SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
china
The US War on China, Venezuela, and the Global Left
Because of the economic and political alliance between China and Venezuela, it is impossible to understand the growing push for war on Venezuela without also considering the buildup to war with China as well.
Nov 15, 2025
Resistance movements against US imperialism have sprouted up all over the world in response to its indiscriminate violence and disregard for human life. Together, they form the living front of the international left, a network of people and organizations that seek liberation from the same systems of domination and colonial control. While their forms differ, from student encampments to workers’ strikes, the purpose remains the same: an end to empire and the creation of a new multipolar world rooted in the simple truth of our shared humanity and the equal worth of every nation and people.
The alliance between China and Venezuela is part of this broader project. And the US push for war against both nations is but a violent reaction to the impending truth that US hegemonic status is slipping, and with it, its control on global resources, political power, and the ability to dictate the terms of development and sovereignty for the rest of the world.
Over the past month, the Trump administration has unleashed a series of strikes on Venezuelan fishing vessels, claiming to be cracking down on drug smugglers. The lie is as unoriginal as it is absurd, and a stark example of the waning facade of the supposed “morality” of liberal internationalism. Truth is often exposed during these periods of turbulence, when agitation overrides calculation; the knowledge of its imminent demise is so dire that the empire is barely trying to hide its true intentions anymore.
What is the truth, then? The truth is that the US war on Venezuela has nothing to do with drugs and everything to do with control. For years, Venezuela has faced relentless pressure, economic warfare, sanctions, and constant threats designed to undermine its sovereignty and keep it under the boot of US empire. As with most nations, US interest in Venezuela is about strategic resources and power. First, Venezuela sits atop the largest proven oil reserves in the world, along with significant deposits of gold, coltan, and other minerals critical to technology and energy production. Control over these strategic resources means control over global markets and energy security. Second, Venezuela’s geographic location within Latin America makes it a pivotal point of leverage within the region.
The lesson is clear: Where there is a US-backed war or intervention, you are likely to find some strategic resource or monetary interest beneath it.
Yet Venezuela’s defiance did not emerge in a vacuum. It followed more than a century of US domination across the hemisphere, from the invasion of Haiti and the occupation of Nicaragua to the coups in Guatemala, Chile, and Honduras. What unites these histories is a single message from Washington: No Latin American nation has the right to chart an independent course.
The Bolivarian Revolution, launched with Hugo Chávez’s election in 1998, was a direct challenge to that order. Emerging from the ruins of neoliberal collapse, it confronted Venezuela’s historical condition as a rentier state subordinated to US interests. Chávez redirected oil revenues to social programs, such as mass education and healthcare, while expanding access to political participation through communal councils and cooperatives.
Venezuela’s defiance took continental form 20 years ago, in November 2005, when Latin American leaders gathered in Mar de la Plata, Argentina, for the Summit of the Americas. There, Washington sought to impose the Free Trade Area of the Americas (ALCA)—a hemispheric agreement that would have locked the region into permanent subordination to US capital.
The summit instead became a turning point in modern Latin American history. Before tens of thousands of people chanting “ALCA, ALCA, al carajo!” the governments of Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, and others rejected the deal. That rejection, led politically by Hugo Chávez and supported by social movements across the continent, signaled the collapse of the neoliberal consensus and the rebirth of Latin American sovereignty. Out of that victory came ALBA and Petrocaribe, mechanisms of regional cooperation that prioritized social development over corporate profit. The US has spent decades trying to reverse it through sanctions, coups, and now, open militarization in the Caribbean.
Today, matters are complicated by the introduction of a new, increasingly powerful actor. China has, over the past few decades, maintained a strong alliance with Venezuela. Starting in the early 2000s, China began providing Venezuela with tens of billions of dollars in loans to be repaid in oil shipments. This has enabled Venezuela to fund social programs and infrastructure while bypassing Western-controlled financial systems like the IMF and World Bank. A US Institute of Peace report states, “China’s industrialization boom in the early 2000s created new opportunities for its resource-rich trade partners in Latin America and Africa. Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez… was enthusiastic about advances from China.”
