Category: International Incident

US seizes second vessel off Venezuelan after Trump’s blockade threat, reports say | The Independent

The United States Coast Guard seized the Panama-flagged tanker Centuries off the coast of Barbados in the Caribbean Sea, marking the second vessel confiscated in recent weeks as part of Trump’s blockade of Venezuelan oil. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem stated the Coast Guard would “continue to pursue the illicit movement of sanctioned oil that is used to fund narco terrorism in the region,” though legal experts dispute the justification for seizing unsanctioned vessels.

Jeremy Paner, a former U.S. Treasury Department sanctions investigator, directly contradicted Trump’s stated policy by confirming the Centuries had not been sanctioned by the United States. Paner stated the seizure of an unsanctioned vessel “marks a further increase in Trump’s pressure on Venezuela” and “runs counter to Trump’s statement that the U.S. would impose a blockade of all sanctioned oil tankers,” exposing the operation’s scope beyond its stated legal framework.

The Centuries carried 1.8 million barrels of Venezuelan crude bound for China under a false vessel name and was part of a shadow fleet designed to evade sanctions. Since Trump’s first tanker seizure last week, Venezuelan crude exports have collapsed sharply, with an effective embargo forcing loaded vessels to remain in Venezuelan waters rather than risk confiscation, despite many not being under U.S. sanctions.

Trump’s military campaign against Venezuela has killed at least 100 people through more than two dozen strikes on vessels in the Pacific and Caribbean, with announced plans for imminent land operations. Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro contends the military buildup aims to overthrow his government and seize the nation’s vast oil reserves, the world’s largest crude deposits.

The seizure strategy contradicts international law governing unsanctioned vessels and exposes economic objectives beyond counter-narcotics claims. If the blockade persists, the loss of nearly one million barrels daily will drive global oil prices higher, shifting market leverage and destabilizing energy markets while demonstrating Trump’s use of military and economic coercion to control foreign governments and resources.

(Source: https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/us-seizing-vessel-venezuela-trump-blockade-oil-tanker-b2888347.html)

Trump orders ‘total and complete blockade’ of sanctioned oil tankers coming to and leaving Venezuela | CNN Politics

President Donald Trump announced a “total and complete blockade” of oil tankers entering and leaving Venezuela on Tuesday via Truth Social, escalating military and economic pressure against Nicolás Maduro’s government. Trump stated that U.S. military assets surround Venezuela and demanded the country return oil, land, and assets to the United States, exposing the operation’s economic objectives beyond stated anti-drug efforts.

The blockade targets Venezuela’s primary economic lifeline amid existing international sanctions on its oil sector. Trump has repeatedly indicated that U.S. companies should regain access to Venezuela’s oil reserves—the world’s largest—if Maduro is removed from power. State-owned Petroleos de Venezuela controls the petroleum industry, though Houston-based Chevron operates under a sanctions carve-out that Trump revoked in March before conditionally reissuing it.

Trump accused Maduro of using “stolen oil” to finance terrorism, human trafficking, and criminal activity. White House chief of staff Susie Wiles told Vanity Fair that the administration’s military campaign aims to pressure Maduro to step down, contradicting earlier framing focused solely on narcotics interdiction. Venezuela’s government condemned the announcement as “a reckless and serious threat” and “a grave violation of International Law,” noting that blockades constitute acts of war under international treaties.

A 1961 Justice Department memo regarding Cuban tensions established that blockades are justified only when a state of war exists. Trump’s military operations in the region, including threatened ground invasions, follow Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s announcement of “Southern Spear,” a hemisphere-wide military operation targeting suspected drug operations.

The blockade represents an explicit shift from counternarcotics justification to resource seizure, with Trump signaling intent to restore American corporate control over Venezuelan petroleum assets previously nationalized in the 1970s. Venezuela’s oil is sold primarily to China due to existing U.S. sanctions imposed since 2005.

