Thursday 8th of January 2026
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

Iraq (2003), Libya (2011), Syria (from 2011), Honduras (2009), Ukraine (2014), and Venezuela (from 2002 onward)....

Jeffrey Sachs Briefs the United Nations on the US Aggression in Venezuela — The author advises the Security Council to fulfill its responsibilities by immediately affirming a series of actions in response to the U.S. attacks on Venezuela.

 

Mr. President,
Distinguished Members of the Security Council,

The issue before the Council today is not the character of the government of Venezuela.

The issue is whether any Member State — by force, coercion, or economic strangulation — has the right to determine Venezuela’s political future or to exercise control over its affairs.

This question goes directly to Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.

The Council must decide whether that prohibition is to be upheld or abandoned.

Abandoning it would carry consequences of the gravest kind.

Background & Context

Since 1947, United States foreign policy has repeatedly employed force, covert action and political manipulation to bring about regime change in other countries. This is a matter of carefully documented historical record. In her book Covert Regime Change (2018), political scientist Lindsey O’Rourke documents 70 attempted U.S. regime-change operations between 1947 and 1989 alone.

These practices did not end with the Cold War. Since 1989, major United States regime-change operations undertaken without authorization by the Security Council have included, among the most consequential: Iraq (2003), Libya (2011), Syria (from 2011), Honduras (2009), Ukraine (2014), and Venezuela (from 2002 onward).

The methods employed are well established and well documented. They include open warfare; covert intelligence operations; instigation of unrest; support for armed groups; manipulation of mass and social media; bribery of military and civilian officials; targeted assassinations; false-flag operations; and economic warfare aimed at collapsing civilian life.

These measures are illegal under the U.N. Charter, and they typically result is ongoing violence, lethal conflict, political instability and deep suffering of the civilian population.

The Case of Venezuela

The recent United States record with respect to Venezuela is clear.

In April 2002, the United States knew of and approved an attempted coup against the Venezuelan government.

In the 2010s, the United States funded civil society groups actively engaged in anti-government protests, notably in 2014. When the government cracked down on the protests, the U.S. followed with a series of sanctions. In 2015, President Barrack Obama declared Venezuela to be “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.”

In 2017, at a dinner with Latin American leaders on the margins of the U.N. General Assembly, President Trump openly discussed the option of the U.S. invading Venezuela to overthrow the government.

During 2017 to 2020, the U.S. imposed sweeping sanctions on the state oil company. Oil production fell by 75 percent from 2016 to 2020, and real GDP per capita (PPP) declined by 62 percent.

The U.N. General Assembly has repeatedly voted overwhelmingly against such unilateral coercive measures. Under international law, only the Security Council has the authority to impose such sanctions.

On 23 January 2019, the United States unilaterally recognized Juan Guaidó as “interim president” of Venezuela and on 28 January 2019 froze approximately $7 billion of Venezuelan sovereign assets held abroad and gave Guaidó authority over certain assets.

These actions form part of a continuous United States regime-change effort spanning more than two decades.

Recent US Global Escalation

In the past year, the United States has carried out bombing operations in seven countries, none of which were authorized by the Security Council and none of which were undertaken in lawful self-defense under the Charter. The targeted countries include Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and now Venezuela.

In the past month, President Trump has issued direct threats against at least six U.N. member states, including Colombia, Denmark, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria and of course Venezuela. These threats are summarized in Annex I to this statement.

What is at Stake Today

Members of the Council are not called upon to judge Nicolás Maduro.

They are not called upon to assess whether the recent United States attack and ongoing naval quarantine of Venezuela result in freedom or in subjugation.

Members of the Council are called upon to defend international law, and specifically the United Nations Charter.

The realist school of international relations, articulated most brilliantly by John Mearsheimer, accurately describes the condition of international anarchy as “the tragedy of great power politics.” Realism is therefore a description of geopolitics, not a solution for peace. Its own conclusion is that international anarchy leads to tragedy.

In the aftermath of World War I, the League of Nations was created to end the tragedy through the application of international law. Yet the world’s leading nations failed to defend international law in the 1930s, leading to renewed global war.

The United Nations emerged from that catastrophe as humanity’s second great effort to place international law above anarchy. In the words of the Charter, the UN was created 

“to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind.”

Given that we are in the nuclear age, failure cannot be repeated. Humanity would perish. There would be no third chance.

