Trump's war in Venezuela? Or something?
Sinking of "narcoterrorist" ships, staging of large amounts of naval asset and news of covert operations inside Venezuela are signs of Washington playing it's games in America's back yard again. What makes this ominous is the resignation of key military commanders, starting from the SOUTHCOM head, admiral Alvin Holsey, who was basically responsible for this playground in the world for the US armed forces. Military commanders can either follow the orders from the political leadership or resign, so when they start resigning, it tells something.
Yet this is the Trump presidency, which makes it quite hard to estimate just what is comes out of this? Will the "Department of War" live up to it's name or will this fade later into the background, just as with invading Greenland, Panama or Canada happened? Likely US territory won't be enlarge by pieces of Venezuela, but the question is just to what level will this conflict develop. Will it be:
a) The same as now, sinking of "narcoterrorist" vessels and few clandestine operations.
b) Surgical strikes and then a declaration that Maduro isn't a threat anymore. (Like bombing of Iran)
c) Overthrow of the regime... somehow.
d) a longer and wider war
First of all, Trump doesn't create alliances or set any real international agenda for other countries to follow. His approach in Latin America is more like "bully everyone", which actually only makes the US weaker in it's own continent in the long run. But things like that Trump doesn't care shit about. For Trump's own base, that works, because they either don't care a shit about relations with Latin America. When some leader of a Latin American country say or does something that Trump doesn't like, his first reaction is to have punitary tariffs on the country and stop any aid to the country. This basically is a recipe for making Latin American countries to feel like Canada when it comes to the US. Then there's the short attention span of the senile President. Trump lives off from being in the media and in the center stage of everything, which naturally changes a lot. There is no long term plan followed faithfully from one year to the next.
The US has enjoyed the Superpower status basically because it's alliances and good relations with other countries, a thing that the average Trump supporter is totally ignorant of, because the populist line is that everyone has unfairly benefited from this. This isn't so. A case example are the US-Columbian relations. The US systematically helped the country to fight the drug cartels of the country and also helped to deal with the leftist insurgency threat. Columbia ought to thus in good terms with the US, but not so in the Trump era.
Perhaps the only bright light here is that at least Guyana, which likely will avoid any hostility from Venezuela at this stage now. A small fact, which just tells how hideous the Maduro regime actually is.
But what do you think what will happen?
Yet this is the Trump presidency, which makes it quite hard to estimate just what is comes out of this? Will the "Department of War" live up to it's name or will this fade later into the background, just as with invading Greenland, Panama or Canada happened? Likely US territory won't be enlarge by pieces of Venezuela, but the question is just to what level will this conflict develop. Will it be:
a) The same as now, sinking of "narcoterrorist" vessels and few clandestine operations.
b) Surgical strikes and then a declaration that Maduro isn't a threat anymore. (Like bombing of Iran)
c) Overthrow of the regime... somehow.
d) a longer and wider war
First of all, Trump doesn't create alliances or set any real international agenda for other countries to follow. His approach in Latin America is more like "bully everyone", which actually only makes the US weaker in it's own continent in the long run. But things like that Trump doesn't care shit about. For Trump's own base, that works, because they either don't care a shit about relations with Latin America. When some leader of a Latin American country say or does something that Trump doesn't like, his first reaction is to have punitary tariffs on the country and stop any aid to the country. This basically is a recipe for making Latin American countries to feel like Canada when it comes to the US. Then there's the short attention span of the senile President. Trump lives off from being in the media and in the center stage of everything, which naturally changes a lot. There is no long term plan followed faithfully from one year to the next.
The US has enjoyed the Superpower status basically because it's alliances and good relations with other countries, a thing that the average Trump supporter is totally ignorant of, because the populist line is that everyone has unfairly benefited from this. This isn't so. A case example are the US-Columbian relations. The US systematically helped the country to fight the drug cartels of the country and also helped to deal with the leftist insurgency threat. Columbia ought to thus in good terms with the US, but not so in the Trump era.
Perhaps the only bright light here is that at least Guyana, which likely will avoid any hostility from Venezuela at this stage now. A small fact, which just tells how hideous the Maduro regime actually is.
But what do you think what will happen?
Comments (172)
A conviction for smuggling drugs does not produce a death sentence in the USA.
Quoting ssu
Since the leader of Venezuela has been designated a narco-terrorist, I think that goal is clear. But viewing poor drug runners as dispensable pawns, for the purpose of inciting conflict, is pathetic.
Trump doesn't care if the reasons are pathetic, which they are. As a populist he doesn't care. Everything opposing his actions is just basically "liberals whining" for him.
Trump only wants regime change because Maduro is a “leftist”. If he were on the right, Trump would be inviting him to have tea at the White House.
Quite fitting to the moment:
I live quite close to all of this and we are to a certain degree involved with the drug runners. Honduras' governments have long been accused of aiding the drug lords of south American countries. One such president is currently a guest of the federal penitentiary service in the USA. Sinking a few of these boats is not going to make that much of a difference. Cars, trucks, shipping containers, drones and even horses carry more than a few boats could ever move.
Personally, I would have thought that trump, being such a good business man, would know about the rules of supply and demand, The only reason drug lords exist is because there are drug users.
Would it not be better to go after the users within their own borders than to be picking fights with foreign countries?
Trump uses drug trafficking as a reason to declare "national emergency". This declaration gives the government the power to avoid congress. He used fentanyl smuggling from Canada (estimated less than .01% of American fentanyl comes from Canada) as his excuse to declare a national emergency, allowing him the power required to impose tariffs on Canada.
Yet here does lie a major problem: just what is the military objective here? Just how is it thought to be reached? If one assumes that with naval and air power regime change would be obtained, then that objective is very optimistic indeed. Likely any airstrikes will just reinforce the support of the regime. It's not at all obvious that even killing Maduro that the regime would collapse. What about the opposition? Basically I've noticed nothing done in that sector and when Trump is already hinting the willingness to have talks with Maduro, that willingness totally undermines the support for the opposition. And anyway, many of those people against the Maduro regime have already left the country.
Hence this is more like a show of gun diplomacy and if then some strike is implemented, the result will be similar as when attacking Iran. Trump will just declare that the strikes have been successful and the Maduro regime will continue just like the Iranian regime continued on. Any contrary finding will dealt with firings, so the success of a military strike is as obvious as that there is absolutely no inflation in the US under Trump now. :wink:
It's possible that Trump is trying to pressure Maduro into negotiations, like he does with the tariffs. The bully tactic he's known for. I think he actually likes Maduro, and wants to force him into alliance, or more likely allegiance.
And failed miserable in his attempt to make a profit. But how do you think he is going to win anything when the tariffs he has against Venezuela, and the countries that import oil from there, have been in place for a while now and nothing has changed.
trump is just digging holes all over the place to shit in, but then he will come back and put his foot in the hole.
Probably he's after oil. He seems to be extraordinarily obsessed with keeping the price of fuel in the US low. I think he believes this will guarantee him the title of best president ever. The fuel in Venezuela could be the cheapest in the world.