(Source: https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/16/politics/blockade-venezuela-sanctioned-oil-tankers)

Trump Receives FIFA Peace Prize Amid Controversy and Criticism

Donald Trump has been awarded the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize, a development that many view as an effort by the soccer organization to boost his fragile ego. The prize was presented during the World Cup draw in Washington, an event that Trump had anticipated since FIFA’s announcement of the award just weeks prior. This prize comes after Trump’s previous disappointment at being overlooked for the Nobel Peace Prize.

FIFA President Gianni Infantino personally presented the award to Trump, expressing support for his supposed contributions to peace. Critics note the absurdity of a peace prize being awarded to a figure who has been widely criticized for his divisive rhetoric and policies.

Trump touted his acceptance of the award, but the timing and nature of it sparked further debate about his relationship with FIFA and Infantino. It raises questions about the validity of an award granted in part to satiate political ambitions and create positive media coverage for Trump as he prepares for the upcoming World Cup co-hosted by the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.

The ties between Trump and FIFA have been emphasized through Infantino’s regular appearances with Trump at public events, showcasing a concerning closeness that many fear undermines the integrity of the sports organization. The FIFA president has gone as far as to validate Trump’s leadership style, ignoring the broader implications of endorsing someone frequently linked to authoritarianism.

This decision to award Trump a peace prize, particularly given his controversial legacy, is not only seen as a farce but as a troubling reflection of modern political alignments within influential global institutions like FIFA. The implications of such an endorsement cannot be ignored as the world awaits the next chapter of international competition in the face of a divisive political landscape.

(Source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/12/05/trump-fifa-peace-prize/87589592007/)

Trump’s Ukraine Plan is Admittedly a Russian Wish List

U.S. senators, including Mike Rounds and Angus King, disclosed that Secretary of State Marco Rubio informed them that the recent peace plan proposed by President Donald Trump for Ukraine is nothing more than a “wish list” from Russia, rather than a legitimate framework for negotiations. Rounds emphasized that this assessment pointed to the plan’s significant concessions to Moscow, which Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has consistently rejected.

Despite Rubio’s assertions contradicting the senators’ claims and alleging their misinterpretation of his statements, the confusion surrounding the Trump administration’s approach to the peace plan has deepened. The leaked 28-point plan elicited concerns that it merely rewarded Russian aggression while undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

Senators voiced that rather than advocating for legitimate peace negotiations, the plan might send a troubling message to other aggressors, essentially granting validation to their territorial ambitions. Rubio, under pressure, tried to clarify that the plan sought to be a productive starting point, yet many senators remained skeptical about its ethical grounding.

The unfolding situation highlights the increasing rift between Washington’s stance and the expectations of Ukrainian leadership. The implications of such a proposal raise serious questions regarding U.S. foreign policy and President Trump’s credibility on the international stage, particularly as nations observe the handling of this crisis.

As this scenario plays out, observers anticipate how both Ukraine and Russia will respond, while the Trump administration continues to navigate the backlash from U.S. lawmakers who view the peace plan as detrimental to international law and the sovereignty of nations.

Marco Rubio Confirms Leaked Ukraine Peace Plan Not Trump’s

U.S. Senators, including Mike Rounds and Angus King, reported that Secretary of State Marco Rubio informed them that the leaked 28-point peace plan for Ukraine is not a proposal from President Donald Trump but rather a “wish list” from Russia. Rounds clarified that the document was delivered to a U.S. representative, emphasizing that it did not originate from lawmakers but was leaked to the press.

At the Halifax International Security Forum, Rounds noted that the plan allows for the opportunity for both sides to respond but is not a recommendation from the U.S. government. King echoed this sentiment, asserting that the proposal represents Russian interests and not the formal position of the U.S. administration.

In response, Rubio defended the plan’s credibility via social media, claiming it was authoritatively drafted in consultation with the U.S. and based on input from both Russia and Ukraine. However, recent reports from Axios indicated that the Trump administration has secretly collaborated with Russia to create this peace framework.

The plan reportedly entails significant territorial concessions from Ukraine, including substantial reductions in military strength. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has indicated hesitations about the proposal, and Trump’s comments to reporters suggested a lack of strong backing for the deal, implying it was not a final offer.

