The Artillery of the USA Against Venezuela

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said recently:

“We are evaluating all our political options as to what we can do to create a change of conditions in which Maduro decides that he has no future and wants to leave on his own or we can return government processes to his constitution.”

His words imply  US military actions against the Bolivarian nation.

The United States has two major industries: military and propaganda. Propaganda never considers the feelings of targeted countries. Their focus is to  convince the world of public opinion of the necessity of a war.

For several years, the possibility of overthrowing the Bolivarian Revolution through military intervention has begun to be publicized through web petitions.

In February 2014, Patricia Poleo published in her Twitter account a petition linking to the White House website that requested an international intervention in our country.

Patricia Poleo intervention

The White House online petition system was created during the Obama administration and assumes that by reaching 100,000 signers, the presidency must give a formal response to the petition in 60 days.

So far in 2017, two requests to the portal have shared the purpose of the White House to decide on an aggression against Venezuela. For this, they claim that our country is a redoubt of “anti-American terrorism” and conclude with the numeral #TrumpInvadeVenezuela. None of these petitions has succeeded in reaching the required number of signatures.

A poll conducted in May this year indicated that 89% of Venezuelans reject foreign military intervention. But perhaps the clearest manifestation of will was observed on July 30 when more than 8 million 89,320 Venezuelans left to vote in spite of the violent and terrorist actions of groups sponsored by the United States Government. The sovereign cry of our people rejecting the pretensions of the US to impose a war, is completely overlooked.

Disinformation machinery

In order to analyze what would be the perception that an uninformed reader would have about the situation of Venezuela from reading New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, Fox, Wall Street Journal and Canadian CBC, we arbitrarily chose 10 articles about Venezuela.

From these we extracted no less than 23 references to a supposed dictatorship in our country and 10 references to a ” humanitarian crisis ” or “famine” in Venezuela. In none of the reports do we find mention that a few weeks ago the opposition called on their followers to accumulate food warning of their intention to block the distribution of food in the country, which would be contradict the narrative of ‘humanitarian crisis’ and is in fact, a war crime.

We found 12 insinuations about the commission of various crimes by officials: kidnapping, drug trafficking, illegal arms sales; none of the cases refer to evidence that support  the allegations.

We found 16 mentions of repression or human rights violations: all omitted data on the murders by burning people alive because of their political or racial affiliations by racist, fanatical opposition, none of them detailed the circumstances of victims’ deaths, or mentioned the numerous crimes committed by the opposition for more than 100 days.

Maduro is a dictator because we say so

Although the derogatory descriptions about the proletarian conformation of the National Constituent Assembly are offensive to us, for the purposes of our analysis we will focus on the narrative of  justification of armed violence against Venezuela. We selected several examples.

According to The New York Times , Maduro is a dictator because, having the largest oil reserves in the world, “he decided to imitate his predecessor Hugo Chavez” and maintains a “lavish public expenditure”.

In another note, the same media describes as follows the terrorist attack committed by the opposition on July 30 in Altamira against a PNB patrol:

“In social networks circulated a video that showed to a caravan of uniformed that were going towards the fire.”

Capture of NYT interpretation of the terrorist attack in Caracas on July 30, 2017

Mary Anastasia O’Grady, for The Wall Street Journal wrote that

“The opposition leaders in Caracas are still trying to use peaceful means to remove Mr. Maduro.”

Apparently she believes that projectiles that kill are flowers and gasoline perfume.

Fox News is a court that has convicted national guards who “poured live fire” on “unarmed” people on July 30. Judges forgot that fascist paramilitarism prevented the mobilization of voters in several municipalities, forcing the people to cross rivers and mountains to exercise their right, to the point that the CNE has had to reconvene elections in two municipalities.

In an interview with the Miami Herald, Marco Rubio praised John Kelly’s appointment as Trump’s chief of staff because “he understands Venezuela better than anyone else in the administration.” Should you not instead start by understanding the US?  While the opposition is adopting the senator as an ally, Rubio is financed by armed corporations, Israeli funds and oil companies” such as ExxonMobil: hence their interest in fostering an armed conflict in Venezuela.

