At my direction, the United States Southern Command delivered a swift and lethal kinetic strike to successfully execute Niño Guerrero, the infamous leader of Tren De Aragua, one of the most bloodthirsty Terrorist Organizations on Planet Earth. Before I returned to office, Joe Biden opened our Southern Border to millions of Illegal Criminals, and allowed this foreign army to rape, maim, and murder American Citizens with total impunity. During my Campaign, I pledged to expel these monsters from our Country, and bring Justice to the families of those they slaughtered, including the precious 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray, 22-year-old Laken Reilly, and countless other beautiful souls. With this action, the United States Military has brought retribution for them, their families, and their loved ones. Early in my Administration, I delivered on my promise to designate Tren de Aragua as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, deport thousands of evil criminals, and wage war against the Cartels, who have long been waging war against our Citizens, while weak leaders left America helpless and defensive. This action was coordinated closely with our friends in Venezuela, with whom we are working very well.

Several things are coming together here: the changes in Venezuela, and the designating of Tren de Aragua as a terrorist organization. Venezuela was active in this operation:

The strike happened earlier this week alongside Venezuelan security forces, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Friday.

He did not give a specific date, but said the strike targeted a compound housing Tren founder and leader Hector Rusthenford Guerrero Flores, known as Niño Guerrero. …

“We extend our gratitude to the Venezuelan security forces for their support to the successful joint operation against a Tren de Aragua compound that resulted in the death of the narco-terrorist organization’s leader,” said Gen. Francis L. Donovan, head of US Southern Command.

“Guerrero was a wanted fugitive charged by the U.S. Department of Justice with ordering, directing, and facilitating acts of terrorism and violence in the United States,” he said.

So much has been going on lately that it’s easy to forget the developments in Venezuela that began with the arrest of Maduro.

The post The leader of Tren de Aragua is no more appeared first on The New Neo.

No one will come away unmoved by the book, and no one will be able to put it down. … There is no way of reading Alive without a heightened sense of one’s own life and its value.

The book is not only an extraordinary survival saga, but it has tremendously moving stories involving family, friendship, love, and sacrifice. It is a sort of reverse Lord of the Flies, where the cooperation among the survivors was extremely impressive, and it also contained deeply spiritual and religious elements despite its horrors.

Over the years I’ve read other books on the subject, including several written by the survivors. I’ve watched several documentaries as well. In 1993 an American movie came out on the subject, and although I was looking forward to it immensely I was sharply disappointed. It just didn’t ring true, plus it left out or truncated very important parts of the story, in particular involving the astounding trek by two of the young men who survived the initial crash.

So when I heard recently that there was a newer movie, made in 2023 in the Spanish language, and using previously-unknown Uruguayan and Argentinian actors, I was extremely eager to see it. I had to wait till I was in a certain mood, because the story is a grueling one even to watch, and from the trailer I could see it was very realistically as well as poetically done:

And so I watched the film, and I have mixed feelings about it. I would recommend it, although you need to be prepared for a harrowing journey. Compared to the previous movie it’s better. But compared to the book it simply doesn’t work for me. That surprised me, and I’ve been pondering why I found it ultimately very inferior to the book that some of the survivors thought was already inadequate.

For one thing, I think a book has the ability to give so much more background on the entire situation and the people in it, which deepens the story and its significance. Just to take one example, in the book you learn a great deal about a woman who was one of the initial survivors, Liliana Methol. But in the film she’s almost an afterthought and somewhat of a cipher. There just isn’t enough time to render each person in his or her fullness.

Plus, there are an enormous number of characters, and the actors (who look a great deal like the real life people they are representing) somewhat resemble each other, especially as the movie goes on and many become bearded and all become thinner (the actors were forced to lose weight as the film went on, for the sake of realism). It wasn’t that easy to tell them apart, and I knew a great deal about the characters already.

Films with big casts need to pay particular attention to this potential problem. I think that, for example, The Great Escape (a film favorite of mine although of a very different type), which also had a very big cast, dealt with the numbers more successfully because the protagonists were from different countries, and there were many stars in the cast and that helped the viewers remember who’s who. That movie was also about a half hour longer than Society of the Snow, and although both movies are long they both move along quite quickly because there’s so much to tell. But The Great Escape has more time in which to tell it.