This incident underscores ongoing tensions and skepticism regarding Trump’s influence in shaping foreign policy, particularly in relation to Russia’s intentions in the Ukraine conflict, reflecting fears of authoritarian governance under his administration.

American troops have controversially landed on Mexican territory

American troops have controversially landed on Mexican territory, escalating tensions following Donald Trump’s alarming rhetoric about military action against Mexico. The incident occurred at Playa Bagdad, where US personnel erroneously placed signs asserting the area was a “restricted zone” belonging to the Department of Defense. This provocative action drew swift reactions from Mexican security forces, who promptly intervened to remove the signs.

The Pentagon has since issued a statement acknowledging the mistaken landing, attributing the confusion to shifting water depths affecting the perceived international boundary. Though the US military attempted to downplay the incident, the Mexican government is taking the matter seriously, with President Claudia Sheinbaum declaring that an investigation by the International Boundary and Water Commission will be initiated to clarify the situation.

Sheinbaum’s government strongly rebuked the notion of US strikes on drug cartels operating within Mexico, emphasizing that such actions would be considered violations of Mexican sovereignty. Despite Trump’s claims of readiness for military intervention to combat drug trafficking, Sheinbaum warned that any such operations would not be tolerated and would be met with firm resistance.

As tensions remain high, both nations are grappling with the implications of this military misstep. The United States has seen a rise in military mobilization in the region, marking the largest deployment since the Cold War, which raises further questions about the future of US-Mexico relations under Trump’s aggressive posture.

This series of events underscores the precarious nature of diplomacy between the two countries, particularly as Trump continues to advocate for more stringent measures against drug smuggling, simultaneously risking a potential diplomatic crisis that could alter the dynamics of North American security.

Trump Urges Zelenskyy to Cede Territory to Russia Amid Tensions

In a recent closed-door meeting, U.S. President Donald Trump reportedly pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to concede significant territory to Russia. This exchange escalated into a vulgar shouting match, during which Trump cursed aggressively, according to sources familiar with the discussion. Insiders reveal that Trump warned Zelenskyy that if Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted to take more territory, he would destroy Ukraine, creating an environment of high tension.

During the meeting, Trump suggested that Zelenskyy surrender parts of the Donbas region in Eastern Ukraine, which remains under Ukrainian control, as a deal in exchange for Russia relinquishing claims to smaller regions near Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. The conversation was marked by Trump’s display of frustration, reportedly throwing maps of Ukraine around the room while insisting on these territorial concessions.

Zelenskyy’s response to Trump’s demands was reportedly one of strong disapproval. The Ukrainian president was described as “very negative” following the heated discussion, reflecting a broader sentiment among Ukrainian officials that yielding the Donbas region without conflict would be unacceptable to their society. This cautious stance was echoed by Oleksandr Merezhko, who noted that Putin is aware of these feelings among Ukrainians.

The implications of this meeting have caused concern among European leaders, who remain pragmatic yet pessimistic about moving forward in the situation. Discussions about next steps are ongoing, but the mood has soured due to Trump’s confrontational approach and the unrealistic demands presented to Ukraine.

This latest episode highlights the complexities and ongoing tensions in international diplomacy involving Ukraine and Russia, with Trump’s tactics raising questions about the U.S. role in the region. As diplomatic challenges persist, the reaction from Kyiv and its allies remains critical in shaping future interactions and negotiations.

Trump Attacks UN Principles, Urges Halt to Migration and Climate Efforts

During his recent address at the United Nations General Assembly, President Donald Trump controversially challenged the organization’s foundational principles by calling on global leaders to curb migration and disregard climate change initiatives. This rhetoric not only contradicts essential global priorities but also reflects Trump’s inclination to prioritize his domestic agenda over international collaboration.

Trump’s remarks emphasized a perceived urgency to enhance national interests at the expense of collective action. He portrayed global migration as a crisis, which aligns with his history of xenophobic policies, further promoting a narrative that disregards human rights and humanitarian responsibility. His call for reduced migration resonates with his prior attempts to build walls, both physical and metaphorical, that alienate rather than unite nations.

