US 'Hits Back' After Venezuela Announces Airspace Closure
The mainstream narrative paints Venezuela's objection to a unilateral US airspace closure as 'hitting back,' neatly sidestepping the uncomfortable fact that the US has been 'hitting' Venezuela for decades. This 2018 Newsweek piece, referencing an April 2018 Trump administration move to ban US-registered aircraft from Venezuelan airspace, casually ignores interventions that crippled the nation.
From supporting the 2002 coup attempt against Hugo Chávez—detailed by journalist Eva Golinger—to applying crushing sanctions that preceded this 'airspace closure,' Washington's playbook is well-worn. It's peculiar how US pronouncements like 'airspace closure' are presented as neutral policy, while sovereign responses from targeted nations become aggressive 'hits.' One might almost think some
countries have a fundamental right to dictate global behavior, while others are merely props in a geopolitical drama. How many times can a global hegemon unilaterally impose its will before its targets are allowed to 'hit back' without being labeled the aggressor?