In the book Alive, there’s a great deal of emphasis also on the stories of the families searching for their lost relatives; many did not give up hope, and their tales are especially moving and make the eventual reunions even more poignant and deeply felt. There was virtually none of that in the movie; you merely see reunions with parents and girlfriends which are generic because we don’t have much of the backstory.

There are many exchanges and scenes in the book that seem naturally cinematic, and some are left out of the movie. I don’t know why; it wouldn’t take much to have included them. Instead, there are repetitive scenes of the suffering endured by the survivors and their decline – as well as a tremendous emphasis on the most sensationalistic part of their story, the fact that in order to survive they very reluctantly decided they must eat the bodies of those who had died (and the living made a pact to allow the others to eat them if they died before rescue came), Any movie about this incident must deal with that fact, but I think that after a while this particular movie could have left out some of the redundancy and gone for some more of the background stories.

Most of all, I was surprised that the movie seemed to leave out or gloss over one of the most salient characteristics of the group, which is that they were Catholics and mostly believers, and that their specifically Catholic beliefs helped them endure. That is, many of them explicitly likened their eating the flesh of their dead companions to the Eucharist, although they were well aware of the differences. Instead, in the movie there was a vaguer spirituality that was emphasized. Even the part where, after the survivors returned to civilization and priests told them they would not be condemned by the Church for what they did in extremis – that entire aspect was left out. Instead, there was an almost-throwaway scene in a church at the beginning of the film, with a priest talking about the Host while some of the young men pass notes among them. Unless you already know the plot, you could easily miss its significance.

This omission and de-emphasis seems to me to be a deliberate lessening of the religious message and slant of the entire event, a trend toward the universal rather than the specific. But the specific can have a universal message, and I felt the omission keenly although I’m neither Catholic nor Christian.

The movie caused me to get out my old copy of Alive and start re-reading it. In the introduction, the author writes:

When I returned in October 1973 to show [the survivors] the manuscript of this book, some of them were disappointed by my presentation of their story. They felt that the faith and friendship which inspired them in the cordillera do not emerge from these pages. It was never my intention to underestimate these qualities, but perhaps it would be beyond the skill of any writer to express their own appreciation of what they lived through.

I think that’s an honest assessment; it’s an impossible task. Nevertheless I think that Piers Paul Read came as close to accomplishing it as anyone could. For me, he certainly came closer than any movie could.

The post I watched the movie “Society of the Snow,” about the 1972 Andes plane crash and survival appeared first on The New Neo.

Will authorities in Chicago finally turn him over to the feds? Not yet – plus this:

The illegal migrant accused of executing a Chicago college student in cold blood last week failed to show up for a Monday hearing because he is being hospitalized for a rare contagious disease.

Jose Medina-Medina, a 25-year-old Venezuelan national, was not at the hearing because he requires treatment for tuberculosis, the Chicago Tribune reported.

He’s quite the poster child for “illegal aliens are our strength.”

I also wondered why the article said TB is “rare.” It’s certainly not common in the US but I wouldn’t call it rare. And, as one might expect, see this from October 2024:

Unfortunately, after decades of decline, TB is beginning to resurface in the United States. In fact, cases of TB have grown significantly in recent years. The number of TB cases in the U.S. has increased 34 percent between 2020 and 2023. The number of TB cases is now higher than pre-pandemic levels (2019).

– Nationally, 76 percent of TB cases in 2023 occurred in foreign-born patients.
– Counties, states and metropolitan areas with high foreign-born populations have higher TB rates than those with lower foreign-born populations.
– Some countries of origin for both legal and illegal aliens have TB rates as high as 60 times the U.S. rate.
– The government’s health screening for TB in potential immigrants is deficient; some categories of aliens do not undergo health screening at all.
– Latent TB is not grounds for inadmissibility, even though the progression of latent TB accounts for over 80 percent of active TB cases in the U.S.
– Some U.S. border counties have TB rates exceeding rates in high-risk countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon.
– The cost of treating each case of TB is over $20,000, and can reach over $500,000 if the case is extensively drug-resistant.

How is the New York Times covering the story?Seems to be a version of “Republicans pounce”:

Loyola University Chicago was shaken last week when someone shot and killed one of its students, Sheridan Gorman, as she walked with friends near Lake Michigan.

For days, the police said little about what happened, only that “an unknown male offender” had approached the group at about 1:30 a.m. on Thursday, displayed a gun and fired in their direction. Ms. Gorman, 18, who was recalled by friends as generous and fun, was killed.