Always a possibility I suppose, but I don't think that will work out for him. I would need a full scale invasion and take over of the country, not just removing the president. To just set up a puppet leader in the country in hopes of getting favorable prices would probable start a civil war. Not everyone is against Maduro, but those that are will want a lot from trump to stop the drug trade. It is too important to a lot of peoples economic stability.
I don't think Trump gives a flying fuck about stopping the drug trade. He just uses it as leverage. You know, he'll keep up the attack, rationalizing it as being an attack on the drug trade, even threatening to take Maduro out if necessary, until he gets what he really wants from Maduro, in negotiations. That's the way he works, through bullying.
Everyone knows that, why he is doing it though is another question.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
That is one possible reason for doing it. But, just maybe he learned something from the Romans, keep the people happy and distracted with the circus. He does have a lot to cover up and he definitely needs the sheeple distracted from his future plans.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yep, but not everyone fears him, in these parts he his seen as a bit of a clown. A clown with a big stick, but still a clown. And we still have to see how far he is going to be able to push the good people of the USA. He might just start a rebellion at home.
The Romans? When can we have them over to the White House?
Quoting Sir2u
That's the thing. You can only push so far.
There is already a contingent of their ideological brothers there. Their motto is "Keep the people busy watching the side shows and they will not notice you using the powers of state to increase your personal fortunes.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
And I don't think he is that capable. He couldn't push back against Putin with the whole world in his favor so I doubt that he will get far without international backing against Venezuela.
Jesus Christ.
The level of omniscience people in the Lounge have, specifically about Trump makes me laugh a little less haughtily at TDS.
I think that's what the lounge is for, a place to put to use our omniscience. That practice can be called omnipotence.
What does TDS stand for, Testosterone Deficiency Syndrome?
Actually Maduro would be totally open for talks.
But here I think you have to notice that Venezuela is here on a totally different position than let's say the threat posed by Trump to Denmark (with Greenland) or Panama. Covert operations are already underway.
Perhaps Maduro should just try to attempt to bribe Trump. Give that Trump presidential library some oil wealth.
Seriously, the Swiss got their tariffs lowered by giving Trump lavish gifts including a beautiful gold bar. So some small percentage of that oil wealth and then just wait a couple years that Trump isn't in power so you can tell it was a joke. After all, how long did Putin and the Russians have Trump oogling for them for a possible hotel build in Moscow? And we all remember how enthusiastic Trump became, when Ukrainians offered mineral rights to him.
Yeah, I think Trump really likes gifts, it makes him feel special. Qatar gifted him a 747.
Ditto, what he said. :lol:
No, that’s omnimpotence.
Sure, but @AmadeusD just laughs at this very serious problem.
Go ahead, laughing is good. You know, when Trump first jumped in, to run for president 10 years ago, we thought it was such a big joke, and laughed so hard.
I think laughing is still good.
A workmate's husband is from Venezuela, so I've heard all about Chavez and so forth. Apparently, conditions there are horrific. That's all I know about it. :grin:
Oh cool. So you know it turned into a kleptocracy, and now it's in failed state territory. Do you know why the US is involved now? I haven't even looked. :cool:
The socialist aspects limiting pricing and profits can't have helped. The autocracies can't have helped either - i imagine people are collapsing as a population under the tension between humanity and their leaders for the last 30 years aside from over 90% of the country living in poverty.
I imagine hte US is there because of the strange alliances between Venezuela and Russia, China and Iran over the years. Not to mention drug trafficking, likely a result of intense corruption. I can see why the US is there, or trying to, at least, enforce democratic practices.
I think US policy toward South America is to keep it from developing into rival status, so they undermine whatever they can, then when all hell breaks loose, they're like "Why can't you guys manage your affairs correctly?"
Trump wants more oil.
I doubt it.
You don't recognize how Trump is obsessed with oil? "Drill, baby, drill." And, "We will export American energy all over the world." In Trump's mind, oil and power are equivalent. That's why he's mad at Europeans who buy Russian oil.
Yea, but if he wanted oil from Venezuela, Trump would just publicly put a gun to Maduro's head and say "Give me a bunch of oil."
I think it's actually about drugs, and I suspect the agenda is coming from Vance. Time will tell which of us is right.
Two men, two goals, same means, kill two birds with one stone.
It's happened though. What they used to do was loan money to developing nations and when they couldn't pay it back, the US would go in and re-organize their economies. The result was increased economic stratification. It was basically neoliberalism. What's odd is that the US backed Chavez and he was a socialist. The US claimed it was opposed to unconstitutional transitions of power, but that is utter BS. Chavez must have been easier to deal with than his opponent.
.........................................what....................................
They decidedly did not back Chavez at any time that I am even vaguely aware of, including his initial campaign, and supporting his ousting in 2002, becoming more hostile on his return two days later.
But the US warned Chavez about the 2002 coup. Isn't that support?
This is a bit confusing and I would agree with @AmadeusD that this isn't support, actually.
It's basically window dressing and an attempt to avoid criticism from other Latin American countries that the Bush administration got for recognizing the Carmona government when ultimately the coup attempt failed (as the Presidential Guard then saved Chavez and he regained power).
A failed coup attempt with angry Latin American countries isn't something the US wants to be attached to anyway. But this I wouldn't call support of the Chavez regime.
The Chavez/Maduro regime has been on the naughty list for a long while and Chavez himself accused, naturally (what else would a genuine populist do), many times of the US being behind every opposition action against his regime there has been in Venezuela.
Check this:
President Donald Trump said Friday that he will be pardoning former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez, who in 2024 was convicted for drug trafficking and weapons charges and sentenced to 45 years in prison.
The ordinary issue would be now to attack Venezuelan air defenses and command centers. That would be the "conventional" way to attack a country (like in case of Libya/Serbia/Iraq/ran etc.
Now if it's really some drug labs ...some huts in middle of the jungle, then it's really peculiar, a real world "Clear and present"-movie. However, announcing the closure of Venezuelan aerospace hints that the US is anticipating going head to head against the Venezuelan air defenses.
Perhaps the Colombian president says what's the reality:
Minerals makes sense. Not oil.
Actually trade makes far more sense that 19th Century imperialism.
Just look at Iraq. You would assume that because the US invaded the country, installed a government, that US Oil Companies would dominate the country. Well, even if they indeed are there, they hardly can be said to be dominating the place.
Largest oil fields where foreign companies are partnering to drill oil in Iraq :
1. Rumaila BP UK
2. Rumaila CNPC China
3. West Qurna Field Phase 1 Exxon US
4. West Qurna Field Phase 1 Shell UK
5. West Qurna Field Phase 2 Lukoil Russia
6. Majnoon Shell UK
7. Majnoon Petronas Malaysia
8. Zubair ENI Italy
9. Zubair Occidental US
10. Zubair KPRRM UK
So in the largest ten oilfields by production, there's TWO US oil companies. In the next ten oil fields, all are non-US companies.