Since then, China has also helped Venezuela build railways, housing projects, and telecommunications infrastructure as part of its broader Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) to foster development across the Global South. The partnership, unlike those with the US, is not coercive but strictly noninterventionist. China does not advocate for regime change like US leaders, but maintains steadfast diplomatic support, referring to itself as an “apolitical development partner” while criticizing the history of US interference in the internal affairs of Latin American and Caribbean countries. Meanwhile, the US criticizes China’s lack of desire to instigate regime change.
Because of the economic and political alliance between China and Venezuela, it is impossible to understand the growing push for war on Venezuela without also considering the buildup to war with China as well. They are, after all, part of the same battle. As the USIP report writes, “Venezuela will remain a key site for the rapidly expanding strategic rivalry between the United States and China.” US leaders are fully willing to sacrifice the lives of Venezuelan civilians if it means destroying the Venezuelan economy, installing a US puppet government, and destroying the budding solidarity movement between the two nations. As it stands, Venezuela has also provided a source of economic sovereignty to China by helping diversify its energy sources away from the Middle East and US-controlled suppliers, acting as a lifeline against US sanctions and economic isolation.
So though the US certainly has a vested interest in Venezuela itself, the nation is also another battlefront for the US war on China, which under the Trump administration has manifested as an escalating trade battle over strategic resources, a hyper-militarization of Pacific allies around China, and a domestic crackdown on Chinese nationals and Chinese Americans in the US. Of course, China is no existential threat to US citizens themselves. The only threat it poses is to a US-dominated world system and the perpetuation of the international division of labor that keeps a few Western elite wealthy, while the rest of the world struggles.
The US push for war on China is part of an ongoing campaign to hinder China’s rise. While the world hurtles inevitably toward a new multipolarity, US leaders lash out through military posturing, economic coercion, and war propaganda. President Donald Trump’s recent tariffs on China are only one small part of that larger strategy. At the heart of this confrontation lies a struggle over control of the strategic resources and technology that will define the future—rare earth minerals, semiconductors, AI, and more. China currently dominates the global supply of rare earth elements, the essential components in everything from smartphones and wind turbines to missiles and fighter jets. For the US, this is intolerable. It threatens its monopoly over high-tech production and, by extension, its military and economic supremacy. That’s why you’ll see political leaders and media sources perpetuate the narrative that China is weaponizing trade, even though it’s Western countries that have killed millions of people through unilateral sanctions since WWII. But China, as a sovereign nation, has the right to protect its strategic resources, especially when they are being used against it. Rare earth minerals, for example, are used by the US to create advanced weapons systems in preparation for war with China. And if economic warfare fails to hinder China’s rise, which it undoubtedly will if the recent Trump-Xi meetings are anything to go by, then it is increasingly likely that US leaders will force a physical confrontation, and those weapons will be used.
This isn’t the first time the US has waged war over strategic resources while using propaganda to paint a prettier picture. The Gulf War and invasion of Iraq, while justified as “defending democracy” and “protecting the world from weapons of mass destruction” that didn’t actually exist, were ultimately about carving up Iraq’s oil fields for US corporations. The NATO bombing campaign in Libya was in response to Gaddafi’s nationalization of oil and the threat to the US dollar. The continued occupation of Syria is about securing oil and gas fields. The overthrow of Bolivian President Evo Morales was connected to his nationalization of lithium, often referred to as the “new oil,” as well as attempts to thwart competition with Russia and China. The list goes on and on and on.
The lesson is clear: Where there is a US-backed war or intervention, you are likely to find some strategic resource or monetary interest beneath it. This is what it means to be an imperialist power. In order to sustain its dominance, the US must continually extract, control, or deny access to the materials that sustain global industry and technology, such as oil, gas, lithium, and rare earth minerals. And when another nation dares to assert sovereignty over its own resources, it is branded a threat to freedom, sanctioned, bombed, or toppled to keep it dependent, weak, and loyal. China, Venezuela, and all nations seeking sovereignty over their own development in ways contradictory to the capitalist imperial order threaten this, and that is why they are targeted—not for any moral or legal reason. As we’ve so clearly seen from two years of US-funded genocide in Gaza, neither morality nor legality guides US policy.