As Ms. Gorman’s family and friends grieved, her death was thrust into the nation’s contentious immigration debate on Sunday when the Trump administration said that a man arrested in connection with the killing was from Venezuela and in the United States illegally.

The subtitle of the article is: “Sheridan Gorman, 18, was killed last week near Loyola University Chicago. The Trump administration has sought to highlight crimes committed by undocumented people in its deportation campaign.”

And what on earth is this?:

… Chicago Alderwoman Maria Hadden suggested Gorman and her friends may have unintentionally startled the armed suspect.

“The kids were out doing normal things people do in the neighborhood,” Hadden told Fox 32. “They may have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, running into a person who had a gun.”

“They might have unintentionally startled this person at the end of the pier,” she added. “We don’t believe there is cause for broader community concern.”

No, nothing to worry about.

The post Another illegal alien is arrested for murder appeared first on The New Neo.

After 9/11, we realized that some people in far-off places wished to hurt us very badly and had actually done so. The rationale for invading Afghanistan was not the Taliban themselves, although they were theocratic tyrants. It was that they harbored al Qaeda and would not surrender them. We invaded but failed to get Bin Laden for a long time, and somehow the mission turned into regime change. However, attempting regime change made sense in at least one way: without getting rid of the Taliban government, wouldn’t the same thing just repeat itself?

Afghanistan proved very resistant to fundamental change. One big reason was cultural, although it wasn’t the only reason. To effect that sort of change was probably impossible, and it was certainly impossible without an enormous and long expenditure of time, money, and troops. We finally gave up, in particularly ignominious and costly fashion under Biden (or his controllers).

Iraq was somewhat different. There was a strongman tyrant who seemed to be developing nuclear weapons in defiance of an agreement for inspections post-Gulf War. It apparently was a pretense of Saddam Hussein’s, although we have argued about what the US knew and didn’t know in the leadup to the war. The Iraqi people were more sophisticated than those in Afghanistan (a low bar) and some pundits in the US argued that there was more appetite for democracy there and that it would be successful and Iraq would become an ally. Again, we can argue – and we certainly have – about to what extent the war had achieved at least some elements of success before Obama’s pull out, but I don’t think we would disagree about the fact that it left the vast majority of Americans on both sides with a strong aversion to wars with “boot on the ground” in order to effect regime change.

Which brings us to Venezuela, Cuba, and Iran. And Trump.

Trump had criticized the Iraq War greatly. So far, he seems to have approached things differently. He determined that Venezuela not only was headed by a tyrant, but by one that hadn’t been properly elected, and – this point is key – the regime was a sort of linchpin in a current axis of evil.

Trump’s approach to Venezuela was and is creative; I don’t need to describe it here except to say it involved a single audacious raid which brought Maduro here to stand trial, and a way to make his successor dance to our tune, for now. The plan is also to institute fair elections that will lead to better things for the people there, but for now that’s not happening. It has led, however, to a domino effect that has effected the energy supply of other problematic countries.

In Cuba, nothing new seems to have been done except the disruption of Venezuelan oil shipments, but this may be having the desired effect on the rulers of a country that was already having severe economic problems:

Cuban President Miguel Di?az-Canel on March 13 confirmed his government is holding talks with the Trump administration, in the latest sign that the communist-run nation is open to signing a possible historic economic deal with the United States.

Di?az-Canel made the announcement in a video broadcast on national television and he also spoke in a subsequent press conference, where he addressed Cuba’s energy needs amid a U.S. oil blockade, saying no fuel has entered Cuba in three months. He said the talks with the U.S. have reached initial phases only.

Iran is very different. The mullahs have been at war with us for 47 years and shout “Death to America!” and “Death to Israel!” It’s an enormous country under the rule of clerics who believe it’s their duty to start an Armageddon that will end with their triumph over the Muslim world and ultimately the rest of the world, and the coming of the Mahdi (I wrote about this belief system in this post). They are deadly serious about this.

Trump has decided they were too close to obtaining weapons that could further hurt Israel, Europe, and the US, and that something had to be done about this. He worked alongside Israel to degrade some of Iran’s nuclear capabilities and air defense system last summer, but some capacity remained and the mullahs got right back on that nuclear/ballistic horse. Negotiations to change this situation failed completely when the mullahs made it clear they would abandon none of their goals.

And so the joint US/Israel air campaign began. A huge number of Iran’s regime leaders have been killed – with no US boots on the ground – but there are others willing, for now, to take their place. Trump says their weapons, launchers, and nuclear capacity have been further degraded. We could declare victory and leave – except for the regime change question. If the mullahs stay in place, the Iranian people will continue to suffer, but the leaders will also set about trying to re-arm. Again and again, like some Terminator horror movie. It will take longer than before, and they are weaker and poorer than before. But their belief system does not allow them to be practical and give up.

Is regime change therefore necessary? Is it possible? What would effect it? I’m not going to tackle that in this post, which is already long enough. But I think everyone agrees that if it could happen and something better were in place, it would be a good thing.

Another thing on which we can probably agree is that Iran is a big country with a somewhat decentralized system of tyranny in which the IRGC and the Basij (their enforcers) are the main mechanism by which the crackdown on the Iranian people is accomplished. These two entities must be defanged, and at the moment there are many reports that a program of drone attacks is starting to do that. I hope they’re true, because this is of the utmost importance in further weakening the regime:

WILD: The predicted “future” came within 24 hours. This is Israeli Air Force footage of drones and jets blowing up Basij checkpoints all around Tehran today, based on tips called in by Iranian citizens. A revolution with air support against a regime with no air defence. https://t.co/SZNn3mseMU pic.twitter.com/JRvRNUWZQP

— Saul Sadka (@Saul_Sadka) March 13, 2026

The post Regime change maybe appeared first on The New Neo.

They’re also very surprised, because they had written him off as a lightweight and even a betrayer. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump gave him a name – “Little Marco” – that seemed to sum this up. And Chris Christie mocked him for repeating himself in one of the Republican debates.

But the worm sometimes turns. Somewhere along the line, Trump decided that Little Marco was big enough to become his Secretary of State, and now he praises him to the skies. Those who think Trump never abandons a grudge forget things like this. Then again, maybe Trump never disliked Rubio at all and the name-calling was just his usual tactic of insulting his rivals.

Now we’re hearing there’s a chance that the Cuban Communist regime will fall soon. Wouldn’t it be extraordinary if a man of Cuban heritage, whose parents hated Communism, would hold the post of Secretary of State when the end of the regime came?

NOTE: Over the years, I’ve spent a lot of verbiage here defending Rubio. In this 2015 post I highlighted some suggestions for how he should deal with his earlier stance on amnesty, and in two long post I analyzed what happened in that awful exchange with Christie during the debates. Those posts are this one and especially this one. That latter post might even help you in arguments you have in your own life; it contains some information about the art of arguing.

The post Rubio: old and new appeared first on The New Neo.

There’s Venezuela:

The United States and Venezuela agreed to reestablish diplomatic relations, two months after President Trump launched a military operation that resulted in the capture of the country’s president and U.S. control of its oil industry.

The State Department said Thursday the agreement with Venezuela’s interim authorities is an effort to “promote stability, support economic recovery, and advance political reconciliation in Venezuela.”

The government of Venezuela’s interim President Delcy Rodríguez said in a statement that the repaired relations “will contribute to strengthening understanding and opening opportunities for a positive and mutually beneficial relationship.”

“These relations ought to result in the social and economic happiness of the Venezuelan people,” she said.

Maduro had cut off ties during Trump’s previous presidency, in 2019.

The State Department said in its statement that the restoration of diplomatic ties is focused on helping the Venezuelan people move through a “phased process” that leads to a peaceful transition to a democratically elected government.

Rodríguez has been recognized for taking proactive steps to anticipate U.S. democratic demands, including passing legislation to release political prisoners.

Moving right along.

It seems that the capture of Maduro was the first move in an elaborate geopolitical chess game. Iran is another, and there is a connection. The connections involve China as well:

In quick succession, US President Donald Trump has taken out two of Beijing’s closest allies: Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. …

China has long been Iran’s most important source of diplomatic and economic support. In addition to purchasing the bulk of Iran’s oil exports, Beijing has denounced what it calls “unilateral” US sanctions imposed on Iran, and supported Tehran’s insistence that its nuclear program is peaceful.

In recent years, China has elevated Iran’s global standing by bringing it into Beijing-backed groupings such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, widening Tehran’s diplomatic space at a time of Western isolation.

Chinese firms have also supplied chemicals used in Iran’s missile program and helped build out its domestic surveillance infrastructure, CNN has reported. Beijing maintains that its trade with Iran complies with international law.