Hence the idea of of going into a country and de facto colonizing it simply doesn't happen anymore. It's a hugely naive and delusional idea.
What has Trump here actually done? He has rattled his sabre and intervened on the sea. Then he has asked Maduro to leave the country. Maduro didn't budge. So, that's it. What then?
Occupying a large country that has 30 million people is a huge task, which doesn't make any sense.
Mexico:
Brazil:
Colombia:
Naturally Trump doesn't care at all of the neighboring countries or diplomacy. Building up any coalition to support US military actions is not his thing. Or seeking support or even listening the international organizations, which he hates with all of his guts.
And then there are very telling actions, for example what the UK intelligence services have done.
And it seems it isn't just the UK:
All this shows that if (when) US takes military action, Trump's own "special military operation", the response will be cool. Perhaps Bukele of El Salvador and Hungary's Victor Orban will cheer for Trump.
Seizing of oil tankers:
And likely Susy really tells the ugly truth here:
And I think that this is the brainfart that Trump is now following. He just assumes that if he blows up boats and seizes oil tankers that Maduro will cave in and flee to Cuba (or something similar).
Why on Earth would Maduro this?
This shows how absolutely incompetent this administration is. It worse as Trump has now around him Yes-men that will do anything he wants, unlike in the first administration when there were "adults in the room". The only thing that Trump can reach is the destruction of US image and standing in the World. Something that Putin will love to see.
I'm not sure how to get it across to you that Americans in general do not care what the US looks like to the rest of the world. At all. Nada.
[sup]— Caliber · Dec 19, 2025[/sup]
Iran-related Designations; International Criminal Court-related Designations; Russia-related Designations Removals; Foreign Sanctions Evaders Determination Removal; Issuance of Iran-related and International Criminal Court-related General Licenses
[sup]— U.S. Department of the Treasury · Dec 18, 2025[/sup]
Meanwhile, the Kremlin is helping Maduro.
Then again, Trump is a clown and his entourage a circus.
What's the deal with Trump and Putin anyway? It's come up before. I don't buy Manchurian Candidate type theories myself. But something is going on, even if it's something like Trump having a personal obsession with Putin.
Part of America does get it. And they aren't happy about it. But as long as the economy doesn't tank, the Trumpsters will follow their leader into everything. A war Venezuela? Bring it on! Kash Patel informing us that Epstein never trafficked minors? Must be true then...
Quoting Punshhh
Never underestimate the power of denial. They'll simply deny it to happen. It's all fake news!
And the Americans already have their antidote for everything: Any criticism towards Trump is simply "Trump Derangement Syndrome".
How does killing low level drug runners have any effect on Maduro at all, other than pissing him off? Does Trump believe that if Maduro gets thoroughly pissed off, that might influence him to make a fatal mistake?
Trump and Maduro had actually before talks about Maduro leaving. Maduro made demands on in what situation he indeed would be leave. Trump didn't accept these. If Maduro cannot save face and resign and leave his own country yet leave his country intact (which would make him a hero in the eyes of his supporters), then likely he will be there until the bitter end.
This isn't a person that like the former Afghan president who was picked because he had a stellar academic career in the US (and just happened to had been born in Afghanistan).
What can actually happen is what already happened with Iran. The US makes a strike against Venezuela basically destroying it's Air Defences and then Trump declares a victory! And anybody in the US government who even thinks to doubt this let alone comment about it publicly will be fired.
And Maduro can simply continue in power (or the Bolivarian revolutionaries, if Trump is so lucky that he get's Maduro killed), and then blame everything on the US and claim that the opposition are just stooges of the murderous Americans.
And Latin American relations are extremely strained, especially when it comes to Trump.
Remember still this?
This might be one outcome. If Trump doesn't sail his armada to the waters Greenland, if the Epstein scandal heatens still up.
I'd say the situation is a lot more complicated than that.
If Maduro didn't go voluntarily, then we'll get the Delta Force -movie very quickly. (Which is nice, Navy Seals started to be annoying in the media after the killing OBL. Last time Delta did something so spectacular, it ended in a spectacular disaster in Iran (yet we got a Chuck Norris / Lee Marvin movie anyway).
But to the real issues. What now? Nation building? Unlikely, as this has been still just a military strike. Leave it as a failed state or what? Hope that something good comes out of this?
Actually the best thing would be for Trump just to declare victory and go home. Leave it to be a successful military decapitation strike. He likely won't win anything else better now, as taking the oil fields of Venezuela would mean a real invasion, which is a bad thing to attempt.
But if he stays in Venezuela, hope that all the Maga-people remember Trump's wars about ending the forever-wars and other bullshit from Donald.
Chaos? Civil war?
Must be nice to live in such a delusional world.
I'm sure they are. Things were dire in Venezuela.
We should all be glad Maduro is gone. Now onto the democratic transition of power — Maduro did not represent the people of Venezuela.
I'm hearing reports that the US blew up Chavez's body, but this could be false.
Quoting RogueAI
Trump in his media conference said that he (and the US) haven't been in touch with her and Trump didn't see her be fit to rule the country. So Machado it's not going to be. Trump said that the US will now rule Venezuela. Rubio seems to have had a long conversation with the Maduro-regime vice president, but Trump was quick to point out that she was part of the Maduro regime.
That would be the feat, if somehow now the US could install Maria Machado to be the President. Unlike in Panama, the US doesn't control the ground in Venezuela. At least the defense minister of Venezuela was quite adamant in the opposition towards the US.
From the military viewpoint, it might seem as a cakewalk: US transport helicopters (Chinooks etc.) and AH-1 attack helicopters roaming over Caracas obviously shows that the Venezuelan air defenses were not alert at all and didn't put up a real fight. Why would the US get such total surprise is beyond me.
One commentator said it quite well, if people will come to celebrate the overthrow of Maduro in the opposition held places, that is telling. If they don't show up and it's just the regime crowd, that is also very telling. Now, naturally those Venezuelans in exile are jubilant, but the real issue what happens inside the country.
Quoting RogueAI
Depends on the change that actually Trump has in mind for Venezuela and it's people.
Quoting RogueAI
Yes, but Venezuela is politically polarized even more than the US. Millions of those that have opposed the Maduro regime have fled the country. Has work been done with these people?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Who wouldn't be. Do notice that here even on the PF there's not been support for Maduro. I remember that some PF members were supportive of Hugo Chavez in the early years, but that's it.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
And how is that going to happen? And even if Maduro obviously didn't represent all the people of Venezuela, we'll soon find out just how many he did represent.
But anyway, Trump is really now in the "nation building" business, even if he denies it. But "running the country" is exactly that.Trump has declared that now the US will be leading the country, so the idea that this would have been just an operation to get Maduro isn't so as the objective is to get the Venezuelan oil fields (something that Trump spoke extensively about).
So Trump isn't now going to be attached to Venezuela. Is this the new Afghanistan for Trump, we will find out. And just like with Afghanistan, the real quagmire can be evident to everybody only after years from now. Perhaps like in Afghanistan or Iraq, now the Trump White House will pick the most friendly (read most willing to give wealth to Trump) Venezuelan to rule the country.
