#21 Gray Area

Last week the United States’ military operation in Venezuela draws attention not as an attempt at regime change but as a transformation in how American foreign policy generates legitimacy. The capture and removal of Nicolas Maduro by military means the bombing of Caracas and the immediate explicit claim of control over Venezuela’s oil represent a deliberate break from the classic liberal interventionist narrative.

For the United States democracy human rights and freedom rhetoric have been almost entirely abandoned. This development signifies a discursive rupture within America’s interest-based foreign policy. Since the Cold War the United States has almost always framed its military power within a universalist moral framework justifying interventions as humanely necessary. In the case of Venezuela this framework is no longer required. Power itself is now seen as sufficient and U.S. interests have replaced legitimacy as the primary justification.

At this point the intervention in Venezuela must be read in comparison with past U.S. actions. For example during the invasion of Iraq the United States presented the global public with a comprehensive narrative: the overthrow of an authoritarian regime the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and the spread of democracy to the Middle East. Although today this narrative is widely recognized as largely fictional the crucial point is that at the time the United States felt a need to generate legitimacy. Power was disguised in moral language.

In Venezuela however this camouflage has been entirely discarded. Trump’s statements that the United States would take control of Venezuela’s oil clearly demonstrate that the country has abandoned its effort to present itself as the carrier of the liberal international order. This signals a clearer return to classical realist assumptions. Under this understanding states pursue interests power is the decisive factor and norms matter only as long as they are functional.

This attitude emerging during Trump’s presidency creates a clear contradiction with the long-standing U.S. narrative of a rules-based international order. Yet this contradiction points not to a crisis but to a deliberate choice. Normative obligations such as accountability international consultation and legal constraints imposed by the liberal order are now viewed as strategic costs. The intervention in Venezuela clearly reflects a desire to escape these costs.

The issue of oil is decisive here. Venezuela possesses one of the world’s largest proven oil reserves. Placing oil at the center of U.S. policy toward this country can be interpreted as an updated version of classical imperial strategies. But this time the difference lies in oil being identified directly as a target without even being framed ideologically.

Following Maduro’s abduction Trump’s meetings with oil companies reveal a redefinition of the relationship between the state and capital. Geopolitical decisions are no longer discussed in terms of national security or global stability but in the language of investment feasibility and market control. Venezuela is treated not as a sovereign state but as an energy basin requiring management. Sovereignty in this framework has become secondary even irrelevant.

The limited international response is closely linked to this transformation. Although Russia and China have expressed objections these do not seriously constrain U.S. behavior. This time the United States is not making a normative claim. It is difficult to criticize a power that does not promise democracy on grounds of democracy and human rights. Thus a regime lacking legitimacy claims also faces a limited legitimacy crisis.

Europe’s support for Trump against Maduro is another indicator of this new era. The divisions that occasionally emerged during the Iraq and Afghanistan interventions are not occurring this time. One major reason is that Europe is inclined to align with Trump but also because the intervention no longer requires persuasion. In the case of Venezuela the United States does not attempt to bring its allies into a shared narrative. It makes decisions implements them and takes its share of the spoils.

Finally this intervention inevitably raises new questions about the direction of international politics. The prevailing view is that Venezuela is not an exception but the beginning of a new foreign policy norm. With this development the world may be entering a phase in which the global discourse on democracy has become entirely redundant. An international system in which power no longer feels compelled to justify itself is unlikely to bring stability in the coming period.

The power outage experienced in Berlin one of Europe’s most advanced metropolises has brought into view a dimension of state security that has long been neglected. The sabotage-induced outage lasting several days directly affected approximately 45 000 households more than 2 000 businesses and nearly 100 000 people reminding us once again that energy infrastructure is a fundamental component of national security.

Short-term power outages may be accounted for in emergency scenarios but Berlin’s five-day blackout in some areas directly tested the state’s capacity for continuity. During this period hospitals had to rely on generators some patients were transferred to other regions schools were closed and public transportation was severely disrupted. This episode also demonstrated that security in one sense means the ability to sustain everyday life without interruption.