The struggle against US imperialism is a global struggle. To stand with Venezuela, with China, or with any nation resisting domination is to stand for the possibility of a new internationalism rooted in solidarity across borders. That is our task—to connect these struggles, to see in every act of resistance the reflection of our own, and to build a world of shared humanity and global equality.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Wake the F Up. This Is Going to Destroy Us': Senator Sounds Alarm After AI Cyberattack
"The barriers to performing sophisticated cyberattacks have dropped substantially—and we predict that they’ll continue to do so," said AI company Anthropic.
Nov 14, 2025
A Democratic senator on Thursday sounded the alarm on the dangers of unregulated artificial intelligence after AI company Anthropic revealed it had thwarted what it described as "the first documented case of a large-scale cyberattack executed without substantial human intervention."
According to Anthropic, it is highly likely that the attack was carried out by a Chinese state-sponsored group, and it targeted "large tech companies, financial institutions, chemical manufacturing companies, and government agencies."
After a lengthy technical explanation describing how the attack occurred and how it was ultimately thwarted, Anthropic then discussed the security implications for AI that can execute mass cyberattacks with minimal direction from humans.
"The barriers to performing sophisticated cyberattacks have dropped substantially—and we predict that they’ll continue to do so," the firm said. "With the correct setup, threat actors can now use agentic AI systems for extended periods to do the work of entire teams of experienced hackers."
Anthropic went on to say that hackers could now use AI to carry tasks such as "analyzing target systems, producing exploit code, and scanning vast datasets of stolen information more efficiently than any human operator," which could open the door to "less experienced and resourced groups" carrying out some of the most sophisticated attack operations.
The company concluded by warning that "the techniques described above will doubtless be used by many more attackers—which makes industry threat sharing, improved detection methods, and stronger safety controls all the more critical."
This cybersecurity strategy wasn't sufficient for Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who said government intervention would be needed to mitigate the potential harms caused by AI.
"Guys wake the f up," he wrote in a social media post. "This is going to destroy us—sooner than we think—if we don’t make AI regulation a national priority tomorrow."
Democratic California state Sen. Scott Wiener noted that many big tech firms have continuously fought against government oversight into AI despite threats that are growing stronger by the day.
"For two years, we advanced legislation to require large AI labs to evaluate their models for catastrophic risk or at least disclose their safety practices," he explained. "We got it done, but industry (not Anthropic) continues to push for federal ban on state AI rules, with no federal substitute."
Some researchers who spoke with Ars Technica, however, expressed skepticism that the AI-driven hack was really as sophisticated as Anthropic had claimed simply because they believe current AI technology is not yet good enough to execute that caliber of operation.
Dan Tentler, executive founder of Phobos Group, told the publication that the efficiency with which the hackers purportedly got the AI to carry out their commands was wildly different than what he has experienced using the technology.
"I continue to refuse to believe that attackers are somehow able to get these models to jump through hoops that nobody else can," he said. "Why do the models give these attackers what they want 90% of the time but the rest of us have to deal with ass-kissing, stonewalling, and acid trips?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
By Moving to Resume Testing, Trump Threatens the Global Nuclear Balance
The decision would undermine continued strategic stability and risks triggering a disastrous arms race.
Oct 30, 2025
President Donald Trump’s October 29 announcement that the United States will restart nuclear weapons testing after more than 30 years marks a dangerous turning point in international security.
The decision lacks technical justification and appears solely driven by geopolitical posturing.
Trump’s declaration comes after months of nuclear threats. The president ordered the moving of nuclear submarines to Russia’s shores back in August and again in October 2025. Just hours before meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in South Korea, Trump declared that “because of other countries testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis.”
It is not clear what he means, since other countries are not nuclear testing, but if the US goes forward with it, such testing would end a moratorium that has been in place since 1992. There is also a question about whether he is calling for the resumption of nuclear explosive testing (conducted by the Department of Energy) or testing nuclear-capable weapons (conducted by the Pentagon).
Nevertheless the decision would threaten continued strategic stability and risks triggering a disastrous arms race.
Responding to Russia
Trump’s announcement follows Russia’s October 21 test of the Burevestnik nuclear-powered cruise missile in the Novaya Zemlya archipelago in the Arctic. According to Russia’s Chief of General Staff Valery Gerasimov, the missile was airborne for 15 hours and traveled 14,000 kilometers.
