At daybreak on January 3, 2026, in Caracas, Venezuela, the operation came to a rapid end. The helicopters lifted off. Nicolás Maduro was taken into custody in the United States (USA).

Various explanations emerged over the weekend.

First, on television, Marco Rubio argued that the morning raid was not a war, but an operation specifically aimed at executing an arrest warrant. In this version of the story, the US army merely provided protection to Department of Justice officials as they went about their work.

A few hours later, aboard Air Force One, President Donald Trump gave another explanation. He said that the United States would be "running" Venezuela for a while. American oil companies would move in. The infrastructure would be repaired. Elections would come later.

Rubio’s story and Trump’s story were contradicting each other.

In Caracas, Maduro’s inner circle remained in place. The acting President of Venezuela, Delcy Rodríguez, asked the US to collaborate together.

In 2024, it was widely believed that opposition candidate Edmundo González won a contentious election against the incumbent, Maduro. An exit poll published by the American firm Edison Research showed González leading Maduro 65% to 31%. However, Maduro claimed victory, and González was forced to seek exile in Spain.

González stood in the 2024 election because the opposition leader, María Corina Machado, had been banned from being a candidate. Machado earned international acclaim last year when she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Shortly after the US operation on Saturday, Machado called on González to "immediately assume his constitutional mandate and be recognized as commander-in-chief." In a statement, Machado said her movement would "restore order, free political prisoners, build an exceptional country and bring our children back home."

Ina phreasagallamh féin, áfach, chaith Trump drochmheas ar mhaíomh fhreasúra Veiniséala chun na cumhachta. Nuair a ceistíodh é go díreach faoi Machado, dúirt Trump le tuairisceoirí: “Ceapaim go mbeadh sé an-deacair di a bheith ina ceannaire. Níl an tacaíocht aici, níl meas uirthi laistigh den tír.”

Police operation or armed robbery?

That raises a question: What plan did the Trump administration have in the first place? The same rotten regime is still in place, and Trump is against putting the winners of the 2024 presidential election in charge of the country, as he ought to do. Therefore, it is hard to see a coordinated US government strategy, which is a cause for concern for us all.

Rubio’s "police operation" tried to keep the raid within known legal boundaries. If it was law enforcement, there is no need to consult the US Congress. International law could be bypassed. The action would be unusual but constrained.

Trump’s explanation blew that approach apart. Running another country to reopen its oil wells is not law enforcement; it is occupation by another name, even if troops do not remain on the ground. In the US government, silence reigned, with Democrats who demanded Congressional oversight overruled by Republicans kowtowing to the Trump regime.

For many years, the post-war system relied on the US as an exemplar regarding compliance with international rules. When the United States used force before, it was in cooperation with its allies and yielding to international agreements.

Operation Absolute Resolve went against those long-established norms. In Venezuela, paralysis is the immediate result. A leader removed from office. A regime left behind. An opposition in exile. An occupying power that insists it is not occupying anything.

Cause for concern in other countries

In other countries, analysis followed quickly after the American operations. An attempt was made to explain this sudden change, not only in terms of the impact on themselves, but on the international order that is now clearly being violated by the US.

In Havana, Cuban state media reported that numerous Cuban security personnel were killed during the raid, confirming what Washington had long claimed: that Cuba was supporting the protection of the Maduro regime.

In Bogotá, Colombia, officials watched the increase in US warships and aircraft with worry. Trump has openly threatened Colombian President Gustavo Petro, accusing him of exporting cocaine to the United States.

In Copenhagen, Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen issued a statement urging the United States to "stop the threats" as Trump reiterated that he needs to acquire Greenland, for security reasons. Greenland, she said, was not for sale.

Trump had spoken about Greenland before. But after what he did in Venezuela, Denmark and Greenland realized that a serious threat was now involved. In Nuuk, the Prime Minister of Greenland wrote online that the rhetoric was "completely unacceptable." It was wrong, he wrote, to link Greenland with Venezuela.