At this point power outages have revived debates on hybrid threats. The fact that a left-radical group claimed responsibility for the attack highlights a paradox: an action requiring minimal resources and low cost can cause economic damage worth millions of euros and trigger a serious security crisis. This is precisely the feature of asymmetric threats that challenges modern security architectures.

Another factor deepening the security dimension of the outage was its cascading effects. The blackout caused disruptions in mobile communication infrastructure and in some areas telephone and internet services were cut entirely. This once again underscored how vital communication is during crises and revealed that in the absence of communication the very concept of security is also psychologically compromised.

Since the state’s guiding calming and regulatory role during crises depends heavily on communication capacity the weakening of this capacity intensifies feelings of uncertainty panic and insecurity thereby amplifying physical security risks. Therefore disruptions in communication infrastructure must be regarded as a security vulnerability that directly affects public order and social stability.

The prosecutor’s decision to treat the incident as a terrorism investigation aligns with the view that this act constitutes a direct threat to state security. While this approach is significant it is insufficient. Investigations and punishments are mechanisms that activate after the fact; the real issue is how such an act became possible and how it can be prevented in the future.

The power outages in Berlin have exposed how inadequate practical efforts have been to protect critical infrastructure despite frequent calls across Europe since the Russia-Ukraine war. Although access to electricity is the backbone of modern societies it often lacks adequate physical protection. While investments in cybersecurity have increased the relatively neglected risk of physical sabotage has emerged as a serious vulnerability in this incident.

The international dimension must not be overlooked either. What happened in Berlin is a common European security issue. Critical infrastructure extends beyond national borders. Energy communication and logistics networks are interconnected across the continent so a power outage in one city can trigger crises in other countries through a domino effect. Therefore the issue must be addressed under the umbrella of Europe’s collective security.

The power outages in Berlin also point to the political dimension of security. A state’s legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens is measured not only by democracy and the rule of law but also by its capacity to deliver essential services without interruption. Days-long power outages in Europe where anti-systemic movements are gaining ground inevitably raise the question: Where is the state?

The new regulation extending the Israeli government’s authority to shut down foreign media outlets cannot be viewed as a simple security measure. It is embedded in a deeply political context. When considered alongside the months-long policies of genocide and destruction in Gaza it reveals that Israel is launching a comprehensive assault on access to information. Just as living spaces are being destroyed by bombs cameras and microphones are being silenced.

While states have long restricted information flows under security pretexts Israel’s move is distinct in that it grants broad and vague powers without requiring exceptional circumstances. This authority does not provide clear transparent or verifiable criteria for determining which media outlets pose a “threat to national security.” On the contrary it obfuscates the security narrative turning it into an arbitrary tool of suppression.

One of the fundamental functions of journalism is to make state actions visible to the public and to enable accountability. Israel’s regulation targeting foreign media directly undermines this function. Grave violations in Gaza including civilian deaths forced displacements systematic destruction of infrastructure and obstruction of humanitarian aid can only reach the global public agenda through independent media. Silencing these outlets demonstrates that Israel codes the reporting of these crimes as a “threat.”

Moreover this regulation targets not only media organizations but public knowledge itself. Foreign media serve as a window for the international public rather than Israel’s domestic audience. Closing this window contributes to the normalization trivialization and eventual erasure of what is happening in Gaza. This completes the symbolic and mnemonic dimensions of the genocide.

Legally the issue becomes even more striking. These powers with limited judicial oversight effectively suspend the principle of separation of powers. When the executive branch both defines the threat and imposes penalties it contradicts the minimal safeguards of democratic regimes. This situation is one of the most visible manifestations of long-standing political debates in Israel.

Ultimately Israel’s regulation against foreign media clearly shows that the genocide against the people of Gaza is being waged not only on the ground but also in the realm of information access. Cutting off the circulation of truth eliminating testimony and rendering crimes invisible have become inseparable components of the genocide strategy. Preventing what is happening in Gaza from being forgotten depends solely on voices that cannot be silenced and that remain alive in the public consciousness.