He's not "in Venezuela" right now, he's only kidnapped Venezuela's president which is now being run by the Venezuelan vice-president.
So unclear at the moment what the plan actually is to run Venezuela.
Presumably they cut a deal with Venezuela's vice-president to capitulate to all demands, as that would make sense, but definitely things do not need to make any sense.
Well, Trump did say just a while ago that they will run Venezuela.
Quoting boethius
Just what this "deal" will be isn't so easy.
Now it's possible that he will act similarly as after the Iran strikes, but what we heard from him, this seems to be not the case.
Trump says a lot of things.
Quoting ssu
If it exists. US has, so far, effectively carried out a coup to put the VP in power, but it's presented as having won the war. If they already have a deal with the VP for total capitulation then maybe they have won the war.
Quoting ssu
Well he also claimed to have won that war too, destroyed all the nuclear material, so definitely possible he just keeps claiming to have won even though the government in Venezuela doesn't change.
We'll have to just wait and see what this plan actually is, but the Venezuelan VP simply getting on television to show continuity and ask for proof of life of Maduro, not announce capitulation, certainly gives no strong indication of anything at the moment.
I'm sure you would agree that this administration is capable of acting without any clear long term plan. If they can capture Maduro then they would perceive that as an end in and of itself.
Plan to run Venezuela as Trump claims he will, is what we're talking about.
That this may not be a sensible plan to actually run Venezuela (as you allude maybe the case) is that US blew up fishing boats and then stole oil tankers for a couple of months, US generals, officials, Trump himself, have no hesitation to say they are after the oil. So all that's not going to help bolster the pro-US faction within Venezuela.
Not just capable, but simply acts without any clear long term plan. Or then "the plan" is illogical mixture of right-wing ideology and increasing Trump's personal wealth without any thought on the long term effects.
Trump didn't do this for fighting the war on drugs or to restore democracy in Venezuela. If either was the truly the agenda, then Trump simply wouldn't have talked so much about "running Venezuela" and having the Venezuelan Oil for US companies. Venezuela nationalized it's oil in 1975/76, so that was far earlier than the Maduro regime and then the US oil companies were compensated for their loss. When Trump talks about taking back the oil, he really means it.
Trump truly says what he is thinking. No amount of Marco Rubio ,or someone else, trying to make it the issue being about something else matters. And the response from the Democrats has been very condemning.
Quoting RogueAI
Yep. Do notice the irony when Trump says that this won't cost anything to the US because Venezuela has oil. Yes, indeed the same line was given when Bush invaded Iraq.
Yet note that actually after this decapitation strike, the US doesn't now have boots on the ground (other than CIA and special forces, I guess). And how far will 15 000 troops go with occupying a country of 28 million people? 2003 invasion of Iraq was done with 130 000 US troops, which then had to be grown to 160 000 troops. By comparison Bosnia needed a stabilization force of 60 000 for a country of 3,5 million, which actually worked well and the country could be pacified.
So just how the Trump team will "run Venezuela" is to be seen.
There’s a plan in place to carve the world up into three superpowers.
In George Orwell’s 1984, the author envisaged such a world run by Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia. What we find in the story:
Officially the three superpowers were permanently at war, with all three constantly forming new alliances, and breaking them, and changing sides. But in reality, as Big Brother’s representative O’Brien finally explains to Winston Smith, the ostensible war was a sham. Each and all the superpowers’ leaders were interested only in power and in personal aggrandisement; and they perceived, as despots have done throughout all history, that the easy the way to keep their own unruly populations in check was to be at war, or to be seen to be at war, so that the people felt obliged to unite against a common enemy.
How prescient was Orwell in describing our modern-day reality, where these three powers – Trump’s USA, Putin’s Russia, and Xi Jinping’s China – vie for power?
Will they work together to divide the world up into three spheres of power and influence – three sections of colonies controlled by the three super-powers?
What does Trump mean in invoking the Monroe Doctrine as a “Trump Corollary” in a pledge of “potent restoration of American power and priorities” to the Western hemisphere?
What does he mean when he says, “We’re going to run the place.”
Trump has stated that he wants to take over Canada and Greenland. Now, he’s got Venezuela. Who is next? Should Carney shut off the geolocation on his phone?
According to one analysis:
Trump appears unperturbed by stronger Chinese and Russian spheres of influence – as long as he has a domain to match Xi Jinping’s and Vladimir Putin’s.
Does Trump want the entire Western hemisphere?
And now, Trump’s support of Putin and Russia is starting to make more sense.
Trump would give Ukraine to Putin, and in return Putin would give Venezuela to Trump.
Venezuela is Russia's most important trading and military ally in Latin America. Russia recognized Nicolás Maduro as the president of Venezuela
This was a case of “You keep out of my face, I’ll keep out of yours.”
Putin gets his prize in Europe, and Trump gets trillions of dollars in oil.
You think it is a coincidence that Trump sent warships into the Caribbean one day after his meeting with Putin in Anchorage?
According to the Congressional testimony in 2019 of Fiona Hill, this kind of deal was on the table during the first Trump Administration
https://i.postimg.cc/hG078Z7y/Fiona-Hill.jpg
No. This is actually a plan to get rid of the US from being the sole Superpower. And Trump is eager to carry out his role, if he gets the billions he wants.
First of all, Russia isn't a superpower and China won't ever overtake the US, even if it came very close to overtaking it, thanks for mainland China not being Taiwan (in which case China would have already taken over the role of the US) and thanks for China being run by Marxist-Leninists who think they've used enough capitalism and now can go back to communism. And also by the "one child" policy now creating a huge decrease in the Chinese population. So actually, there was only one Superpower. Hence when you say that there are three Superpowers, you have already swallowed the Kremlin/Beijing rhetoric. Where does this defeatism come from?
Here is the perennial misunderstanding just why the US has the position it's enjoys today (which is obvious with this White House).
First and foremost, the US never started building a sphere of influence where it dominates others by the threat of violence and by a policy of divide et impera. Subject countries can understand when they are ruled by Divide et impera, and won't be enthusiastic about it.
The US chose a totally different way.
It formed an international system where it provided security especially on the global sea trade routes and in containing the other Superpower, the Soviet Union. The "International Order", that Trump sees now as the enemy for the US, was the way that the US created it's own "sphere of influence", which was voluntary and very beneficial to it's members, the allies of the US. It formed treaty alliances, of which NATO was successful and SEATO and CENTO were not. (Btw Peter Zeihan has talked extensively about this.)