In Brussels, European officials emphasized a distinction. Denmark was one of the founding members of NATO in 1949, along with 11 other countries, including the US. Venezuela is not part of that organization. Different rules apply to NATO, as it is an alliance. There would be major problems if the US took possession of a NATO member state, and there is a high chance NATO would not survive such a serious violation.

Canada was also keeping an eye on matters. Trump has already spoken carelessly about Canada as "the 51st state," a statement once accepted as an inconsequential dispute. After Caracas, however, the Canadian government must pay more serious attention to that threat.

Serious implications

This does not mean American troops will be on the ground in Greenland, Colombia, or Canada tomorrow. That is not how these changes work. But this saber-rattling is just the first step down that road. Therefore, weak countries under threat try to protect themselves by establishing new alliances with parties stronger than themselves. Allies re-examine their relationship with any country that violates international rules.

Competitors notice that they have a stronger argument for violating international rules too. With that new outlook, the invasion of Ukraine looks more acceptable. An invasion of Taiwan would be the same as an invasion of Venezuela. When international agreements regarding state sovereignty break down, everything is at risk. World affairs become much more uncertain and dangerous. The risks of war are raised in general, and that is not a good thing.

Big questions to answer

In Washington, there are big questions to answer. What is Operation Absolute Resolve? What are the milestones of the operation? Are other operations coming?

This confusion is part of the international environment. From Caracas to Havana, from Bogotá to Copenhagen, governments are getting used to not just American policy, but the inconsistency associated with multiple policies that are at odds with each other. That can only end badly. Sooner or later, the co-equal branch of the US government known as Congress must exercise its constitutional powers instead of sitting back and yielding all its power to the president and his friends.

The sooner the better.

In the azure depths of the southern Caribbean, far from the prying eyes of the public, a fundamental change occurred in the United States’ approach regarding drug smugglers at sea.

On September 2nd, the US military struck its first lethal air strike against a boat suspected of smuggling drugs. A significant new directive was involved: Kill smugglers at sea instead of arresting them. This is not how the rules worked in the past, and a storm of controversy has been whipped up about this in Washington D.C. currently.

The Target

Intelligence reports linked the boat to the Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang recently designated by the US government as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. According to every previous government, it was the US Coast Guard that would deal with a boat like this. They would fire a warning shot across the bow before boarding. They would arrest the smugglers, seize the evidence, and the accused would face trial in a court of law.

But with "Operation Southern Spear," the rules were rewritten. According to the government, led by President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, drug smuggling is equivalent to an armed invasion, which justifies a military response rather than a law enforcement one.

The First Strike

The operation began with a precision attack. A guided missile struck the vessel in its center to break the hull and detonate the boat's fuel stores. That explosion smashed the fiberglass structure to smithereens, and nine of the eleven men on board were killed instantly.

The destroyed boat capsized. Debris and bales of cocaine were scattered on the water. Immediately after that, surveillance drones flew over the scene transmitting live video back to command centers in Florida and the Pentagon. The footage revealed an unexpected problem: two survivors.

Shirtless and unarmed, the two men managed to climb onto a floating section of the keel. They were adrift in remote international waters, their vessel destroyed and their comrades dead. They were defenseless and helpless.

The Second Strike

Soldiers who are hors de combat—those removed from the fight due to injury or shipwreck—have protection under the Geneva Conventions. Under the terms of the Conventions, there is a duty to rescue them if possible, and it is not permitted to kill them.

Despite this, the operation commander, Navy Admiral Frank "Mitch" Bradley, ordered a second strike to hit the debris where the two were sheltering.

It was reported that drone video showed the two survivors waving their hands beforehand. The interpretation of this signaling would be the basis for a heated political battle later. According to Democratic lawmakers and human rights observers who saw the video, it was clear the men were in distress, making signs of surrender or rescue. They had no radio, no weapons, and no means of movement.