Measures Required of the Security Council

To fulfill its responsibilities under the Charter, the Security Council should immediately affirm the following actions:

  1. The United States shall immediately cease and desist from all explicit and implicit threats or use of force against Venezuela.
  2. The United States shall terminate its naval quarantine and all related coercive military measures undertaken in the absence of authorization by the Security Council.
  3. The United States shall immediately withdraw its military forces from within and along the perimeter of Venezuela, including intelligence, naval, air, and other forward-deployed assets positioned for coercive purposes.
  4. Venezuela shall adhere to the U.N. Charter and to the human rights protected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
  5. The Secretary-General shall immediately appoint a Special Envoy, mandated to engage relevant Venezuelan and international stakeholders and to report back to the Security Council within 14 days with recommendations consistent with the Charter of the United Nations, and the Security Council shall remain urgently seized of this matter.
  6. All Member States shall refrain from unilateral threats, coercive measures, or armed actions undertaken outside the authority of the Security Council, in strict conformity with the Charter.

In Closing

Mr. President, Distinguished Members,

Peace and the survival of humanity depend on whether the United Nations Charter remains a living instrument of international law or is allowed to wither into irrelevance.

That is the choice before this Council today.

Jeffrey D. Sachs is a university professor and director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, where he directed The Earth Institute from 2002 until 2016. He is also president of the U.N. Sustainable Development Solutions Network and a commissioner of the U.N. Broadband Commission for Development.

 

https://consortiumnews.com/2026/01/05/jeffrey-sachs-briefs-un-on-us-aggression-in-venezuela/

 

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

problem....

The United Nations turned 80 in October last year; a venerable age for the most significant international organisation the world has ever seen. 

But events of recent years – from last weekend’s Trumpian military action to seize Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and Russia’s unlawful invasion of Ukraine in 2022, to the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza – represent major challenges to the UN system.

Many are now asking whether the United Nations has any future at all if it cannot fulfil its first promise of maintaining international peace and security. 

Has the UN reached the end of its lifespan?

https://theconversation.com/venezuela-gaza-ukraine-is-the-un-failing-272703

 

====================

 

HOLD IT... WHOEVER WROTE THIS SHIT HAS A PROBLEM IN LA CABEZA... AS SOON AS "Russia’s unlawful invasion of Ukraine" IS MENTIONED WE HAVE A PROBLEM...

— WESTERN JOURNALISTS FORGET THAT THIS WAS A LIMITED MILITARY OPERATION UNDER THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER #2202{?}.

 

 

Adopted by the Security Council at its 7384th meeting, on 17 February 2015

The Security Council, 

Recalling the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and reaffirming its full respect for the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine, 

Expressing its grave concern at the tragic events and violence in eastern regions of Ukraine

Reaffirming its Resolution 2166 (2014), 

Firmly convinced that the resolution of the situation in eastern regions of Ukraine can only be achieved through a peaceful settlement to the current crisis, 

1. Endorses the “Package of measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements”, adopted and signed in Minsk on 12 February 2015 (Annex I); 

2. Welcomes the Declaration by the President of the Russian Federation, the President of Ukraine, the President of the French Republic and the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany in support of the “Package of measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements”, adopted on 12 February 2015 in Minsk (Annex II), and their continuing commitment therein to the implementation of the Minsk Agreements; 

3. Calls on all parties to fully implement the “Package of measures”, including a comprehensive ceasefire as provided for therein; 

4. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

.......

1. Immediate and comprehensive ceasefire in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine and its strict implementation as of 15 February 2015, 12 a.m. local time. 

2. Withdrawal of all heavy weapons by both sides by equal distances in order to create a security zone of at least 50 km wide from each other for the artillery systems of calibre of 100 and more, a security zone of 70 km wide for MLRS and 140 km wide for MLRS “Tornado-S”, Uragan, Smerch and Tactical Missile Systems (Tochka, Tochka U):

– for the Ukrainian troops: from the de facto line of contact;

– for the armed formations from certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine: from the line of contact according to the Minsk Memorandum of Sept. 19th, 2014;

The withdrawal of the heavy weapons as specified above is to start on day 2 of the ceasefire at the latest and be completed within 14 days.

The process shall be facilitated by the OSCE and supported by the Trilateral Contact Group.

3. Ensure effective monitoring and verification of the ceasefire regime and the withdrawal of heavy weapons by the OSCE from day 1 of the withdrawal, using all technical equipment necessary, including satellites, drones, radar equipment, etc.

4. Launch a dialogue, on day 1 of the withdrawal, on modalities of local elections in accordance with Ukrainian legislation and the Law of Ukraine “On interim local self-government order in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions” as well as on the future regime of these areas based on this law.

Adopt promptly, by no later than 30 days after the date of signing of this document a Resolution of the Parliament of Ukraine specifying the area enjoying a special regime, under the Law of Ukraine “On interim self-government order in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions”, based on the line of the Minsk Memorandum of September 19, 2014.

5. Ensure pardon and amnesty by enacting the law prohibiting the prosecution and punishment of persons in connection with the events that took place in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine.

6. Ensure release and exchange of all hostages and unlawfully detained persons, based on the principle “all for all”. This process is to be finished on the day 5 after the withdrawal at the latest.