Unlike the Warsaw Pact, NATO forces have never occupied a member state that was on "the verge of being disloyal" to the US. Yet the Warsaw Pact did this police action for the Soviet Union in 1956 and especially in 1968, which was the greatest military success, a successful "special military operation", that the Soviet Union ever had. Russia tried to copy the successful "Operation Danube" in Chechnya and in Ukraine and failed on both occasions to achieve a result as in Czechoslovakia in 1968. NATO has been a treaty alliance where states have voluntarily joined to, which is something that the Pro-Kremlin speakers ardently want to deny. The member states have truly built their defense on a common defense that is NATO. This is totally different from the Warsaw Pact and also from the failed organizations of CENTO and SEATO. Yet with Trump, the future of NATO is in question.
Now the enemies of the US are gleeing in delight on what is happening to the US with Trump. The US is shedding the system that earlier generations have worked for this system. That the Kremlin rejoices the US National Security Strategy should tell this to the astute observer. That the US hasn't created any alliances when confronting the Maduro regime (or should one talk now of the Bolivarian regime) tells just how clueless the White House is now. Trump is threatening the president of Columbia and the response of Brazil (and Mexico) to the strikes in Venezuela leave no doubt how Latin America is seeing this.
Hence the Folk is correct. :wink:
It's about the US doing the things the US has always done: carrying out a ruthless foreign policy that is aimed at controlling as much of the world as Uncle Sam can possibly get its greasy hands on. This goes way beyond the charade of US party politics. There has never been a marked deviation from this course under any president in post-WW2 history.
Trump is the smokescreen and the lightning rod, providing the US with the 'madman Trump'-card to play, plausible deniability, strategic ambiguity, strategic flexibility, etc.
What is happening is that we are moving into fundamentally different geopolitical times, so why Trump?
Trump's purpose is to disguise that very fact - to disguise the fact that the US no longer runs the world, and is required to make all sorts of unpopular moves to prepare itself for a renewed era of great power struggle.
It's an easy sell; the US threatens to annex Greenland, shamelessly enacts regime change in Venezuela, etc. - why?
Why, because madman Trump, of course!
And most definitely not because the US is sensing it is starting to lose control, and feels the need to rapidly consolidate what it has considered its part of the globe to rule for hundreds of years as per the Monroe doctrine.
Nothing to see here folks, just madman Trump! When Trump leaves office, it'll be business as usual, because this isn't how the US operates (except, it definitely fucking is).
If it all goes to shit, the US will pretend it was all just an unfortunate anomaly under Trump. The next president will be ready to herd all of its estranged 'allies' back into the fold like nothing ever happened.
There’s plenty of differences. The propaganda under a democratic administration would be much nicer.
But given Trump’s hold on his party and his history of completely ignoring good advice— or advisors generally— he does bear responsibility here. More so than Biden would have.
Whose plan is it?
The way I understand it, Putin, Xi JInping and Trump are in a quid pro quo threesome, each concerned with their own imperialist goals.
Trump is certainly in it for the money, but I think he wants to expand US power, not eliminate it.
Quoting ssu
No, they won't be taking over one another, but leaving one another to their own sphere of influence.
Currently, it's Trump gets Venezuela, Putin gets Ukraine, and Xi gets Taiwan.
Quoting ssu
I concede that maybe I shouldn't have used the world "superpower" to describe Russia. Maybe "power at play" would have been more accurate.
There doesn't seem to be any plan for exactly how they are going to "run" Venezuela. Apparently, there is no plan to install the rightfully-elected. So, we'll have to wait and see how much the current power vacuum destabilizes the country.
It seems the only plan is "get the oil."
I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with your general point, certainly not myself.
The focus on Trump is in trying to make sense of what exactly the US is trying to do here.
As has just pointed out, and has been widely reported based on Trump's own words (which again, maybe entirely meaningless), the current "plan" to run Venezuela is work with the Vice President, Delcy Rodríguez, in a pretty standard constitutional process due to the absence of the president.
As far as any reporting I've seen, Delcy Rodríguez is a consistent, long-time and close ally to Maduro as well as the military, so does not seem to even represent a different faction in which it was necessary to compromise and share power.
Of course the overall gist of what's happening and the reasons is exactly what you say, but it's also a new thing of just helicoptering in and "arresting" (... with the FBI?!?) a sitting President of a sovereign nation on New York conspiracy charges?!?!
Unclear, therefore, how it plays out. Apparently there will now be elections.
Another wider geopolitical-energy consideration to complement your point of view, is that it is very likely that the US will now peak again in oil production, aka. all liquids production. The lightening of US oil production crude with fracking and friends was already a problem but if the US also peaks again, likely actually terminally this time that is of additional strategic significance.
Obviously "securing" Venezuelan oil would mitigate oil decline in the US, especially vis-a-vis pulling back from the middle-east and Saudi Arabia and co. asserting more independence such as selling oil in other currencies.
This however creates a dilemma that simply invading Venezuela maybe both incredibly unpopular and result in an endless insurgency and little oil producing.
What we are seeing therefore maybe a middle of the road deal with the current regime of "solving" the sanctions problem by arresting Maduro and blaming everything on him, while maintaining political stability. US oil companies faced with declining US oil production would then be free to invest and ramp up Venezuelan production. If Venezuela does have the largest reserves in the world (reserve numbers can be pretty made up, so I'd need to hear it from an actual geologist), presumably it can be ramped up pretty high.
"Art of the deal" ... and also distracting from Epstein files.
To break the Atlantic tie between the US and Europe, just as to hinder the European Union has been a plan of Russia for a long time. So the Russians are quite honest when they say that Trump's plan matches their plans. This is a dream come true for the Kremlin.
Perhaps it's just the absolute idiocy of Trump that he indeed wants to divide the World when there wasn't any need for division. Just as he thinks the EU was made to fuck the US, not an European response to two devastating World Wars.
Quoting Questioner
Whose power play is this?
Putin, Xi Jinping, Trump
The day after USA took Venezuela, this is what Trump said to Fox news -
"We have to do it again. We can do it again, too. Nobody can stop us. There's nobody that has the capability that we have."
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DTF5r13EXTR/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==
There seems to be an odd mindset - the belief that somehow the way to change Venezuelan policy is by kidnapping the guy at the top - as if he acted alone.
That's the illusion of every autocrat: "I alone make things happen". It ain't so.
The Venezuela government has said it will not comply.
So what now - kidnap the next leader? And the next?
Stupidity on a grand level.
Governance and policy are inconveniences, minor details, (as are people affected) that Trump is not interested in. At home, he leaves that stuff to Vought, Miller and Hegseth. (And they, in their self-serving ways, feed Trump's delusions that he is indeed the god of it all.) The only thing that concerns Trump is how he is going to get his cut of the pie.
Again, his response to a problem is achieving the exact opposite of the desired outcome.
What a fool.
Yep.
My guess is that he has them lined up already, since he has stated an agreement publicly.
But your point is taken - it will be quite the unstable set of circumstances.
:grin: I doubt there was such forethought... and the recent news indicates otherwise. Hitting someone generally results in their getting their back up, rather than their becoming more cooperative.
Edit: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-01-05/nicolas-maduro-allies-take-power-in-venezuela/106198570
From an article linked to the one you linked -
[i]"But the assumption that forcefully overthrowing the current government will lead to a smooth transition to democracy is dangerous," he said.
