The Western media acts as a PR wing for the Pentagon, turning sovereign nations into crime scenes
When the Trump administration’s attorney general, William Barr, announced a “bounty” of $15 million in March 2020 on Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, the presentation felt less like a diplomatic maneuver and more like a casting call for a low-budget spaghetti Western. The entire show – replete with the cinematic gravitas of a sheriff pinning a “Wanted” poster to a saloon door – was a masterclass in American kitsch. We were told this was about “narcoterrorism” and “fentanyl-laced cocaine,” a convenient script that rebranded a sovereign head of state as a common cartel boss – a low life criminal.
For those of us who lived through the 2011 NATO invasion of Libya, the performance was painfully familiar. I remember when the same ink was used to blot out Muammar Gaddafi’s legal status, transforming a recognized leader into a “legitimate target” overnight.
Now, as then, the Western media dutifully swapped the word “abduction” for “capture” to describe the military raid in Caracas. We are witnessing the revival of a dangerous playbook: one where semantic engineering does the heavy lifting for illegal regime change, and international law is treated as a mere suggestion in the pursuit of oil and optics.
This rebranding, part of the same official Western propaganda by top Western media outlets, looks like a calculated act of “perception management” designed not only to bypass the messy hurdles of international law but also to brainwash the public.
By replacing the word “abduction” (which identifies the illegal seizure of a sovereign leader) with the sanitized term “capture,” the Western media effectively serves as a PR wing for the White House. To “capture” serves as a legal arrest; to “abduct” a president from his capital is a violation of the very sovereignty the UN Charter was built to protect.
I saw this same alchemy in March, 2011, when Barack Obama declared that Gaddafi is no longer has “the legitimacy to lead,” thereby deleting the very personality of the Libyan state. Fifteen years later, in Caracas, the script is being rehearsed with the same terrifying precision: an invasion is presented not as such, but as a surgical “extraction” to bring an “outlaw” to justice, once again proving that in the eyes of the West, legitimacy is a gift they grant or revoke at will.
The transition from diplomacy to aggression requires a specific kind of psychological preparation: the “cartelization” of the state. Before a single boot hits the ground, the target government must be stripped of its political identity and reframed as a criminal enterprise. In the lead-up to the Caracas raid, the world watched as Venezuela was no longer described as a nation in crisis – a crisis which is largely the product of suffocating American sanctions designed to make the economy scream – but as a “mafia state” run by a “narco-dictator.” It is a tactical stripping of legal protection.
When the media adopts this “narco” narrative, they are telling the public that international laws regarding sovereignty no longer apply, because you cannot “invade” a cartel – you only “bust” it. Again, the 2011 Libyan script provides the blueprint. I recall how the media abruptly pivoted from covering Libya’s complex internal politics to characterizing the entire state apparatus as nothing more than Gaddafi’s personal “hit squad.” By invoking the idea of responsibility to protect (R2P), the signal to Libyans was that the West was doing them a favor. And again, the Western media followed obediently by framing the state as a criminal gang, effectively moralized military aggression, presenting a massive breach of international norms as a simple, moral “police action.”
The spectacle reached a satirical peak in August 2025 when Attorney General Pam Bondi increased the bounty to a staggering $50 million, a figure so cartoonish it felt like a leftover prop from a first-term fever dream. In presenting the “Wanted” posters, she did so with the flair of a casino host rather than the chief law enforcement officer, rebranding a head of state as a common fugitive to justify a “capture” that was, in reality, a blatant high-tech abduction.
To understand why “capture” is such a potent weapon, one must look at the media’s systematic stripping of a state’s legal personality. Months before the January 3 kidnapping, the Western press didn’t just report on Venezuela but performed a collective exorcism of its status as a sovereign nation. Every headline served to move Maduro from the category of “political adversary” to “transnational criminal.”
And this is the “disposability script” I recognize so well from 2011. Before the first NATO sorties over Tripoli, the media had already finished the job of hollowing out the Libyan state. They only talked about civil war in the context of removing a dictator killing civilians to stay in power presenting regime change in a softer tone.
In the case of Venezuela, the titan of the so-called free press, the BBC, went as far as ordering its staff not to use words such as kidnapping/abduction. When the media collectively decides that a government is no longer a government but a “criminal enterprise,” they are essentially granting the aggressor, the Pentagon, a blank check. This creates a vacuum where the UN Charter is treated as an outdated relic. By the time the $50 million bounty was announced, the media had already successfully convinced the public that Venezuela, just like Libya years earlier, was no longer a country but a crime scene waiting for a detective.
Ultimately, the Western media’s most dangerous achievement is the normalization of “judicial interventionism” as a substitute for diplomacy. By framing the January 3 raid as an “arrest” rather than an act of war, the press allows for a total bypass of the UN Security Council. This is the final stage of the Libyan ghost: the transmutation of a sovereign leader into a fugitive. When the media uses the language of the courtroom – indictments, bounties, and “extradition” – to describe the mechanized extraction, or elimination, of a head of state, they are effectively declaring that the era of Westphalian sovereignty is over. In 2011, it was R2P that served as the linguistic Trojan horse; today, it is narco-terrorism. In both cases, the result is the same: the domestic laws of a superpower are projected onto the globe, turning the world into a jurisdiction where only one side holds the gavel, and the media serves as the bailiff.
This systematic hollowing out of statehood is a process perfectly achieved, where the hollowed-out remains are dually handed over to the UN to manage. While this stage has not yet fully arrived in Venezuela, it was the ordained fate for Libya from the very beginning.
Today, the UN mission in Tripoli is left attempting to mend a catastrophe authored by Western hegemonic powers led by the US. Over the last fifteen years, only failure has accumulated. Libya is now difficult to describe as a functioning state, let alone one capable of providing for its citizens. In the Western press, it is conveniently reduced to a “failed state” – portrayed as an open market for weaponry, a threat to its neighbors, and, above all, a conduit for the “floods” of illegal migrants heading toward Europe.
On the ground, the reality is even grimmer: a country that was united before the R2P fiasco is now so deeply fractured that it faces the threat of internal disintegration into multiple micro-states. While weaponizing R2P may not have been the chosen tool for Venezuela as it was for Libya, the endgame is identical. It signals that once a state’s internal legal personality is sufficiently eroded, it invites ultimate external erasure. If the world continues to accept this “disposability script” – where sovereignty is a matter of media framing and international law is merely a weapon for the strong – then Venezuela’s and Libya’s current constitutional limbo is not a transition toward democracy. It is a slide into a permanent “grey zone” where the UN Charter is dead, and only the bounty hunters remain.