7. Ensure safe access, delivery, storage, and distribution of humanitarian assistance to those in need, on the basis of an international mechanism.

8. Definition of modalities of full resumption of socioeconomic ties, including social transfers such as pension payments and other payments (incomes and revenues, timely payments of all utility bills, reinstating taxation within the legal framework of Ukraine).

To this end, Ukraine shall reinstate control of the segment of its banking system in the conflict-affected areas and possibly an international mechanism to facilitate such transfers shall be established.

9. Reinstatement of full control of the state border by the government of Ukraine throughout the conflict area, starting on day 1 after the local elections and ending after the comprehensive political settlement (local elections in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions on the basis of the Law of Ukraine and constitutional reform) to be finalized by the end of 2015, provided that paragraph 11 has been implemented in consultation with and upon agreement by representatives of c ertain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in the framework of the Trilateral Contact Group.

10. Withdrawal of all foreign armed formations, military equipment, as well as mercenaries from the territory of Ukraine under monitoring of the OSCE. Disarmament of all illegal groups.

11. Carrying out constitutional reform in Ukraine with a new constitution entering into force by the end of 2015 providing for decentralization as a key element (including a reference to the specificities of certain areas in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, agreed with the representatives of these areas), as well as adopting permanent legislation on the special status of certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in line with measures as set out in the footnote until the end of 2015. [Note]

12. Based on the Law of Ukraine “On interim local self-government order in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions”, questions related to local elections will be discussed and agreed upon with representatives of certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in the framework of the Trilateral Contact Group. Elections will be held in accordance with relevant OSCE standards and monitored by OSCE/ODIHR.

13. Intensify the work of the Trilateral Contact Group including through the establishment of working groups on the implementation of relevant aspects of the Minsk agreements. They will reflect the composition of the Trilateral Contact Group.

===================

 

WE KNOW AND RUSSIA KNEW THAT THE FRENCH, THE GERMANS AND THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENTS SIGNED THESE AGREEMENTS IN BAD FAITH — AND UKRAINE CONTINUED BOMBING THE DONBASS, KILLING MORE THAN 14,000 PEOPLE. AS WELL NATO HAD "PROMISED" NOT TO MOVE EASTWARD, WHICH IT DID UNDER BILL CLINTON — AND SINCE 2007 WANTED TO MOVE INTO UKRAINE. THIS WAS DENOUNCED BY PUTIN IN HIS MUNICH SPEECH THEN: RED LINE.

BY FEBRUARY 2022, UKRAINE HAD 60,000 TROOPS ABOUT TO INVADE THE DONBASS BY EARLY MARCH (documented). THIS WAS A PROVOCATION... 

AS RUSSIA WON THE MOVE, BY APRIL 2022, A PEACE AGREEMENT WAS NEARLY SIGNED, BUT STOPPED BY BORIS JOHNSON... THIS PEACE AGREEMENTS WOULD HAVE ALLOWED AUTONOMY OF THE DONBASS IN UKRAINE... WHICH WAS BASICALLY A RETURN TO THE MINSK AGREEMENTS. 

BORIS JOHNSON, UNDER INSTRUCTION FROM THE USA/UK/EU PROMISED HUGE DELIVERY OF WEAPONS AND LOGISTICS TO UKRAINE IF IT CHOSE TO FIGHT RUSSIA — CONTINUING THE USA WISH TO DESTROY RUSSIA SINCE 1917 [RUSSIAN REVOLUTION]...

WE KNOW THE REST.

----------

UNDER THE UN CHARTER, RUSSIA WAS ENTITLED TO PROTECT THE RUSSIAN POPULATION IN UKRAINE. FULL STOP. AND THIS IS WHAT RUSSIA HAS BEEN DOING, IN A RESTRAINED MANNER... WHILE THE WEST HAS BEEN  PUSHING FOR FULL-ON WAR AGAINST RUSSIA...

 

===============

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

empires?....

ARE WE WITNESSING THE RETURN OF EMPIRES?

Most commentators are speculating about a possible return of empires. According to them, Donald Trump has just invaded Venezuela, just as Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, and Xi Jinping is about to do the same to Taiwan. This shows a complete misunderstanding of what is happening: President Trump [GUSNOTE: TRUMP IS A PSYCHOPATH] did not invade Venezuela, but extracted a drug trafficker [ALLEGED DRUG TRAFFICKER AND SUBJUGATED VENEZUELA ENTIRELY]; President Putin did not invade Ukraine, but implemented the Minsk agreements and UN Security Council Resolution 2202; as for President Xi, he has pledged never to invade Taiwan unless it declares its independence.

This is indeed a new historical period, the creation of a multipolar world, not a resurgence of empires. Multipolarity, however, presupposes the restoration of international law and therefore the abolition of the international rules imposed during the Cold War and after the dissolution of the USSR by the United States and the G7.

Thierry Meyssan

 

===============

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.