This context of the Russian test is crucial, but Russia did not detonate a nuclear weapon. This test, like Russia’s the test of the Poseidon nuclear-powered torpedo a week later, involved nuclear-powered delivery systems, and are considered nuclear-capable, but do not constitute a nuclear weapons test. Russia hasn’t conducted a nuclear weapons test since 1990. While these new delivery systems are worrying, they do not constitute a resumption of nuclear testing of the kind that Trump now proposes.
Resuming nuclear testing isn’t just a bargaining chip. It’s a gamble that risks undoing decades of restraint, and the world could be a lot less stable because of it.
The timing of President Trump’s announcement could not be worse for nuclear arms control. The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), the last agreement limiting US and Russian nuclear weapons, expires in February 2026. For over a decade, New START has kept a cap on deployed warheads and compelled both sides to transparency through data exchanges and inspections. If this agreement expires, there would be no binding limits on the two countries’ nuclear arsenals.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said in September 2025 that Moscow would be willing to extend New START’s quantitative limits for a year, as long as Washington reciprocates and “does not take steps that undermine or violate the existing balance of deterrence potentials.” President Trump called Putin’s proposal “a good idea.” Now, with this move to resume testing, Trump is threatening the global nuclear balance.
Russia will not take this lightly. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov warned in October 2025 that “if a country with the capability makes the erroneous decision to conduct nuclear tests, and Washington is clearly in our focus, then we will retaliate immediately.” Putin echoed the same sentiment that Moscow would respond to nuclear tests.
Signaling to China
China has been building up its nuclear arsenal, doubling from about 300 warheads in 2020 to around 600 in 2025. Beijing’s proposed 15th Five Year Plan links deterrence to “global strategic balance and stability.” However, Beijing hasn’t tested a nuclear weapon since 1996. China’s 2025 Victory Day parade rolled out five missile systems that could hit the US mainland. American analysts believe China could have over 1,000 warheads by 2030. Still, growing the arsenal and upgrading missiles isn’t the same as explosive nuclear testing.
China maintains that it won’t break its moratorium on nuclear tests and supports the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, even though it hasn’t ratified it. In October 2025, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun called China a “responsible nuclear-armed state” and reaffirmed the pledge. Now, Trump’s decision puts China in a tight spot: Stick to restraint while the US challenges international norms or initiate its own testing program to keep up.
The Need for Restraint and Diplomacy
Trump’s move looks like another round of “escalate to deescalate”: the idea that ramping up the threat forces rivals to come to the table on US terms. However, resuming nuclear testing isn’t just a bargaining chip. It’s a gamble that risks undoing decades of restraint, and the world could be a lot less stable because of it.
Bringing back nuclear weapons testing appears to be aimed at bringing Russia and China to the negotiation table for a trilateral arms control agreement, something Trump keeps pushing for. However, Beijing has argued that its nuclear stockpile is way too small to be part of any trilateral arms control deal.
If Russia and China answer with their own tests, nuclear restraint could go out the window.
Crucially, this decision runs counter to the principles of restraint and diplomacy. Instead of using America’s overwhelming advantage in conventional military power and nuclear deterrence to push for diplomatic negotiations, the administration seems set on flexing its muscles. A restraint-based foreign policy would instead focus on reducing nuclear dangers through diplomacy, maintaining the taboo against nuclear use, and building verification regimes.
The US maintains approximately 5,177 nuclear warheads, second only to Russia’s 5,459. China has just 600. Moreover, American scientists can now use advanced computer modeling to check if the bombs still work without explosive testing. So, there’s no technical reason to start testing again. Restarting nuclear tests now would almost definitely push Russia and China to do the same. Other nuclear-armed states might follow. It may also provide states that aspire to nuclear-armed status justification to develop their own nuclear weapons programs.
The test of President Trump’s “escalate to deescalate” approach will come in the months ahead. If Russia and China answer with their own tests, nuclear restraint could go out the window. What follows isn’t just another arms race. It’s something more complex, riskier, and a whole lot more dangerous than the Cold War, a competition that nearly ended humanity.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular