America
Coup d’état plan in Venezuela orchestrated with the US support
Atilio Boron is an Argentine sociologist, political scientist, professor and writer. PhD in Political Science from Harvard University, who closely follows the political and geopolitical realities of Latin America and the world. On July 29, one day after the presidential elections were held in Venezuela, I met with Boron, in the lobby of the Gran Meliá hotel in Caracas, where part of the more than 1,000 international and national observers were staying. The electoral observers were invited by different institutions of the Venezuelan State to participate in the democratic event of the year in the Caribbean country.
By the time I conducted the interview, on Monday afternoon, a good part of the streets of the Venezuelan capital were filled with demonstrators, most of them protesting peacefully, demonstrating their disapproval of the result of the electoral elections on the 28th of July, when the majority of Venezuelans who exercised their right to vote elected the current president Nicolás Maduro for a new term (2025-2031).
However, in parallel, a group of masked people moving in blocks of several dozen motorcycles began to violently take control of the city. Literally, Caracas began to burn and other cities in the country joined the protests, which had stopped being democratic and peaceful and turned into a civic Coup d’état with mercenaries paid by the Venezuelan and international extremist right.
In this context of growing tension and uncertainty, we interviewed the Argentine intellectual, who was also in Caracas as an international observer of the Venezuela election process. Days later I met again with Atilio Boron to complete the interview that was initially truncated. These are some of his impressions about what is happening in Venezuela today, a country under siege and at war, according to our interviewee.
Please, could you give us a balance of what happened in Venezuela the day after the re-election of Nicolás Maduro?
The balance I can give you is that the Carter Center, a renowned American institute, has been in Venezuela for more than two weeks, carrying out an evaluation of the Venezuelan electoral system. The Carter Center has said that the Venezuelan electoral process has the necessary conditions of reliability, transparency and honesty, and that they have not detected anything that has caught their attention, that is, they have not found any flaw in the system that, as of there, allows the popular will to be distorted or twisted. This is what this expert institute in electoral processes has declared about the presidential elections in Venezuela.
On the other hand, we have seen how, in front of more than 1,000 national and international observers – and after a demonstration of unquestionable force of the majority will of the Venezuelan population that achieved the re-election of President Nicolás Maduro with more than 6 million votes – violent and undemocratic sectors of the Venezuelan opposition are plotting an attempted coup d’état, something they have been announcing for some time.
The most fascist and retrograde expression of the Venezuelan opposition, led by María Corina Machado and company, has not only instigated, provoked, promoted, but has financed violent groups that live outside the law to generate chaos on the streets. They take advantage of the other part of the population that – after years of US blockade and suffocation – has suffered and endured needs of all kinds. This part of the population, whose electoral choice was not Nicolás Maduro, is exercising its legal and legitimate right to protest, and for the most part it is doing so peacefully.
However, the leaders of the opposition that came in second place in this electoral race, that is, that is called to be the majority opposition force to the Chavista government, launched a coup plan to ignore the Venezuelan electoral authority, the National Electoral Council (CNE), and to ignore the popular will. Are these the political actors who claim to be the democratic opposition to the government? It is nonsense to think that they really want the best for the Venezuelan people. They have always played at destabilization and unconstitutionally overthrowing the Chavista governments, once again they have demonstrated it, their plan is different.
In conclusion, an international operation was mounted to ignore the victory of Nicolás Maduro. I have been in the profession for almost half a century and I would dare to say that I have never seen such a coordinated and systematic effort by the right and the international extreme right, supported by the hegemonic media in Latin America and the world. But no one has been able to prove fraud, because there has been no fraud. The Venezuelan opposition obtained a non-negligible proportion of votes, 5 million votes is an important number, but it is located in the historical statistics of votes, both those obtained by Chavismo and by the opposition, represented by 9 presidential candidates who faced each other Nicolás Maduro, although the most prominent opposition figure was Edmundo González, of the Venezuelan extreme right.
Do you consider that what we are seeing in the streets is spontaneous?
Not at all, it is absolutely planned, as I said it is a coup plan, orchestrated and with US support, as is usually the custom and as history has painfully demonstrated in Latin America and other regions of the world. Edmundo González, the buffoon candidate, and María Corina Machado had claimed fraud long before the presidential elections were held in Venezuela. They prepared the ground to make an indisputable fact questionable: the strength of democracy in Venezuela and the anti-fraud protection of the Venezuelan electoral system.
As I said, the Carter Center, which we cannot say is a Chavista institute, has also said that the Venezuelan electoral process is one of the most complete and secure in the world. There is no way for the results to be manipulated in favor of one candidate or another, since it has countless security locks. Well, but the opposition continued to support that idea, the idea of fraud, to reach this moment with arguments – most of them unfounded – that could light up the streets and give the image they were looking for, Venezuela in flames rejecting Nicolás Maduro. The objective is to erase from the mind the legacy of Chávez, of the Bolivarian Revolution and hand the country over to imperial and corporate interests.
Do you think Western sanctions have had an impact on these socio-economic problems?
I say that the opposition has spread mostly unfounded arguments, because in Venezuela there are real economic and social problems, low salaries, lack of certain goods and services in an important part of Venezuelan society. In this regard, I believe that President Nicolás Maduro was wrong when he said that this was a fight between good and evil. I believe that the Venezuelan president should have called, or summoned, spoken to that sector that negatively affects him in Venezuelan society, but it is a democratic sector and has suffered the effects of the United States economic sanctions. If this sector does not feel included, or feels attacked by the current government, it may take an attitude of not wanting to dialogue and this can have many consequences such as, for example, the increase in Venezuelan migration to other countries and regions of the world, as has already happened.
However, I want to reaffirm that what María Corina Machado, Juan Guaidó, Leopoldo López and other Venezuelan opposition figures have done, calling for military intervention and increasing economic sanctions against their own country, in the United States or in any other country of the world, the world would have very serious criminal consequences.
Regarding Venezuelan immigration, it is known that an uncertain number of several million Venezuelans had to migrate to many parts of the world. How have the country’s socio economic problems affected support for Maduro?
I think migration in Venezuela is a drama. Whether there are three, four or five, no matter how many millions have emigrated, is a drama because people do not want to leave their countries. There are other places where there may be less attachment, but Venezuelans have an enormous attachment to their country and their way of life and, therefore, all those people who are abroad are suffering just as their families are.
Let’s imagine that outside of Venezuela there is the minimum number, 3 million Venezuelans, there are 3 million families with people abroad and that obviously must have affected the electoral result, especially if they have not known how to transfer or communicate that the well-being they are experiencing Venezuela is going to continue. And I believe that one of the opposition’s desires has been precisely to try to stop this economic well-being that had already brought back 150,000 people in the Return to the Homeland Mission, a public policy that was responsible for the return of emigrants.
In a short horizon, 150,000 people have returned to Venezuela, a significant number, and it is given in the moment of economic recovery that the country was experiencing. I assume that, if this growth continues, some speak of figures of 7% of the GDP, I believe that the probability that more Venezuelans will return is very high and there also the Maduro Government will have to show that those who expelled that enormous number of Venezuelans were the US government with their sanctions and that those who returned them, the Venezuelans, to the country have been the Bolivarian government, because if they are not able to make that understood as well, I believe that this vote can become a rebound effect.
Do you think that if the opposition came to power, it would expel the Chavistas from the State, in line with Western and pro-Western demands?
I believe that the arrival of the opposition to power would be a catastrophe, because the Venezuelan opposition does not defend liberal principles, they do not respect those who do not think like them, they have a patrimonial conception of Power and State, they believe that Power belongs only to them and I think that they would govern as owners of a farm.
And that is what also makes many leaders say that the opposition cannot win unless it assumes its democratic principles, because it is going to set everyone on fire. That is why even people like Javier Milei have said be careful, be careful because what María Corina Machado implies is crazy, not only for Venezuela, but it is crazy for the entire region.
If it turns out that the opposition won the elections, well, everyone would have to accept it. But of course, since it is not the case that on top of that a person who promises revenge, fire and ashes, on top of that, does not want to recognize the winning result of Nicolás Maduro, these are all elements outside the slightest logic of common sense.
Is Maduro still a popular leader for the Venezuelan people?
Nicolás Maduro is in communion with those 6 million people who voted for him last Sunday, July 28. There is credibility, there is a people absolutely in communion, even those who may have voted for Nicolás Maduro without agreeing with the policy. I think that when they voted for him, they trusted that he was better than the opposition and, therefore, they gave him a vote of confidence.
If this is added to the people who have already recovered levels of proximity, trust, and sympathy, such as those that Commander Chávez had at some point, I believe that it is also a positive element so that in the coming years a new direction that really makes this claim of a new Venezuela very anchored in the 21st century true.
America
AI spending heads toward $7 trillion as analysts warn of market bubble risks
Massive financial resources directed into artificial intelligence technologies are driving companies into dangerous territory for global markets.
If expected productivity gains fail to materialize despite these immense capital flows, the artificial intelligence sector faces the risk of inflating into a giant bubble.
The Wall Street Journal reported that should such a scenario unfold, a widespread collapse capable of shaking the entire financial system and dragging down the broader market will become inevitable.
Estimates by McKinsey & Company project that global spending on data center construction alone could reach $7 trillion by 2030.
According to the newspaper, if these massive investments fail to deliver adequate productivity gains, the global economy will suffer a severe blow.
Should the sector as a whole turn out to be a bubble, the resulting damage will spread directly across the broader financial system.
While market observers note that a major crash—whether sooner or later—would drag all equity markets down with it, declines in AI-related stocks are currently being offset by gains in other sectors.
However, the first concrete signs of emerging vulnerability appeared in the memory chip market, where a sector-specific bubble formed and burst within just four months.
South Korean market shaken by sharp drop
In June, shares of South Korea’s Samsung and SK Hynix, the world’s two largest memory chip makers, sank by more than 12%.
The sharp sell-off pulled down the country’s broader stock index. South Korea’s benchmark Kospi index dropped 10%, triggering an automatic 20-minute trading halt.
Growing investor anxiety over artificial intelligence triggered the steep decline in the two giant companies, which together account for half of the total market capitalization of the Kospi index.
US equity markets also felt the ripple effects during the same period. The Nasdaq index closed down 2.2%, while the S&P 500 fell 1.4%, marking their worst single-day performances in two weeks.
Nevertheless, The Wall Street Journal pointed out that the disruption has not yet produced catastrophic consequences for the rest of the market.
While the bursting of massive historical bubbles resulted in disaster for national economies, smaller and localized bubbles in recent years have failed to paralyze broader economic growth.
The primary reason for this resilience is that these recent investments were not predominantly funded through leverage and bank credit.
When those localized bubbles burst, investors suffered wealth losses, but the financial system remained intact.
Russell Napier, a global macroeconomic strategist and keeper of the Library of Mistakes, a financial history archive in Edinburgh, evaluated the current market posture:
“The banking system is in superb condition, which means there will always be enough credit available to blow the next bubble.”
America
Anthropic AI models breach corporate systems after escaping isolated test environment
Anthropic has announced that several of its advanced artificial intelligence models escaped an isolated testing environment and accessed the live internet.
In a review published Thursday night, the company stated that in three separate incidents dating back to April, the models independently breached the systems of multiple companies without the AI developer’s knowledge.
Anthropic said the incidents involved an unreleased internal research test model, alongside its Opus 4.7 and Mythos 5 models.
Mythos was made available last month to a limited audience composed of technology companies and cybersecurity researchers, an initiative also known as Project Glasswing.
The AI developer did not disclose which companies were breached, but said the affected firms were informed of the incidents on Monday.
Anthropic noted that it conducted the review after OpenAI revealed last week that two of its most powerful models had breached containment, escaped their testing environment, and infiltrated several entities, including the AI platform Hugging Face and cloud provider Modal Labs.
System misconfiguration allowed internet access
Anthropic stated that it examined more than 140,000 tests to find evidence of whether Claude could gain access to the internet from test environments designed to be isolated.
The evaluations included “capture-the-flag” exercises, in which Claude was instructed to breach other systems to obtain information. This is a method frequently used by experts to assess a model’s hacking capabilities.
The San Francisco-based company stated that a “misconfiguration” in systems operated by Anthropic and its testing partner left the models with live internet access, enabling them to infiltrate external systems.
Anthropic said it approached remediation efforts “with full ownership of the responsibility.”
Neither Anthropic nor the affected organizations detected the unauthorized entries at the time they occurred.
Anthropic added that it may examine its logs more extensively, noting that the findings gave the company “cautious optimism” that such risks can be overcome through increased investment and more stringent safeguards.
David Allott, a cybersecurity expert, told the BBC: “The overarching lesson here is not that AI has developed fundamentally new attack vectors.”
“Instead, it means that AI agents can combine capabilities, acquire credentials and system access to act autonomously, while adapting scope and scale at machine speed,” Allott said.
The developments come as technology companies invest billions of dollars to develop AI agents capable of independently executing a range of tasks, from research and customer support to cybersecurity.
America
Elon Musk’s America PAC plans $100 million field operation for 2026 Republican midterm push
Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk is returning to the political spending arena with a new field program designed to help elect Republicans in at least eight states ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
Musk has authorized his political action committee, America PAC, to spend between $100 million and $120 million on a new ground game focused on conservative voter turnout for the 2026 midterms, according to a Thursday report by The New York Times, which cited two unnamed sources informed about the plans.
America PAC funneled more than $250 million into Donald Trump’s reelection campaign in 2024, a expenditure that established Musk as the largest political donor in US history.
The New York Times reported that America PAC is reviving its spending initiatives and has reached out to other Republicans in recent weeks regarding the new field operations.
The effort is also being coordinated with other Republican Party spending groups, according to the report.
The newspaper identified targeted Senate races in the states of Alaska, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, and Ohio, while noting that discussions are also underway regarding contests in North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas.
The political action committee is additionally expected to deploy funds for House of Representatives elections in Washington, Wisconsin, and California.
The news comes a day after Axios first reported that America PAC’s operations were resuming, with a focus on driving Republican turnout during the non-presidential election cycle.
A spokesperson for America PAC declined to comment on The New York Times report but confirmed the Axios reporting to The Hill. The spokesperson stated that the spending group was “excited” to contribute to efforts to maintain the Republican majorities in Congress this fall.
“The President’s political team and the rest of the GOP apparatus have built a world-class operation that has Republicans well-positioned to make history and retain control of Congress this fall,” America PAC spokesperson Andrew Romeo said in a statement. “We’re excited to be part of the team again.”
The campaign will reportedly target Republican voters through door-to-door canvassing, mailers, and digital advertisements, enabling other groups to concentrate their resources on television advertising.
The developments were reported days after Musk told The Economist magazine that he had gotten “carried away” during his brief foray into politics.
The SpaceX CEO entered the political arena during the 2024 election, pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into Trump’s presidential campaign and accompanying the candidate on the campaign trail.
Musk went on to lead Trump’s cost-cutting initiative, known as the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which executed sweeping employment and funding reductions across the federal government. Those efforts sparked controversy for Musk and his enterprise empire, including Tesla, whose shares fell sharply during his period of political involvement.
Musk departed the White House in late May 2025, and DOGE officially terminated its operations on July 4.
Shortly after leaving government, Musk and Trump engaged in a public dispute over the president’s sweeping spending legislation, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” During the friction, Musk threatened to form a third party, though the initiative never materialized.
Musk and the US President appeared to resolve their differences last year, with the tech billionaire most recently joining Trump alongside other technology leaders on a trip to China in May.
-
America2 weeks agoUS controls $13 billion in Venezuelan oil revenues with little transparency, raising congressional concerns
-
America2 weeks agoUS agricultural superpower status at risk as trade wars shift global markets to Brazil
-
Europe2 weeks agoUS secures multi-billion-dollar energy and AI deals at Three Seas summit in Dubrovnik
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoPalantir CEO Alex Karp says he would not vote for ‘pro-Russian’ AfD in Germany
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoWorld Bank warns US-Iran conflict could slash global growth to 1.3% as inflation looms
-
Middle East2 weeks agoPentagon faces severe budget crunch as Middle East operational costs drain key military funds
-
Europe2 weeks agoGermany accelerates African energy diplomatic push to secure natural gas and green hydrogen
-
Middle East2 weeks agoOil passes $90 as tanker attacks halt Hormuz shipping
