Venezuela Counters U.S. Navy’s Caribbean Buildup by Sending Drones and Warships
The USS Lake Erie (a guided missile cruiser) and the USS Newport News (a nuclear submarine) are due in the region next week.
A couple of weeks ago, I reported that the U.S. was deploying three Aegis guided-missile destroyers (USS Gravely, USS Jason Dunham, and USS Sampson) to waters off the coast of Venezuela. They were sent as part of a major counter-narcotics operation targeting Latin American drug cartels, specifically those involved in transporting fentanyl and cocaine.
Venezuela has now countered by sending drones and its warships to patrol along its Caribbean coast.
In a video on social media, Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino announced a “significant” drone deployment as well as naval patrols along its Caribbean coast, including “larger vessels further north in our territorial waters.”
The move comes amid escalating tensions with Washington, which sent three guided-missile destroyers and 4,000 Marines towards Venezuela last week to curb drug trafficking.
On Tuesday, a U.S. source told AFP that President Donald Trump was dispatching two more ships to the Caribbean to crack down on drug cartels.
Anonymous sources are reporting that the USS Lake Erie (a guided missile cruiser) and the USS Newport News (a nuclear submarine) are due in the region next week. Meanwhile, the Venezuelans have petitioned the United Nations, asking them to force the U.S. to end this operation.
Venezuela Sends Out Warships, Drones In Response To U.S. Navy Deployment
Venezuela’s Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino on August 26 announced a “significant” drone deployment as well as naval patrols along the country’s Caribbean coast, including “larger vessels further north in… pic.twitter.com/ql3MBV22Ok
— Michael Cook (@Michael91387113) August 27, 2025
Since returning to power in January, Trump’s attacks on Venezuela have focused chiefly on the activities of the South American country’s powerful transnational gangs. Washington accuses Maduro of heading a cocaine trafficking cartel, Cartel de los Soles, which the Trump administration has designated a terrorist organization.
The United States recently doubled its bounty to $50 million in exchange for Maduro’s capture to face drug charges. Maduro has accused Trump of attempting to effect regime change and launched a drive to sign up thousands of militia members.
On Tuesday, Caracas petitioned the United Nations to intervene in the dispute by demanding “the immediate cessation of the US military deployment in the Caribbean.”
Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to organize its contingent of anti-cartel forces.
The U.S. presence in the Southern Caribbean now includes several warships and more than 4,500 personnel. Overall, the U.S. deployment comprises three destroyers, two landing dock ships, an amphibious assault ship, a cruiser, and a littoral (small and compact) combat ship, all either already in the region or en route.
Each destroyer carries detachments of U.S. Coast Guard and law enforcement personnel, tasked with making arrests or detentions during drug interdiction operations, as reported by The Washington Post.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“On Tuesday, a U.S. source told AFP that President Donald Trump was dispatching two more ships to the Caribbean to crack down on drug cartels.”
That’s almost funny. The cartels don’t need ‘cracking down’ on, they need killing off. Beyond the open display of American intent, I hope that unseen Special Forces have been sent deep inland across Vz. and its neighbors to find and kill the leadership of these cartels. Even cartelistas like to stay alive to spend their fortunes.
You’re advocating a scenario that Tom Clancy reviewed in Clear and Present Danger. You might want to read the book; Mr. Clancy was no fan of the use of military force to achieve law enforcement aims.
Not law enforcement, national security. Clancy could write what he wanted.
I agree. I would hate to be a soldier having to do this job because people won’t stop snorting and injecting junk.
or watch the movie
So you advocate dispatching our military to physically invade a sovereign foreign nation? Not good. That is why DJT is limiting action to deploying vessels to watch outbound shipments of illegal drugs bound fo the US. Stay in international waters ol Maddie can’t say boo. We can tstill interdict shipments of illegal stuff. Physically land inside Venezuela, not good. DJT is being wise. End the shipments, maybe sink a few dope ships, in international seas, no war initiated.
Everything, everywhere, all at once.
It’s been a hellva year…so far
The biggest joke is acting as if the UN has anything to say about US military deployment. That useless organization should go live with other leftist busybody groups in The Hague.
I can only give you one thumbs up.
A bigger joke would be expected the UN to be able to stop the US from doing anything it wants in its hemisphere of control. What are they going to do actually? Declare war on the US? Good luck with that.
But, but, but…they’ll send PEACEKEEPERS!!!
Hubba, hubba!
Capitalist you are correct. The UN is a political debating society waiting to establish a one world government. What does the UN say about the world’s greatest war criminal, vlad Putin. Nothing! Yeh the court in The Hague issued a warrant that no country will execute. Its as worthless as the debates. Yet the UN has no problem condemning little countries that defend themselves or support the concept of Democracy. Its ok to gang up on the little guy but stay away from international bullies! If the UN cannot stand up against the bullies, why bother funding and supporting it. Why does the US taxpayer have to keep funding these foreign bureaucrats? Lets clarify for all to understand, if the US spends any money, it has to be identified as “taxpayer funded.” The US didn’t pay for anything. It comes from the tax payers, not the politicians.