Exalt from a distance, is to exalt less

  Last weekend, a mercenary attack was carried out against the 41st Armored Brigade of the Bolivarian Army, which was described as a “propaganda operation” by the Ministry of Popular Power for Defense.

“The terrorist operation included the broadcast of a video recorded by a subordinate officer who three years ago was separated from the institution for treason and rebellion, which fled the country and received protection in Miami, United States.”

It was not surprising that the first US official to speak on the subject was Marco Rubio. According to President Maduro, the operation was financed from Miami and Colombia.

In the writing of the Spanish portal ABC showed a neurotic crisis, granting digital front page to an adventure of ten irresponsible men and obnubilados by the pathological military transvestism of the opposition.

Chavismo suffocates military opposition against Maduro ” and  “Chavismo suffocates a military revolt of only 20 men” were some of the headlines that ABC gave to a single one web cast to tell the story of a group – made up of nine civilians and a deserter lieutenant – who entered Paramacay to steal weapons.

Similarly, the British Reuters and the US CNN, tried to disguise with the propaganda of the war an improvised aggression by civilians whom they usually describe as “peaceful demonstrators”.

All of them emphasized in their reports the ” legitimate rebelliousness ” claimed by the ringleader who plotted and carried out the action. We ask ourselves: if a similar aggression took place against the Spanish crown, the British or the US government, would the claim of the same have been exhibited in terms of “legitimacy” ?  I can not imagine ABC naming an ETA equivalent operation “legitimate”.

Review Mission Truth :

“Different international analysts and tanks of thought connected with the hegemonic power centers of the United States and Europe, such as the International Crisis Group and David Smilde ( New York Times columnist) have been giving form and legitimacy to a possible armed conflict managed by actors Local and foreign to Venezuela, extremely interested in destroying the country as an expeditious route for the looting of corporations. “

Not all the public is under the hypnosis of the thirsty of the war. An article by David William Pear , published by Global Research , warns that:

Most in the United States can not see the forest by the propaganda trees that confuse the public on what is behind the chaos in Venezuela. Mainly what is behind is the US. The financing of millions of dollars to the political parties of the oligarchs. Without that money the political parties would be more divided than they already are and weaker … In covert way, the CIA and the American army continue, until today, trying to undermine the democracy in Venezuela.

The (D) Reagan effect


We have shown in previous work that, since its inception, the CIA has had a staff of journalists who promote its operations. Also, since the invasion of Iraq, the Pentagon has had a large repertoire of retired military personnel among  TV analysts who serve to justify imperial aggressions against the people. We are beginning to observe this strategy against Venezuela.

  An example is retired Admiral James Stavridis, who serves as an advisor to the White House. During his is career he served as Chief of the Southern Command, Supreme Commander of Allied NATO and Chief of the European Command of the United States – when they destroyed Libya and began secret US operations in Syria at the beginning of this decade.

Interviewed by Hugh Hewitt , he predicted a civil war in Venezuela and a wave of refugees throwing themselves into the Caribbean Sea. He was inclined towards indirect  intervention:

“It would be better if we worked closely with the Organization of American States (OAS), and particularly with the neighbors of Venezuela, Brazil and Colombia, who have a significant military capability.”

He assured that the role of the Southern Command will be to deal with waves of refugees at sea.

WhatsApp Image 2017-08-10 at 18.10.10.jpeg A few days later, in the Hewitt interviewed Trump’s national security adviser, Lieutenant General HR McMaster . Asked about the Admiral’s opinion, he agreed with Stavridis. He also stated he was against direct military intervention, considering the history of US intervention in our region. He stressed that the US should work with its partners to “protect the rights of Venezuelans.”

He dismissed President Maduro as a “dictator”. Photographs expose links between Julio Borges and McMaster.  Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs for North America, Samuel Moncada, head of First Justice, requested a military intervention during a meeting with him.

Returning to the interview, while McMaster described “gangs of thugs” in Maduro’s service, the images were those of violent opposition groups supported by the United States government. Once again, we see the myth of violent “collective” revolutionaries, because the only images they ever show are the terrorist actions of the opposition – such as the following [from 4:09].