For the government and its defenders, however, the hand waving was interpreted differently. Senator Tom Cotton and military officials claimed the men were signaling to cartel boats in the area, and therefore they were still fighting and trying to salvage the illicit cargo. It was reported that Admiral Bradley assessed that the debris, which possibly still contained cocaine, was a valid military target for destruction.

In any event, on the admiral's orders, a second series of munitions struck the debris. The two survivors were killed instantly.

Legal and Ethical Controversy

"The term we have for a premeditated act like that outside of armed conflict is murder," said Brian Finucane, a former State Department lawyer, in an interview after the incident. "It is patently illegal to kill a person who has suffered a shipwreck."

The government's defense relied on the targets. By designating the crew as "narco-terrorists," the Pentagon claimed that those smugglers were unlawful enemy combatants who posed a continuous threat to US national security. Secretary of Defense Hegseth defended the decision strongly, saying: "If you bring drugs to this country in a boat, we will find you and we will sink you."

But for over a hundred years, since the US made its first opium seizure at sea in 1886, dealing with drugs smuggled at sea was a policing act, not a military one. People were innocent until proven guilty; evidence was gathered; trials were held. But in this case, Hellfire missile attacks replaced due process of law.

The Consequences

In the months that followed this incident, US forces carried out over 20 other attacks like this, killing more than 80 people. Among them were Colombians, Venezuelans, and citizens of Trinidad and Tobago. Although the US claimed they were all terrorists, families of the dead said they were poor fishermen forced to engage in smuggling—temporary workers who had no knowledge of the wider geopolitical war.

A major problem was also the lack of transparency. The names of the dead were not released initially. No bodies were recovered for post-mortem examination. The "evidence" went to the bottom of the Caribbean Sea.

In Washington, investigations began, demanding to find out if an illegal order like "kill them all" had been issued. Although Admiral Bradley testified that he received no such explicit order from Pete Hegseth, at the same time, he himself ordered the second strike. That indicates the kind of culture involved in Operation Southern Spear.

A New Era of Warfare?

What happened on September 2, 2025, serves as a grim milestone in American foreign policy. That is the day the US ignored the Geneva Conventions by killing defenseless survivors.

That horrific behavior also raises uncomfortable questions: Can a government unilaterally declare that criminals are soldiers? And if so, do they then have the right to kill them without due process, especially those who are hors de combat? What is the Geneva Convention worth if it is ignored?

Congressional hearings and lawsuits will take place to deal with this horrific incident and to answer those questions. Although it is presumably clear to us all what the right answers are, will the US government share that view—a government under the control of President Trump, who has absolutely no respect for national or international rules?

A group of people gathered together beside a lake on a very cold day in October in northern Wisconsin. There was a carpet of multicoloured leaves on the ground. Both nuns and Native Americans from the Lac du Flambeau Band were present.

During the ceremony, the nuns gave the land title to the delegation of Indigenous people. What was involved was two acres of land, which included a cluster of cabins, and a house called the Marywood Franciscan Spirituality Centre. The sale price: $30,000, exactly the amount the order of nuns paid for it 60 years ago. Its valuation today? Around $2.6 million.

In contrast to the land acknowledgement that is common at meetings on stolen land and which is nothing more than a symbolic confession, this was the real thing: the first known case of a Catholic institution in the United States voluntarily returning land to a tribe as an act of reparation.

"We wanted to do more than just say we were sorry."

Sister Eileen McKenzie, president of the Franciscan Sisters of Perpetual Adoration (FSPA), told reporters that the order had spent two years researching the history of the land. They learned that the property was on the traditional territory of the Lac du Flambeau Band, from whom land was stolen through broken treaties.

"We wanted to do more than just say we were sorry," she said. "We wanted to change the story, even in a small way."

The nuns made the decision after painful reflection. FSPA helped run a Catholic boarding school that separated Indigenous children from their families and their culture. That is a shameful legacy not only for FSPA but for Catholics and Protestants throughout North America, as unmarked graves are still being found in every corner of the continent.