The President’s focus on dismissing climate change efforts starkly contrasts scientific consensus and international commitments, undermining cooperative endeavors essential to future generations. This disregard exemplifies Trump’s consistent pattern of approaching complex global issues with simplistic solutions that neglect the nuances and important contributions of diplomacy and international cooperation.

By framing his domestic priorities as a universal model, Trump positions himself against the fundamental principles of the United Nations, which emphasize collaboration, equity, and sustainability. This stance not only alienates allies but also spurns collective efforts that have been pivotal in addressing pressing global challenges over the years.

Ultimately, Trump’s address exemplified a troubling shift towards isolationism and unilateralism, indicative of a larger trend within the Republican Party that seeks to distance the United States from its role as a multilateral leader. His approach threatens to unravel decades of progress in global governance aimed at fostering peace, security, and common wellness.

Vance Jokes About Trump’s Caribbean Airstrikes

At a recent rally in Michigan, Vice President JD Vance expressed pride in President Donald Trump’s controversial decision to authorize airstrikes against Venezuela-based vessels allegedly involved in drug trafficking. This action has drawn laughter from attendees, who seem to find humor in militaristic responses to drug crime.

Trump claimed that the airstrikes, which were broadcast on his Truth Social platform, targeted “narcoterrorists” and highlighted a narrative portraying these actions as crucial to national security. While officials in the Trump administration, including Vance, showcased the airstrikes as a deterrent against drug smuggling, they have also dismissed legal concerns regarding military actions in international waters, raising alarms about the implications for international law.

During the rally, Vance recounted a conversation with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who allegedly stated that drug boats have ceased approaching American waters. Vance dramatically warned, “I would stop too,” framing the airstrikes as essential operations and suggested that a dedicated military under Trump’s command prioritizes American safety.

The administration’s rationale for the strikes centers on a national crisis concerning drug trafficking, with Hegseth alluding to a dire statistic: approximately 100,000 American lives lost each year due to drugs, which they attribute to prior policy failures regarding borders and trafficking. Vance echoed this sentiment, promoting a narrative that positions the current government as actively fighting for the American people’s interests.

However, the underlying ethical and legal implications of conducting such bombings raise significant questions about the administration’s approach and whether these actions embody a troubling precedent for U.S. foreign policy, questioning the morality of using military force in such contexts.

Trump Orders Military Strike on Drug Traffickers, Killing Three

The U.S. military conducted a lethal strike against a vessel in international waters, allegedly linked to drug trafficking from Venezuela, resulting in the deaths of three individuals. This second strike, ordered by President Donald Trump, reflects his administration’s aggressive stance on what Trump labels “narcoterrorists” threatening national security.

In a message on Truth Social, Trump stated that the military action targeted “extraordinarily violent drug trafficking cartels,” claiming these groups pose a severe risk to U.S. interests and safety. The operation follows a recent earlier strike that killed eleven supposedly related to the Tren de Aragua gang, heightening scrutiny and skepticism regarding the administration’s justifications for military engagement in such contexts.

Despite these claims, criticism emerged about the legality and evidence supporting the strikes. Senator Jack Reed, attending to oversight duties, noted that there is no confirmed evidence necessitating such military action against what were civilian vessels. This raises significant legal concerns under both U.S. and international law regarding the use of force against non-combatants.

The escalation in military readiness correlates with increasing tensions between the U.S. and Venezuela, underscoring an aggressive U.S. foreign policy approach under Trump. While U.S. officials, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, assert that ongoing operations are justified, the lack of transparency surrounding intelligence and operational details fuels further scrutiny of their motives and methods.

As the situation develops, this aggressive posturing may have implications for U.S.-Venezuelan relations, with Venezuelan officials asserting their desire to avoid conflict. The ramifications of these military actions could lead to increased tensions and challenges in achieving diplomatic resolutions.

(h/t: https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/15/politics/trump-strike-international-waters)

1 2 3 … 8