But China has consistently steered clear of direct involvement in its partners’ conflicts, showing little appetite for wading into Middle Eastern security matters beyond protecting its own assets.

China says sorry, Iran, it’s been nice knowing you.

NOTE: Since it’s all somewhat related, I may as well put this here: the Senate voted down a bill to demand the cessation of operations against Iran. From Jonathan Turley:

The Senate rejected the war powers resolution to force the U.S. to cease operations in Iran in the middle of active combat. Only one Democrat, Sen. Fetterman, voted against the resolution despite some of these same senators supporting Obama in unilateral attacks on Libya…

…In the end, the Kaine resolution succeeded in having the opposite effect of voting against limiting the prosecution of the war. The Senate has now been consulted and voted against limits…

…Notably, the resolution was more feckless given the exception for “imminent threats.” With full combat operations on both sides, all threats are now imminent and all attacks responsive. …

..What is interesting is that, ever after the Senate was notified, consulted, and voted, Democrats are still calling the war “illegal.”

The post Venezuela update appeared first on The New Neo.

I also watched some of the halftime “entertainment,” curious about Bad Bunny. I didn’t expect to like it, and I didn’t – it’s very rare for me to like current popular (?) music. But the degree of tuneless awfulness of this particular selection was nevertheless surprising.

As for the Spanish – I can understand a fair amount of Spanish, but this sounded garbled. Turns out that was a plus, because apparently the lyrics often went like this (a sample) when translated:

Hell, what safaera
You have a f**king amazing a*s
Anything that gets you breaking the highway
Move it, move it, move it, move it

More translations can be found here, if you care to see them. Let’s just say that the one I offered above is the mildest by far. I didn’t check to see if they’re authentic – but if they are, ugh.

Bad Bunny is from Puerto Rico and his other theme is that “America” means not the US but the two continents, north and south. Apparently the NFL is trying to reach out to Latin American audiences, and Bad Bunny is very popular in that neck of the woods, whereas football (American style) is not. Thus, the Bad Bunny halftime.

The post The not-so-Super-bowl appeared first on The New Neo.

The rightwing populist Laura Fernández has won Costa Rica’s presidential election in a landslide after promising to crack down on rising violence linked to the cocaine trade.

Fernández’s nearest rival, centre-right economist Álvaro Ramos, conceded defeat as results showed the ruling party far exceeding the threshold of 40% needed to avoid a runoff.

The link is to the leftist Guardian, so it’s hard to know exactly what they mean by “rightwing populist” (Trumpish?) and “centre-right” (Romneyish?). But clearly, Costa Ricans want someone on the right rather than the left. Has the country ever had a leftist government? Yes, and it turned to the right only in 2022. But this recent election is a continuation of that trend.

Fernandez’s inspiration is Bukele of of El Salvador:

The country of 5.2 million people, famous for its white-sand beaches, has long been seen as an oasis of stability and democracy in Central America. But in recent years, it has gone from transit point to logistics hub in the global drug trade.

Drug trafficking by Mexican and Colombian cartels has seeped into local communities, fuelling turf wars that have caused the murder rate to jump 50% in the past six years, to 17 per 100,000 inhabitants.

Fernández cites the iron-fisted Salvadoran president Nayib Bukele, who has locked up thousands of suspected gang members without charge, as an inspiration on how to tackle crime. Bukele was the first foreign leader to congratulate her.

Fernández’s win confirms a rightward lurch in Latin America, where conservatives have ridden anger towards corruption and crime to win power in Chile, Bolivia, Argentina and Honduras.

In Argentina at least, it was also economics.

Compare and contrast to this news in the US:

The January New York Times/Siena College poll found that only 32 percent of registered voters believed the country was better off than when Trump returned to office. 49 percent said it was worse. Trump’s approval rating stood at 40 percent, disapproval at 56 percent, and a majority of respondents, 55-42 percent, described his first year as unsuccessful.

These figures were released just days after the White House’s “365 Wins in 365 Days” announcement. They reveal a populace largely unmoved by achievements that objectively transformed policy, economy, and security.

Skepticism of this polling is not misplaced. The New York Times has long demonstrated a pattern of framing narratives through a left-leaning lens. It often underreports Republican accomplishments while amplifying Democratic perspectives. Trump condemned the poll as “fake” and “fraudulent,” denouncing it on Truth Social as a rigged effort to undermine his agenda. He promised to incorporate it into a multibillion-dollar defamation suit against the Times.