Commenters tend to agree on a useless or impotent UN. But do you recall, just a short time ago, the head of the World Health Organization (WHO) came within an hairs width of pushing through a treaty that would make him emperor in the threat of another pandemic. If a country did not follow his orders, he could impose an international economic boycott of that country. Do you realize how close we came to that new world order? Do you remember the movie, “Star Wars?” A battle for the emperor of the universe. We were so close to having a minor UN bureaucrat become emperor of earth. The UN may be more dangerous than we imagine!
The UN a co-belligerent with Venezuela against the US? What a golden opportunity for the US to withdraw from this useless anti-western, anti-white, anti-Israel organization. The president could declare all the foreign UN diplomats “persona non grata.” That would get the ball rolling. What could they do about it? The president is in charge of foreign policy. The courts have no say, although they might think they do. Withdrawing from the UN is long overdue. Of course the usual suspects would start screaming. So what? Ignore them and develop the land devoted to the UN into something useful. Apartments, shopping, entertainment etc.
Interesting fact. The UN building does sit on a major fault line that runs under 125 St. There was a 5.2 magnitude quake on this fault in August 1884 centered in Brooklyn. If one looks closely at the elevated subway pillars at 125th St and Broadway you will see a hinge put there to accommodate a future quake, but it’s 90 degrees off in alignment. A magnitude 5.2 does not sound too spectacular, but it is for NYC where the underlying rock is not fractured the way it is in the West Coast. As such the un-fractured rock transmits energy with far less attenuation than the western variety. So the UN building is ultimately doomed anyway. Good excuse to tear it down.
I too would love to be rid of them but like any corrupt bureacracy its first goal is to sustain itself and that would mean setting up camp elsewhere. My guess would be in a BRIC member state where it could grow with the aid of other corrupt international groups.
Huh? How do you leap to that impossible scenario?
All the article says is that Maduro has asked the UN to pretty please “demand” that the US stop the deployment. Even that isn’t going to happen, but supposing it did that would not make the UN a belligerent, it would merely make it a joke. More of one than it already is.
Unlikely yes, impossible no. Should the UN demand that the US stop deployment, and follow that up with actions of some sort, the UN could become a co-belligerent. See Parry and Grant Encyclopedic Dictionary of International Law. Co-belligerents do not have to be allies. They simply need to be in conflict with a common enemy. One fundamental question: can the UN be regarded as a state actor? Should the UN act in some manner to support Venezuela, then the president could declare the UN a co-belligerent, and use that as an excuse. I simply posed a question, and you jumped to a conclusion. I personally don’t think the UN will do anything, but they might. Of course the General Assembly has an advisory status only, See the UN Charter. Also see the analysis by Eugene Kontorovich who specializes in international law. The Security Council presents a different situation, and the US has veto power. As the UN has degenerated into a cabal of anti-western hot heads, they are capable of virtually anything. We should stand ready to seize an opportunity to rid ourselves of this persistent annoyance.
Oden, it is impossible for the UN to become a co-belligerent with Venezuela against the US.
First, the UN isn’t going to “demand” anything, because the only way it can make demands is by a Security Council resolution, which the USA would veto.
Second, supposing the USA were to let it make such a “demand”, that’s all it would be. Demanding something is not an act of belligerence. You or I can demand all sorts of things; the freedom of speech gives us that right. But no one has to pay any attention to our demands.
Military action against the USA would certainly require a Security Council resolution, which can’t pass because the USA would veto it.
The only way the Korean war happened was because the USSR was boycotting the Security Council, so it wasn’t there to veto it. Had it not behaved like a toddler throwing a tantrum it would have prevented the war and preserved communist tyranny in all of Korea.
Venezuela navy is clown show. Maybe they could threaten Guyana, that’s about the extent of their reach.
I say it again
DRONES
we need to have our military stockpile increased by 100000000x of the drone
The drones are proving to be a great equalizer between smaller budgets/countries and us being the powerhouse
Not really. The ones with impact are much more expensive. The cheap ones are minimally effective. It is NOT a “revolution in military affairs.”
Maduro: We have drones! We have militia! We will threaten you!
Trump: So what? Go for it, clown.
.
Yeah, the UN demanding the US cease military operations in international waters. Riiiiiight….
Even they’re not stupid enough to try that.
Even if they were stupid enough, a “demand” is merely an expression of opinion. The USA would just ignore it.
I have this sense that DJT would probably send the UN Sec Council a big Laughogram, then keep smiling.
What, ae the UN SC barmy enough to think we would go into battle against… ourselves?