Throughout past months, I have taken to introducing my readers to expert political analyses of international conditions and events, cited by world-class analysts. Notably, they have been unanimous in the view that the world is today on the verge of rewriting the political, economic, and military balances that prevailed in the wake of WWII. These balances had allowed the US to monopolise global leadership; sidelining England, France, and Russia; following the defeat of Germany, Italy, and Japan. The US imposed its hegemonic power on the world, dictating policies and baring its teeth at any newcomer that might aspire to share world leadership.
Peculiarly, the retraction of American hegemony and the emergence of new forces on the world’s political, economic, and military stages are but direct consequences of the US’s own actions. Its arrogance towards other nations, its persistent refusal to share leadership, and its defiance of the international community—friends and foes alike—through unilateral withdrawal from international organsations and arms control agreements, in addition to its involvement in plotting and fomenting conflicts and wars around the world to serve its interests, all have served to expose US double standards in international politics. This behaviour has culminated in continued imposition of sanctions on any State that dares challenge US dominance or resist its dictates on the global stage.
The world realised that the US is no longer to be trusted, and began seeking to establish new political, economic, and military alliances. This marked a profound shift on the global stage, signalling the rise of a new era of multipolarity. Emerging powers vied to share global leadership with the US, if not to replace it altogether, heralding the dawn of a new age. But has the US learnt its lesson? Did it reconsider strategies in order to accommodate new rising actors on the world stage? Absolutely not. Instead, the US has doubled down on defending its supremacy, baring its teeth and deluding itself that it could intimidate and push back contenders. But today is not yesterday, and nations across the world are steadily rising to leadership positions, unconcerned with the former queen who, while losing her throne, is desperately clinging to power not realising it is too late.
I formerly explained that among the most important pillars of US global hegemony has long been its control over the countries of Central and South America, whether because it views them as a security buffer or because it seeks to dominate the strategic resources some of these nations possess. Here, Venezuela is a prime target on account of its oil reserves which are among the largest in the world. For years, the US has acted aggressively towards Venezuela and has repeatedly attempted to topple its government simply because it does not align with the US system. The US imposed sanctions on Venezuela’s government and plotted its downfall by encouraging and funding its opposition to stage a coup against the legitimate authority. Yet all attempts to cripple Venezuela with sanctions and deprive its people of services to force them to revolt against the ruling authority failed. In the process, the US failed to realise that by doing so, it was opening the door wide for rising powers such as China and Russia to fill the investment void and revitalise services in Venezuela. This resulted in two very serious warnings, one from China and the other from Russia, explicitly cautioning the US against any attack against Venezuela.
Despite this, recent developments suggest what may be a new American challenge to international norms. Two weeks ago, the largest American aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, departed its US naval base and headed for the Caribbean Sea, carrying 100,000 tons of lethal weapons, along with 5,500 troops and 75 fighter aircrafts. This in addition to several fully armed destroyers already positioned in the area. Reports indicate that this deployment is intended to threaten military conflict or, at least, to force powers opposing the US to reconsider their positions.
In this context, I today introduce the opinion of American economist and public policy analyst, Columbia University Professor Jeffrey Sachs, regarding what he denoted as: “Russia Warns the US — Venezuela’s Navy Under Pressure After Continued Attacks”. Prof. Sachs’s opinion was aired on 8 November in an episode on his Youtube channel. Following are the main highlights of the episode:
“We’re watching something dangerous unfold right now. A pattern we’ve seen before, and it never ends well. The United States is once again attempting regime change in Venezuela. And this time, Russia has drawn a line in the sand. Moscow has issued a stark warning to Washington: ‘Stop the aggression or face consequences that could reshape the entire Western Hemisphere’. This isn’t just another diplomatic spat… For over two decades, Venezuela has been in America’s crosshairs. Why? Because they dared to control their own resources.
“Russia’s warning isn’t coming out of nowhere. It’s coming after years of watching Washington do exactly what it accuses other nations of doing: Interfering in elections, supporting coup attempts, strangling economies, and pushing nations to the brink of collapse… Venezuela has serious problems, there’s no question about it. But those problems have been enormously amplified, magnified, and in many cases directly caused by American sanctions and economic warfare. When you cut a country off from the international financial system, when you seize their assets, when you prevent them from selling their oil, when you block them from importing medicine and food, you create a humanitarian catastrophe. And then you point at that catastrophe and say: ‘Look how badly their government is performing’… This playbook is not new; I’ve watched it unfold over and over again throughout my career: Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, the pattern is always the same. First, you demonise the leader, it doesn’t matter if they’re actually as bad as you say they are. Then you impose sanctions, claiming they’re targeted at the leadership, but knowing full well they’ll devastate ordinary people. Then you fund opposition groups and you support coup attempts to destabilise the country from within. And finally, if all else fails, you consider military intervention.
“Let’s talk about why Venezuela matters so much to Washington. It’s not about democracy. If the United States cared about democracy in Latin America, we wouldn’t have such a long, bloody history of overthrowing democratically elected governments throughout the region: Chile in 1973, Guatemala in 1954, Argentina, Brazil, Nicaragua, the list goes on and on. Venezuela matters because of oil. Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves in the world… And for decades, American oil companies had access to that oil… But then came Hugo Chavez and later Nicolas Maduro, and they had a different vision. They wanted Venezuela’s oil wealth to benefit Venezuelans.
“Let’s be honest about what American foreign policy really means when it talks about democracy and freedom in Latin America. It means governments that align with American corporate interests… And if you don’t do those things, well, suddenly you’re a dictator who needs to be removed… Russia’s involvement here is fascinating and deeply concerning at the same time. Moscow is essentially telling Washington: ‘You don’t get to have a free hand in Latin America anymore. The era where the United States treated the entire Western Hemisphere as its backyard, is over. Russia has investments in Venezuela; they’ve sold military equipment to Venezuela; they have economic ties, energy partnerships, and strategic interests. And they’re making it clear that they will defend those interests.
“The United States has always maintained that the Western Hemisphere is our sphere of influence. We’ve used military force repeatedly to enforce that claim. The invasion of Grenada, the invasion of Panama, the Bay of Pigs, countless covert operations. We never hesitated to intervene when we felt our interests were threatened.”
Going back in history, Prof. Sachs reminded that the US refused that Russian missiles be placed in Cuba. “Venezuela can’t have Russian military advisors,” Prof. Sachs proceeded. “Nicaragua can’t make deals with China. We want to deny other powers any sphere of influence while maintaining our own. That’s not a recipe for peace, that’s a recipe for confrontation and conflict… There is an alternative, it’s called diplomacy, it’s called respecting sovereignty, it’s called allowing countries to make their own mistakes and find their own solutions.”
According to Moscow, the world is not divided into good and bad majorities; we are living in a world that is shifting between both majorities, A world that heralds two coexisting forces.
Our era issues a stark warning: choose diplomacy to end global anguish, or face conflicts that will plunge the world into deeper grief.
Watani International
21 November 2025
