of social protests in Iran by external forces. The key reason: there is currently no split within the ruling coalition. The nexus of spiritual leadership, the IRGC, and the internal security forces remains loyal to the supreme center of power, Ali Khamenei. No signs of elite defection or institutional sabotage have been recorded so far.

The core of the current wave is small traders, urban services, and students. This is a sensitive, but not decisive, segment. Critically, the oil and gas sector is not paralyzed, large-scale industry is not halted, and the rural periphery is passive. The situation would be much worse if these social and corporate groups were to become involved.

Moreover, despite the radicalization of slogans as the protests escalate, the motive remains material: incomes, prices, the exchange rate, and employment. This is the fundamental difference between the situation in 1979 and some phases of the protests of 2017-2018, 2019, and 2022.

Elena Mironova
NEWS-R

At least 24 people, including one child, were killed in the attack. More than 50 people were injured to varying degrees. Doctors continue to fight for the lives of the victims.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova angrily responded to the Ukrainian Armed Forces' attack on Khorly in the Kherson region. Twenty-four people were burned alive and over 50 injured there on New Year's Eve.

"Animal handwriting, familiar from Khatyn" | Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova reacted sharply to the Ukrainian Armed Forces' attack on the village of Khorly. She stated that the incident demonstrates neo-Nazi hatred and the deliberate dehumanization of civilians.

Zakharova drew a direct historical parallel with the tragedy of the Belarusian village of Khatyn during the Great Patriotic War. Back then, collaborators from Western Ukraine herded residents into barns and set them on fire alive. Those who tried to escape the flames were shot or finished off with rifle butts without mercy. The only difference, Zakharova emphasized, was that the Nazis didn't hide behind slogans like protecting children and democracy.

Scott Ritter
Scott Ritter's Substack

Russia possesses incontrovertible intelligence information that establishes a European connection to the Ukrainian attack on President Putin.

The attack meets two of the criterion set forth in the “Fundamentals of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence”, published on December 3, 2024, regarding acts of aggression designed to be deterred by Russia’s nuclear deterrence forces.

This includes “Aggression by any state from a military coalition (bloc, alliance) against the Russian Federation and (or) its allies is considered as the aggression by this coalition (bloc, alliance) as a whole”, and “Aggression against the Russian Federation and (or) its allies by any non-nuclear state with the participation or support of a nuclear state is considered as their joint attack.”

Ukraine operates as part of a NATO bloc whose stated objective is the strategic defeat of Russia. Ukraine’s targeting of the Russian President constitutes “actions by an adversary affecting elements of critically important state or military infrastructure of the Russian Federation, the disablement of which would disrupt response actions by nuclear forces.”

Had the Ukrainian attack succeeded, Russia would have carried out massive nuclear retaliation against all of Europe. I don’t think the world understands how close it came to nuclear Armageddon.

Harold Turner
Hal Turner Show

Whether this was staged, as Ukraine is claiming, or whether it was real, the Russians are treating it as real and are going to act accordingly, which suggests they're now going to intensify their attacks.

Yesterday, Ukraine launched about ninety (90) long-range "Kamikaze" Drones toward the Novgorod Region of Russia, about 250 miles northwest of Moscow.

According to Russian Foreign Affairs Assistant to the President, Yuriy Ushakov, some of the drones impacted the Official State Residence of Russia's President, Vladimir Putin.

President Trump was informed of the attack TODAY, Monday, in an unexpected telephone call from the Russian President.

The attack took place just after Zelensky departed his meeting with US President Donald Trump at the President's personal estate, Mar-a-Lago, in Florida.

Because the distance from Ukraine to Novgorod is about 900 miles, the drones had to have been in the air at the exact same time Zelensky was meeting with Trump. Worse, it is strongly believed that the drones themselves could not have been guided to target except through US/NATO satellites, and US/NATO-supplied target coordinates.

It is not known if Zelensky informed Trump that this attack was coming. It is also not known if anyone in the US military chain of command, or in NATO, (or Europe), informed Trump.

Dmitry Gubin
VZGLYAD.RU

The hysteria surrounding the “abducted children” will not stop. After all, nothing human should remain in the enemy.

To provoke targeted discontent among the masses that turns into long-term hatred, you need to throw in something that makes the object appear to be a complete maniac in the public eye. The topic of violence against children and pets is best suited for this purpose.

One of the favorite topics of Russophobes around the world is the fate of Ukrainian children allegedly kidnapped by Russia. It is used not only by Zelensky and his entourage, grant-funded public organizations, but also by international courts.

It would seem that everything or almost everything is clear in this case, but the topic does not disappear from the speeches of politicians or the pages of the press. And since it does not go away, we will have to figure out what is wrong with it, why, and how. There are several components to this topic: psychological, factual, and legal. Let's look at them in order.