It may not be totally accurate, but I don’t think it’s fake. I think it represents something real; some sort of backlash. Look at the results of a recent Fox News poll:

A new Fox News survey, released Thursday, finds the Republican Party is seen as better able to handle border security (by 15 points), national security (+12), and immigration (+5).

The Democratic Party is favored on transgender issues (by 22 points), healthcare (+21), vaccines (+16), helping the middle class (+14), and affordability (+14).

And on three issues where Republicans have recently held the edge, now neither party has shown a clear preference: taxes (+1D), foreign policy (even), and the federal budget deficit (+2R). …

The survey shows if the election were today, 52% of voters would back the Democratic candidate in their House district and 46% the Republican. That’s a 6-point edge, which is right at the poll’s margin of sampling error.

The current 52% Democratic support is the highest recorded for either party; the previous high was 50% for the Democrats in October 2017.

Do people have such short memories of what Democrats do when in office? Do voters require that the current administration fix everything or they turn on it and turn to the opposition, no matter what the record is of the latter? Is it perhaps the dying off of older voters and the ascendance of young voters steeped in leftism?

It was “affordability” that got Mamdani elected. And special elections are not going well for the GOP; for example, this just happened:

Democratic Texas Senate candidate Taylor Rehmet defeated Republican Leigh Wambsganss, who President Donald Trump endorsed, 57.21% to 42.79% in the runoff election for the District 9 seat. …

Trump won District 9 by 17 percentage points in 2024. It encompasses Tarrant County and parts of Fort Worth and Arlington.

What gives? I quote two comments to that LI post:

I live in TX Senate 9 district and consider this a major upset. Rehmet aligns 90% with Jasmine Crockett’s positions. His (incessant) mailers seemed all warm and fuzzy, but his positions on his website are pure leftist dogma. Early voting was hampered by the storm last week, but that’s no excuse. We need a nationwide message on the positive economy now through November.

I, too live in this district. The WSJ has a column today about how this vote was all about immigration enforcement. I disagree. I have several friends that typically vote Republican withhold their votes because the disliked the candidate. This was a runoff election and there were two Republican candidates that split the vote. Don’t let the press confuse or discourage you.

Those two GOP candidates ran in November, however. I think that commenter is saying that, because there were two, the worse GOP candidate ended up being the person who ran against Rehmet. But the final result wasn’t even close; you can read more about it here.

I can’t find statistics on turnout, but my guess is that it was fairly low. At any rate, both candidates will be running against each other again in November.

The post Right and left, left and right: in Costa Rica and in the US appeared first on The New Neo.

And here is some truly fascinating background from a Venezuelan with an improbable name:

The post The plan for Venezuela appeared first on The New Neo.

… EurAsia Times, an Indian publication that is no friend of Trump, reported, “Boasting one of the strongest militaries in Latin America, Venezuela possessed a variety of advanced radars, including the [Chinese-made] JY-27, whose capabilities have now been called into question by observers.

“These radars were integrated into Venezuela’s air defense network alongside Russian systems like the S-300VM surface-to-air missiles, forming a layered defense around key sites, including Caracas.”

America stuffed both systems.

The publication said, “Designed to detect low-observable aircraft like the US F-22 and F-35 by operating at meter-wave frequencies that, in theory, exploit resonance effects on stealth designs, the JY-27 has been marketed by Beijing as an anti-stealth or stealth hunter radar.”

The only person in their showroom now is Wile E. Coyote.

I haven’t a clue how this was done. But it seems that neither Russia nor China have a clue either, which is more important.

More:

Zona Militar said, “From a military standpoint, analysts agree that the outcome cannot be explained by the failure of a single system, but rather by the inability of a Chinese-designed command-and-control framework to operate under intense interference and multidomain attacks. The U.S. operation exposed the limitations of these architectures when confronted by forces capable of integrating intelligence, electronic warfare, combat aviation, and special operations within a single operational cycle, confirming that superiority lies not solely in hardware, but in the coherence and resilience of the system as a whole.”

In other words, a lot of things must have been operating to make this occur.

It also seems that something similar happened during the Israeli and US attacks on Iran last summer.

The post The Russians and Chinese can’t be all that happy about the performance of their defense systems in Venezuela appeared first on The New Neo.