"It felt right to give something back," McKenzie said. "This land wasn't ours to begin with anyway."

An emotional homecoming with fond memories

For the Lac du Flambeau Band, there was deep emotion associated with the moment. Tribal President John Johnson Sr. called the act "a step toward restoring balance."

He spoke about elders who remember fishing on that same lake, and about the old paths that used to go through the forests. "When you return to land that knows your name, you feel something inside settling," he said. "That's not a question of ownership. There's a deep connection between our tribe and this place."

The tribe intends to keep the property as a place for healing and cultural renewal — a place where people can gather, stories can be told, and ceremonies can be held on land that is once again under their care.

"It's like a circle closing," Johnson said. "The land remembers us, and now we can remember it."

The quiet revolution called 'Land Back'

Throughout the United States, a growing movement called 'Land Back' is challenging the concept of land ownership. It's considered a critically important effort, and tribes and allies are negotiating, fundraising, and sometimes going to court to reclaim ancestral lands.

What's most striking about this story is the way it happened. It wasn't a government order or a court settlement — but a group of elderly nuns who decided among themselves to do the right thing.

"This changes the moral temperature," said historian and Indigenous rights advocate Nick Estes, who has written extensively on the Land Back movement. "When you see people of faith — people whose institutions benefited from our dispossession — voluntarily giving land back, it opens hearts and possibilities."

More important than just the land

Land is just earth and trees. But for Indigenous Nations, there's memory, language, law, and identity in it. Their culture and the land are interwoven. When they get even a small piece back like this, it makes a huge difference to them, because it begins the reversal of the loss.

Sociologist Dr. Danielle SeeWalker, who studies Indigenous reconciliation efforts, put it simply: "Each acre that's returned is like a heartbeat restarting. You can't measure that in dollars."

For the nuns of FSPA, returning their land to the tribe is an important step. "Francis of Assisi taught us to repair what is broken," Sister McKenzie said. "In this era, perhaps this is what is broken and needs repairing."

A sign, not an ending

This is unlikely to be the end of the story. It's reported that other Catholic communities are doing deep reflection on their own role regarding boarding schools and the land associated with them.

Questions have been put to both the Jesuits and the Benedictines about property that was connected to missions or schools for Indigenous children.

Legal experts believe that voluntary acts like this could influence public policy — showing that reparative transfers like this can be done without ten years in the courts. "An act of reparation like this can be viewed as an act of relationship instead of a political fight," said one law professor.

But the nuns themselves insist they're not seeking praise. "We're not heroes," McKenzie said. "We listened, that's all."

Conclusion

When the ceremony ended, the group formed a small circle, passing around a wooden bowl full of water from the lake. An elder of the tribe blessed the site in his native language - Ojibwe - and the nuns sang a Franciscan hymn. The wind carried their voices over the trees and up into the sky, spreading the hopeful message across the world, without limit, without restraint.

In a country full of empty promises and where money is a false God, an act like this is rare. But by setting down a single example, it's likely that the small group on the edge of the lake has begun inspiring a new movement that will be far greater than they know.

As you reflect on this, think about how we ourselves can do acts like this that will give support to minority and disadvantaged groups in our own country - groups like legal immigrants and the Travelling community.

And we can always support efforts that will promote the Irish language and the preservation of our culture. Look at what President Catherine Connolly is doing in Áras an Uachtaráin, for example, regarding the use of the language.

Finally, in the famous words of Margaret Mead: Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.

Lessons in Equality from America’s Progressive Senator

Bernie Sanders is an independent senator from the state of Vermont, and one of the most influential figures in progressive American politics — and, indeed, across the world. He is often described as a democratic socialist. He was born in Brooklyn, New York, in 1941, into a Jewish family. His father — an immigrant from Poland — came in search of a better life. Sanders has spent more than forty years in politics — from his days as mayor of Burlington to his long service in the U.S. Senate.