Jonathan Cook
Jonathan Cook Blog (X)

Starmer’s government has set the most dangerous of precedents: it can now outlaw any political group it chooses as a terrorist organisation – and thereby make it impossible to defend it

The moment the British government began proscribing political movements as terrorist organisations, rather than just militant groups, it was inevitable that saying factual things, making truthful statements, would become a crime. And lo behold, here we are.

The Terrorism Act 2000 has a series of provisions that make it difficult to voice or show any kind of support for an organisation proscribed under the legislation, whether it is writing an article or wearing a T-shirt.

Recent attention has focused on Section 13, which is being used to hound thousands of mostly elderly people who have held signs saying: “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.” They now face a terrorism conviction and up to six months in jail.

But an amendment introduced in 2019 to Section 12 of the Act has been largely overlooked, even though it is even more repressive. It makes it a terrorism offence for a person to express “an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation” and in doing so be “reckless” about whether anyone else might be “encouraged to support” the organisation.

Al Mayadeen English (awip)
Al Mayadeen English

America first, int'l law last: From Gaza to Ukraine, Trump’s foreign policy accelerates the erosion of global norms, weakening multilateral institutions and normalizing power over law.

In an analysis by Patrick Wintour, The Guardian’s diplomatic editor, the present moment is framed as one of historical suspension, echoing Philosopher Antonio Gramsci’s warning that periods between orders are defined by uncertainty and heightened consequence. In such times, Wintour suggests, even modest political choices can reshape the global landscape.

Writing against the backdrop of 2025, Wintour argues that many Western leaders now see the post–Second World War system of international relations as faltering. The rules-based order that the US helped build after 1945, he notes, is facing a deep crisis of legitimacy, as legal norms and institutions struggle to command authority in an increasingly fragmented world.

In Wintour's view, there was no shortage of advance notice about the damage Donald Trump would inflict on that global framework.

In February, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio laid out the rupture in stark terms during his Senate confirmation hearing. “The postwar global order is not just obsolete, it is now a weapon being used against us,” he said. “And all this has led us to a moment in which we must now confront the single greatest risk of geopolitical instability and generational global crisis in the lifetime of anyone alive here today.”

Rubio argued that the rules-based order rested on a flawed belief that national interests could be subordinated to a “liberal world order” in which all nations would converge into a Western-led democratic community. Humanity, he said, had been told it was destined to abandon national identity and become “one human family and citizens of the world.” “This was not just a fantasy,” Rubio added. “We now know it was a dangerous delusion.”

Elena Panina
Елена Панина (Telegram)

Poland, Sweden, and other coastal countries are purchasing submarines to protect pipelines, according to the British publication The Economist. According to the publication, a promising choice is the Swedish A26 diesel-electric submarine, which is only 66 meters long. It is inconspicuous and features a hatch built into the bow, allowing underwater drones, sensors, or divers to be released directly onto the seabed.

The Polish authorities have ordered three such submarines. The total contract value is $2.8 billion. However, Warsaw will only receive them in the 2030s. At the moment, Poland has “one worn-out submarine from the Soviet era.” And the Swedish navy will receive the first of two submarines ordered from Saab only in 2031, as the shipyard requires modernization.

The British publication highlights the extensive infrastructure in the Baltic Sea. The Balticconnector gas pipeline connects Finland and Estonia, while the Baltic Pipe gas pipeline transports gas from Norway to Poland. Communication and power cables are laid along the seabed. Since Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have disconnected their power systems from the Russian grid, three of the four lines connecting them to the European grid run underwater. Hundreds of wind turbines stand off the coasts of Denmark and Germany, and new ones are being built off the coast of Poland. There are 10 LNG terminals on the Baltic coast, with two more under construction. Poland's first nuclear power plant, scheduled to open in 2036, will be located less than 2 km from the coast, etc.

Stephen Karganovic
Strategic Culture Foundation

The vicious treatment allotted to the distinguished German lawyer Dr. Reiner Fuellmich is comparable to the persecution of figures like Giordano Bruno.

Alongside the powers that be everywhere, Google’s still anonymous AI is also a pious believer in the virtues of free expression. It proclaims boldly and for all the right reasons that free speech is vital to democracy, in which it also claims to believe. It reminds us also, which is good to know, that freedom of expression promotes an informed citizenry and self-governance and ensures government accountability. Furthermore, that open dialogue and debate facilitate the “marketplace of ideas,” which is a vital condition for social progress and provides society with a much-needed “safety valve.” And finally, that the unhindered right to express one’s thoughts, beliefs, and values without fear is a fundamental aspect of human dignity and self-fulfilment. Amen, amen, amen.

In theory, all would heartily salute those noble sentiments. And that includes even some of their most ruthless violators, such as the German government.

For over a year after kidnapping him abroad, the German government kept prominent German lawyer Dr. Reiner Fuellmich in prison on contrived charges and under extraordinarily harsh and inhuman conditions, which were seemingly designed just to torment him. In Germany, for Dr. Fuellmich at least, the right to express one’s thoughts with dignity (never mind self-fulfilment) in the manner so movingly preached by Google’s AI avatar went out the window many moons ago.