US President Donald Trump said last night that his administration would begin talks with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, Reuters reported. The statement was made after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the State Department would categorize the Venezuelan drug trafficking group "Cartel de los Soles" as a “foreign terrorist organization".
In the context of this tension in the Caribbean waters near the Venezuelan coast, the newest US aircraft carrier - "Gerald Ford", which is also the largest in the world, arrived yesterday, the Associated Press reported. The US show of military force as part of Trump's crackdown on Venezuelan drug-trafficking vessels is a major topic in the Western press.
"Trump Raises the Stakes in Venezuela Conflict", reads the headline of an opinion piece by Ishan Tharoor in the American newspaper "Washington Post". The White House's campaign for military pressure on Venezuela appears to be gaining momentum, but there is little clarity about its ultimate goal, the author points out.
"President Donald Trump was not clear enough when pressed by reporters whether he had made any decision on Venezuela. Aboard "Air Force One" he said he had "somewhat made a decision" after a series of meetings with senior advisers who briefed him on potential plans for action against the regime of President Nicolas Maduro. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll said Sunday that the military "will be ready to act in any way the president and the defense secretary need," on CBS's "Face the Nation" on Sunday. The White House's military campaign is clearly intensifying, but there is little clarity about its ultimate goal, Tharoor noted, asking the U.S. military, "Are they seeking regime change?" and "Would they even consider a full-scale invasion?"
In another article in the Washington Post, Kelly Kasoulis Cho quoted Trump as saying that the U.S. "maybe have some discussions" with Maduro as officials consider military options in the South American country. "President Donald Trump said on Sunday that he is considering talks with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, as the buildup of U.S. forces in the region raises the prospect of military action in Venezuela," writes Kasoulis Cho.
The publication reports that the question is being raised about what the new influx of troops and weapons could mean for the Trump administration's intentions in South America, as it strikes ships suspected of transporting drugs.
In the spirit of the "Washington Post" is also a commentary text by another U.S. publication - "The New York Times".
"Trump increases pressure on Venezuela, but the end game is unclear" is the headline in this American newspaper. "The president's advisers have offered conflicting accounts of what they are trying to achieve," the New York Times reported.
The publication emphasizes that regarding his decision on Venezuela, the head of state said, "I can't tell you what it is". "But we have made great progress with Venezuela in terms of cutting off the (drug) trade," he added, quoted by the publication.
The only thing missing is a concrete explanation from the Trump administration that would clarify why the United States is amassing such a large military force in the Caribbean Sea, the "New York Times" wrote, explaining that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's statements were the latest in a series of "frankly contradictory statements" on the Venezuelan issue from Washington insiders.
"Trump has been most consistent in saying it's all about drugs. But that wouldn't explain why the aircraft carrier "Gerald Ford" was quickly transferred from the eastern Mediterranean to the Caribbean region, joining the US forces that already number 15,000 troops. Their mission is to attack small boats that were intercepted by the Coast Guard until early September," the "New York Times" points out. The publication believes that there is no clear explanation given why Colombia or Mexico are not in the sights of the US Navy, given that Mexico is the main channel for fentanyl.
So far, the United States has carried out 20 strikes on vessels, killing at least 80 people, in an operation that legal experts say may violate international law, the American newspaper notes. According to it, if the deployment of the aircraft carrier is a means of influencing US President Nicolas Maduro, it would be a return to “gunship diplomacy”. This phrase became popular in the 19th century, when great powers used their naval capabilities to intimidate less powerful countries, including Venezuela, which was the subject of a European naval blockade in 1902 and 1903, concludes the "New York Times".
According to another American publication - "Los Angeles Times", while the US government continues to claim that the largest concentration of American military force in decades in the Caribbean region is a counter-drug operation, some analysts see it clearly as military pressure on Venezuelan President Maduro to relinquish power.
The British newspaper "Guardian" commented in turn on the tension over the issue of intelligence sharing between the US and the UK regarding events in the Caribbean Sea, which US Secretary of State Marco Rubio was asked about at the G7 foreign ministers' meeting in Canada.
Trump's targeting of suspected drug ships strains intelligence ties between the UK and the US, writes Dan Saba in a headline in the "Guardian". The tension in the context of London's quest to be the closest ally of the reckless White House has begun to manifest itself, the author points out.
It turns out that Britain has quietly ended intelligence cooperation with the US in the Caribbean because London does not consider the deadly US military campaign against ships suspected of drug trafficking to be in line with international law, Saba adds. It represents a clear rift in the close relationship between the two countries at a time when the US is increasing its military presence in the Caribbean, expanding its controversial campaign in the region against Venezuela, the analyst wrote.
"I'm not sure there's any precedent for what's happening. A complete shut-off of the intelligence tap is quite rare," Matthew Saville, director of military science at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) think tank and a former civil servant, told the Guardian.
"I suspect that when the first ship was blown up, someone in the UK sought clarification from the US with a question like "Can you explain what you're doing?". Maybe they got an answer from the Pentagon and didn't like it," Saville said.