He was twice a serious contender for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination (2016 and 2020), and he transformed America’s political conversation by focusing on economic inequality, corporate power, and social rights. He believes that healthcare, education, housing, and a living wage are basic human rights. His message has always been clear: politics should serve all people, not only the wealthy.

The Politics of Economic Inequality

Throughout his political life, Bernie Sanders has defended one principle, tirelessly and without compromise.

“We have a political system controlled by millionaires and billionaires. Our duty is to build an economy and a government that work for ordinary people, not just the wealthy few.”

He believes that the same trends can be seen across the world — from Russia to China, from Hungary to India. Ordinary citizens must break that grip and return political power to the people. His message is simple but strong: the people of Ireland, Europe, and America alike can challenge how wealth and power are distributed.

How the Voice of the Working Class Was Lost

According to Sanders, the Democratic Party traditionally defended the working class in the United States. But in the 1970s, it turned toward the wealthy and the big corporations. Factories closed, union power declined, and working people were left without protection.

“People — and especially working people — didn’t vote for Donald Trump because they wanted billionaires to get richer,” he says. “They voted for him because he said the system was broken — and that he’d do something about it.”

Sanders’s solution is to place working people once again at the heart of politics: good jobs, fair pay, affordable housing, and governance that serves that public.

Universal Rights

At the heart of Sanders’s views lies a firm belief that certain rights belong to everyone, regardless of status or wealth. Among them:
– Healthcare as a human right through a comprehensive public system
– Free third-level education for all
– Affordable housing for everyone
– A Green New Deal linking climate action with job creation

When told that his goals are too ambitious — especially on healthcare — he replies: “If every other advanced country in the world can provide healthcare for its citizens, why can’t we?”

Tax and Power

According to Sanders, the wealthy and large corporations should pay much higher taxes than they do at present. “They can still live quite comfortably,” he says wryly, “even if they pay their taxes.”

For him, this is both a political and an economic issue — one of power and influence. If the wealthy and corporations can shape elections, then what we have is no longer democracy, but oligarchy.

Climate Change

Sanders sees the climate crisis as part of the same unjust system. The wealthy pursue profit regardless of the damage done to the environment. That is why he supports a Green New Deal that connects carbon reduction with the creation of secure and sustainable jobs.

That idea can also be seen in Europe, but Sanders believes we must act on it with greater urgency — as a moral call rather than merely a policy. Countries seeking to move away from fossil fuel industries could learn from his approach: social justice must be at the heart of climate transition.

Patriotism Without Nationalism

Though opposed to American imperialism, Sanders speaks with genuine love for his own country. He is the son of a Jewish immigrant who came to the United States penniless and seized the opportunity to build a new life for his family.

In his speeches, Sanders often quotes Lincoln at Gettysburg, paying tribute to the soldiers who fell in the Union army during the Civil War: “…to ensure that they shall not have died in vain, and that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

For Sanders, that is true patriotism: balance, fairness, and the chance for everyone to take part in their own government.

Ireland and the Broader Lesson

Ireland’s open economy has grown impressively, yet still struggles with a housing crisis, healthcare pressures, and the high cost of living. It is worth reflecting on a few important questions:
– Wealth and welfare: What benefit does the ordinary citizen gain from economic growth?
– Tax and fairness: Can we find a balance between foreign investment and tax justice?
– Public participation: Can more voices from the working population be brought into political decision-making?

Ireland has a strong tradition of solidarity and compassion, from trade union movements to rural communities. Sanders would say that on such foundations a stable democracy for the future can be built.

Conclusion

At the end of the day, this is the critical question: who truly holds power — the people as a whole, or the wealthy few? From Washington to Moscow, from Dublin to Budapest, the struggle between democracy and oligarchy is the greatest challenge of our time.

According to Sanders, along with democratic government, we must build economic systems that provide dignity, security, and fairness for everyone. “It isn’t a radical idea,” he says calmly, “to demand that everyone be able to live with dignity. It’s simple common sense.”

Why should Irish people pay attention to America, a country now in turmoil? Because the future of Western democracy is at stake.

Flood the Zone

The Trump administration’s strategy is “Flood the Zone.” It comes directly from the major document Project 2025, published by the right-wing think tank, the Heritage Foundation. Russell Vought wrote an important chapter in it; he is now head of the Office of Budget Management, which oversees a federal budget of $6.75 trillion. Other authors of the document also hold powerful positions: John Ratcliffe as CIA director, Brendan Carr as FCC chairman, and Tom Homan as “Border Czar.”

The core concept of this strategy is a blitzkrieg-style assault on laws and parts of government that do not align with the far right. This approach has worked until now, but at last, it is catching up with them — not only in the courts of law, but in the court of public opinion as well.

Epstein: Secrecy

Nuair a mhoilligh Coiste Maoirseachta an Tí ar na comhaid Epstein a scaoileadh, mhéadaigh an t-amhras. De réir cáipéisí a scaoil Democracy Forward an tseachtain seo caite, d’fhéadfadh Trump a bheith luaite iontu, agus dhiúltaigh Kash Patel, stiúrthóir an FBI, aon fhreagra a thabhairt faoi sin.

The victims did not remain silent. Several came to the Capitol to deliver public statements, demanding the release of the records and accountability for the powerful men involved. The attempted cover-up did not smother the story; on the contrary, it expanded it.

Homan: Bribes

According to internal documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, Tom Homan, the “Border Czar,” accepted a $50,000 bribe. At first, the White House did not deny it; then, it flatly rejected the claim. But security experts are highlighting suspicious contracts at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The more the denials, the deeper the digging goes.

Venezuela: No Evidence

Trump ordered attacks on Venezuelan fishing boats, claiming they were drug smugglers. No evidence was ever provided. Legal experts say it is highly likely the attacks were unlawful and breached international standards. This sets a precedent in international law and raises major questions about the principles of NATO and the EU.

Intervention in South America

In Brazil, Trump raised tariffs 50% to protect Jair Bolsonaro even after he was convicted of attempting a coup. The United States imposed sanctions on the wife of the judge who led the case. Brazil’s government called it “illegal interference” and has since turned away from Trump.

In Argentina, as reported in The Wall Street Journal last week, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent claimed the U.S. was sponsoring a financial experiment by President Javier Milei. Argentina is in crisis, and there is little chance Trump can rescue it.

Free Speech: Kimmel

When ABC suspended the comedy show Jimmy Kimmel Live! after he criticized Trump, there was an immediate backlash. Disney’s stock fell, a boycott began, and First Amendment (free speech) voices rose up. Within days, Kimmel was back on the air.

Just like an attempt to silence RTÉ or TG4, this shows that it is public resistance that protects free speech in democracies.

Antifa & Science: Myth Instead of Truth

Trump declared that “antifa” was a terrorist organization, even though the FBI stated it is only an ideology. He also claimed there was a major autism risk from paracetamol use during pregnancy — claims unsupported by any scientific evidence, as AP and The New York Times recently confirmed.

Support Declining

Only 32% of American adults voted for Trump in 2024. A majority of 53% are dissatisfied with his performance, 48% of them strongly so. As analyst G. Elliott Morris wrote last week in Substack 538: every overreach highlights Trump’s weaknesses, not his strengths.

Conclusion: Hope for the West

Ireland itself has learned, through its long history of struggle, that democratic resistance always prevails. We are living through a difficult period. The West is turning toward authoritarianism, and, sadly, especially the United States — which stood for so long as a defender of democracy. But the story is not over.

As partners in the Atlantic alliance and as members of the EU, Ireland has an important role to play in supporting democratic values. And equally, all of us in the Western world must remain hopeful. As the old saying goes: “After darkness comes light.”