"Venezuela is full of armed groups that would resist the regime's collapse and undermine any effort to restore the rule of law. Generals currently loyal to Maduro might install an even more repressive leader.
"Without a viable strategy for what comes after the government falls, ousting Maduro could lead to even greater repression and hardship for Venezuelans."[/i]
I'm not a fraidy-cat person, but I fear for the precarious position the world is currently in.
Gangsters are in charge.
I'm Canadian, and though it would shock me it would not surprise me if Trump moves on Canada.
Why would it shock you if it wouldn't surprise you? :chin:
Venezuela was already a failed state. How much worse could it get?
It would be a shock to the system but not unexpected from Trump
Meanwhile healthcare premiums are spiking due to the administration letting ACA subsidies expire recently and the "America First" crowd is celebrating the kidnapping of a foreign leader.
Everything Trump does is about Trump. It's all designed as a show to demonstrate how great he is. He has no other intentions.
Quoting Tzeentch
How does it make sense to talk about "the US" as if it is a being with senses and feelings?
Quoting Banno
That's about the size of it. If any American company takes over an oil well, it becomes a terrorist target. Defense of such holdings would require an on the ground force of occupation. The only real means to American dominance would be to provide a very strong force to assist in Venezuelan governance, like they tried (and failed) in Afghanistan, but have had some degree of success in Iraq. Maybe the Americans are learning, and will come up with something reasonable this time around.
I see.
What will come of that? (And China's general influence in South America?)
Seems like Trump "told" China to go away.
:rofl:
This suits China down to the ground!
Xi says major countries should take lead in abiding by int'l law, UN Charter
I'm not gonna argue with that. :lol:
Yeah, the optics of this are bad to put it mildly, and apparently now there's talk of a second attack on Venezuela, and even other Latin American countries.
It seems the US is already beyond the point of caring about global opinion. That's how far down the road we are towards an era of renewed geopolitical struggle where the only currency is power.
Quoting boethius
Very weird, I agree.
Possibly Maduro struck a deal in exchange for leniency or something. Time will tell what exactly went down.
I liked the rest of your observations about the oil situation.
A lot more worse.
Civil war. Hundreds of thousands of dead. Widespread famine. Failed state with competing regime that have divided the country. Or become like Haiti with criminal gangs running the country without any much if any operating government.
Or something...
Believe me, things can always be far more worse. Improving things is the difficult part, creating chaos is easy. And it's very easy for things to come far more worse. Especially with Trump as now when he has quite a war lust going on. Venezuela, Colombia, Cuba, Mexico, Greenland...
Quoting Tzeentch
How much of that Iraqi oil went to US oil companies in the end? Not much, there's few of them, but they don't represent the majority of the foreign companies now in Iraq: there's Russia, China, the Europeans etc.
And yeah, as @Mikie stated, not much even rhetoric of democracy or war on drugs with Venezuela! Yet in order for oil to flow to Chevron (or the bunch), Venezuela needs:
a) A regime/administration that is willing to have the US in the country and work with it.
b) enough stability that it's safe for American companies to work in the country and for the companies really be willing to invest in the country.
c) a way for all of the above somehow to be reached by a cunning and capable US, which the US isn't under Trump, even if it's military is very capable and pulled of a successful 90-minute decapitation operation.
What I'd like to know is how Trump is thinking of running Venezuela now. Basically the option is to seize the oil shipments from Venezuela at sea. Or then take strikes on Venezuelan leaders and government. So pressure them and assume they will cave in. And hope that this will pressure the "Bolivarian revolution" to surrender to Trump.
That's it.
Question: was Trump so petty that he had to through Machado under the bus because she got a Nobel prize? When is Trump we are talking about it, it might be really the reason.
And just like from the Iraq/Afghanistan playbook, they might want to pick up some Venezuelan who kisses Trump's ass the most. Likely will dedicate his or her time to make the Trump family wealthy. So fuck off, Edmundo Gonzales or any other anti-Chavistas, you aren't needed!
They're just vibe warring it.
True modernization.
Yes, he is that petty, and egocentric. According to reporting from the Washington Post, Trump is not installing the legally-elected Machado because she accepted the Nobel Peace Prize instead of giving it to him -
[i]The day before, Trump had effectively dismissed the prospects of Venezuela’s democratic opposition, including Nobel Peace Prize winner María Corina Machado, whose stand-in candidate, Edmundo González, won more than two-thirds of the vote in an election last year that saw Maduro refuse to leave office.
“It’d be very tough for her to be the leader,” Trump said when asked about Machado on Saturday, adding that she “doesn’t have the support or the respect within the country.”
[…]
Two people close to the White House said the president’s lack of interest in boosting Machado, despite her recent efforts to flatter Trump, stemmed from her decision to accept the Nobel Peace Prize, an award the president has openly coveted.
Although Machado ultimately said she was dedicating the award to Trump, her acceptance of the prize was an “ultimate sin,” said one of the people.
“If she had turned it down and said, ‘I can’t accept it because it’s Donald Trump’s,’ she’d be the president of Venezuela today,” this person said.[/i]
This act of his alone demonstrates he does not have the interests of the Venezuelan people in mind.
Criminal gangs and armed groups already control large swathes of Venezuela, and they actually seem to do a better job of it than the central government.
But yeah, it could get a lot worse.
Quoting here
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/making-sense-of-the-us-military-operation-in-venezuela/
I think you just like the name: Brookings Institute.
I don’t disagree, but I appreciate that it was the only article I could find that didn’t just focus on the wild mismatch between the Venezuelan and US militaries.
Do notice one aspect here: everybody in the US Foreign Policy sphere, which obviously includes the Brookings Institute, is now walking on egg shells. Criticism will get a nasty attack from the White House, but there is still criticism.
Yet you can notice the real criticism, that is made very diplomatically:
And it just goes on like this. This is, in the long term, an absolute disaster to Venezuela thanks to Trump. Another consequence is the decline of the US position in the World will speed up, because Trump very likely cannot handle this.
They are just playing dumb, attributing to incompetence what ought to be attributed to malice, and attributing to the Trump administration what ought to be attributed to the machinations of all of Washington and the foreign policy blob.
That's how this rotten intellectual infrastructure functions: they get to criticize Washington, because they never say anything that's actually damaging. Intellectuals lap it up, because everybody likes to complain about their government and it makes them feel awfully smart while doing it.
It's clear the American goal was to send a signal to all of Latin America: If you get too cozy with other great powers, we have the power and the will to ruin your country overnight. It's the Monroe Doctrine.
It's also a message to the rest of the world; if you reject our system, the gloves are coming off.
In decades we will have actual history writing. And when it comes to Trump, it really can be things like he got pissed off about Maduro dancing and ridiculing him. Just like that one partly reason for the Soviet Union collapsing was that Gorbachev and Yeltsin didn't get along (and the people doing the Putsch didn't get Yeltsin).
.
Quoting Tzeentch
The Trump administration is quite different from the Obama administration, just as Putin is different from Yeltsin, even if the former are US administrations and the latter Russian administrations.
Quoting Tzeentch
I think the apt name is Donroe doctrine. Very different from the doctrine that European colonizers shouldn't try to take back their colonies that they've lost. (Which btw. was shown to be an empty threat in the late 19th Century, when France attempted to take over Mexico and had it's debacle there. But then the US wasn't a Great Power yet.)
What the future reality will be is unclear. Trump is simply a chaos engine, which then many try to make sense into, into the famous 5D-chess or whatever. And oh boy, do they have a tough time supporting their leader which changes his stances totally:
6 months ago:
and Now:
That's the kind of spineless turnarounds one has to make when supporting Trump. First against the neocons, now embracing them! Wonderful logic and integrity in one's beliefs.
Maduro up until his capture was more than willing to work with the US on whatever concerns it had. If they were trying to send a message to everyone to fall in line or else they picked a pretty lousy target for that. It seems more likely the message for most countries is that the world's greatest superpower is run by an irrational madman who thinks he can do anything for any reason. Countries have tried working and not working with him and in both cases they have gotten bombed.
Destroying the Ba'ath Party in Iraq left a vacuum which created the conditions for ISIS. In Venezuela they left the regime intact... minus Maduro.
Actually, let's be a bit more specific about just how it went: The US Military, on it's own and without the politicians in Washington, actually basically destroyed Al Qaeda in Iraq and it's grasp in the Sunni areas by the Sunni Awakening, where Sunni tribes were supported to fight Al Qaeda and helped to form the Sons of Iraq.
But then the US troops withdrew and the Shiite leader of Iraq, Nouri Al-Maliki denounced the Sons of Iraq and dismantled them... which then lead to a power vacuum and the emergence of ISIS. Remember that ISIS leaders were first Al Qaeda leaders...which emerged in Iraq only after the US invasion.
Hence a successful insurgency strategy that worked was stopped by Obama's withdrawal and Iraqi policies.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Which doesn't make sense. How is this even be thought to work in a country that basically is very close to just collapsing into anarchy? And why would the Chavistas roll over?
Here's what vice President Rodriguez is actually saying:
And the Chavista government and the paramilitaries are cracking down on the people, so it really doesn't make any sense.
Just think of the present in the scenario of Iraq: So assume that under Bush prior to attacking into Iraq in 2003, the US would have made a similar stupendous special operation and gotten Saddam Hussein. And a high profile Baathist politician and field marshal Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri would have taken the lead in Iraq (Saddam's second in command). Yet Bush wouldn't have the nearly 300 000 ground force ready to invade the country, but only 15 000 even if the Navy and Air Force were at the disposal.
You think the Baathists would have then surrendered and given the US their oil?????
That could actually be the biggest miscalculation of the Trump administration in all of this.
I actually don't think NATO will be dismantled over Greenland, I changed my mind on this. Europeans are a bit shocked at the moment about it all, but will slowly come to the realisation that they really don't have anywhere else to go in the short term. And the US will realise that they can't take on the world on their own after all, so my guess is they will find a way to make it work, at least for now.
Since American foreign policy changes every four years, it's probably better to just react to events in the moment and forestall any long term plans (such as scrapping NATO).
I don't think it's making the US difficult to govern. Most Americans are fairly sheep-like in person. They just want to feed their families and, so far, this hasn't been a big problem. At this point, I don't think anybody has a firm understanding of what the Republican party stands for. As an apolitical moderate, I miss the old conservatives. I understood them.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
I think some destabilization was implied by the end of the Cold War. The world has just been cruising on old ideas. Millennials are just now becoming old enough to take power and direct policy. They don't look like hawks to me. I don't think maintaining an empire is on their radar. And if you notice, neither Venezuela nor Greenland are about empire. It's about the stability and defense of things close by. If the US was threatening to take Denmark, that would be empire building. But there's no percentage in taking Denmark.
You have more faith in rational self interest than I do. Even if NATO continues going forward for now, that doesn’t mean it isn’t already being dismantled as an effective force.
Sure. But isn't that part of the issue though that parties seems to be radicalising each other over time. And congress basically seems to have become mostly ineffective as it can hardly pass any new laws that can really reform where necessary. That does seem to be an issue at a time the world is changing so fast.
Quoting frank
The US did still bomb Iran, Nigeria and Yemen outside of its hemisphere just last year. It doesn't seem to want to leave Israel and the middle east (the younger generation does I'm aware). And I don't think it can give up control over the pacific and the Chinese sea because losing Taiwan would mean losing control over most of the chips produced in the world. The Monroe doctrine, focus on America first etc sounds nice in theory, and I'm sure many of the younger generations really would want to prefer that, but it seems to me geo-political realities would still steer the US into a more global direction, certainly as distances have become effectively shorter or irrelevant because of technology.
Steven Miller and Marco Rubio seem to be signaling that a real conflict is certainly not what they want, even if they can't explicitly say so because of negotiation reasons. And most of European leaders certainly would prefer keeping NATO if the US doesn't make it impossible.
It seems to me that aside from the purely political, the organisation does still function reasonably well in practice.
The situation is definitely in flux. How do you see it playing out?
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
I don't really see a coherent foreign policy in any of that, though. I really think what's been happening is that Trump gets briefed by various parties, and he renders some opinion. There's no collection of strategists looking at a map, thinking about long-term plans.
There is an initiative led by the government to boost domestic chip manufacturing. It's not like the US doesn't have the ability to make them. Manufacturing has been outsourced because it's cheaper. My guess is that will be navigated by the bottom line. In other words, when it becomes too expensive to maintain ties with Taiwan, the US will make more of its own chips.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
What I'm most tuned into is an abiding isolationism that's been pretty potent since the Iraq disaster. When Trump promised isolation, he was definitely playing to the crowd. When you asked if an empire can remain democratic, I was thinking of Rome. Rome's empire building was the result of armed aristocrats who gained financially from foreign conquest. The US works the opposite way. American aristocrats feel no ties to the US itself. They can just leave and be global entities if they want. So they use the American military, but they don't pay back into the system to reimburse the US government.
In a way, severing ties with the rest of the world would allow the US to recover from this situation. I'm actually thinking out loud, so criticize at will. :grin:
I would make a prediction, but, since I’m always wrong, I won’t.
And this one too, with John Mearsheimer:
That's what Trump has claimed a couple of times, among other things (e.g. the North Atlantic and the arctic are swarming with Russian and Chinese military).
How much sense does that make? Check Jan 8, 2026.
Members of the US government have wanted Greenland for defense purposes since the 1860s.
I was thinking about Rome too. Civil war eventually let to the end of the republic, with Ceasar (a populares) appealing to the people to set aside the elites by effectively neutering the senate going forward.
Trump is a similar figure, in that he came in as a populist from outside of the ruling elite class to 'drain the swamp'... and he also is trying to bypass congress for the most part. The shift towards more emphasis on the executive power isn't new either.
How it will play out exactly in practice is hard to say really, but tensions on the system will presumably only get bigger because of certain evolutions that already baked in (shift of geo-political power to Asia, the effects of Climate change, demographics etc etc).
Quoting frank
Can they pivot fast enough and make them at a reasonable price will be the question. Maybe automation will help because wages (and regulations) are typically the issue for manufacturing in the West compared to Asia.
Quoting frank
Yes when we are talking about elites these days we are really talking about capitalists. There's free flow of capital over national borders, and so they can relocate wherever they want to find the best conditions for their enterprise. That actually puts nations in competition with eachother to provide the best conditions for them... to lower wages, to get rid of environmental and other regulation etc.
In the West, but especially in the US with politics being directly financed by capitalists, the incentives are such that their interest are being served a lot of the time. Even MAGA, originally a more populist movement, has essentially been co-opted by the tech-bros with Vance as their future candidate, even though I presume a majority of the people wouldn't support their agenda's.
I'm not saying we should emulated them, but in China for instance this is different in that they have something that stands above corporate interests. I'm not sure what would be the best way to go about it in the US given it's traditions, but It seems to me it cannot be that capitalist interests are the most important force driving the politics of a nation.
Yes, Trump want’s Greenland to protect him from his new besty, Putin.
I think in this case, a "reasonable price" will be determined by global politics. It will be a whole new world as the global scene becomes more fragmented. I once thought the world was headed toward global government, but these days I think historians will say we came close, but then it fell apart.
Quoting here
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
The hyper focus on capitalism started in the 1980s. In 2009, one of the primary architects of American neoliberalism, Alan Greenspan, testified to Congress that the principles underlying his decades long approach were wrong. At some point, we'll have another economic catastrophe that creates an opening for change. We'll see what the generation of millennials comes up with.
The bromance has been souring lately.
Yes, Putin is too sensible to trust such a madman.
You sound pretty bitter about the whole thing. It's just politics. It doesn't mean anything. Feeling the rain on your face. That's what's important.
Trump keeps claiming that the North Atlantic + Arctic are swarming with Russian and Chinese military, which is a bare postulate (+ somewhat implausible as postulated).
Check the earlier comment (Jan 8, 2026).
But, what's stopping House Trump from extending defense based out of Greenland?
(I guess his claims also apply to Canada; what will Ottawa say?)
There isn't much in the way of extending a Greenland-based defense posture, which suggests Trump wants something else.
Ok. Grieve then. But accept what you can't change.
Oh good God. LOL.
Are you guys aware of the behavior of agents engaged in identifying immigrants who are here illegally? There are numerous instance of due process violations, detaining citizens who can't provide immediate proof of citizenship, and a recent murder of a woman by an ICE agent.
The latter has been in US news since it occurred. Immediately after the killing, the President labelled the victim a "domestic terrorist", and blocked a complete investigation. If you'd like to understand what happened, this video is a good analysis: https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1Ahcukffo7/
As for Renee Goode, it was an horrific event. 100% Granted. However, It was warranted for the officer who in the course of duty was hit with a lethal weapon by a woman who refused lawful commands. There is absolutely no question about this whatsoever. it is tragic, it shouldn't have happened - but she shouldn't have made a job of impeding lawful federal activities and refusing lawful commands. Those are the results of the incredibly risky behaviour she undertook. They always are. There is no surprise or controversy unless you're dead set on "us v them". Due process is an absolutely ridiculous concept to bring in for this specific situation. Assaults on ICE Agents are soaring. You do not get to pretend one side is allowed to be violent, aggresive, rights-violating wankers, and ICE has to just put up with it. They are mandated to enforce the law and they do not deserve to deal with the horrific, unwarranted crap they're getting from emotionally unstable children who can't keep a job down.
Not letting feelies take over is probably the best move right now. And unfortunately, emotional, inaccurate crap is usually what's driving responses to these things. Being detained for not being able to provide ID, for instance, is routine even for local law enforcement.
Well aware how this will sound to those partial to the types of thinking I've outlined.
Someone’s been watching Fox News.
Nevermind— I meant to say that this description is fair and balanced, and not at all succumbing to hysteria and propaganda like all of you people are doing. How nice to hear someone with the undisputed Real Truth on these culture war issues.
Honestly, anyone who claims the officer who killed Good was within his bounds are either emotional or playing the partisan game. He could have merely stepped out of the way; the intention wasn’t to hit him but to drive away. The consequence for panicking isn’t death. At the very least, given his history, he himself panicked.
But listening to those pretending to be neutral while regurgitating right wing propaganda verbatim is nauseating.
Yep. The president has no commitment to rule of law.
I don't understand how you can make unfounded assumptions, and then propose them without any founding, but say someone else is being partisan man.
THe officer was hit with a lethal weapon subsequent to a citizen illegally obstructing him, refusing lawful orders, he suffered internal injuries and had recently been attacked in a similar scneario.
I don't quite think you're seeing hte forest for the trees. I understand the emotional response - It's tough to watch and super tragic, shitty thing to have happened. No serious person would argue otherwise (note here: If you come back at me with "well, so so and said x" yeah - not a serious person. Whatever bullet needs biting, I'm hungry - plenty of responses to this event pretending it's anything other than tragic, and as if Goode was an inherently bad person or lied about hte child abuse thing have caused me to realize that person is a knobend when perhaps I previously didn't).
But the footage and the law is clear. This is absolute bullshit for that reason. Also, the President didn't shoot her. LOL.
That’s a cool narrative. Totally wrong, but cool. Carry on.
Can you at least see that you're not approaching this in good faith, given the sarcasm and dismissal? That's not meant to be combative - but I would expect a reduction in sarcasm and dismissiveness if you're not into Twitter-type exchanges, which is good.
I'm saying the facts are as described, but doesn't make it any "better" of an event - just, clearly not murder. The legalities are fairly clear given the multiple videos.
Any federal police action should be reviewable by an internal affairs entity called an OPR. Word is that due to personnel cuts, there is presently no one to do the investigation. So some are demanding that the FBI do it. Meanwhile Noem and Trump are making statements that even Republicans are calling out as BS. A halfway decent president would just say the issue us being investigated by the FBI.
Odd that you don't trust MSM, but you repeat a Trumpist version of the events, one that ignores established law and policy- and that is inconsistent with video evidence.
The ICE agent who killed Good unequivocally violated policy. The policy is to avoid putting oneself in the path of a vehicle, and whenever possible- to get out of the path if it's unexpected. This agent walked around the vehicle, passing by the front of it, and positioned near the front left bumper. Had Good wished to run him over, it would have been easy: turn the wheels toward him. She did the oppisite: she turned them away from him. The agent actually leaned in toward the vehicle, while recording his video - violating protocol. As she was turning, he seems to have been grazed, but not severely enough to even lose his footing (he's also on video walking briskly after his alleged injury; the injury was only said to entail "internal bleeding"; a bruise is internsl bleeding. There could be more, but without more information, there's no basis to assume the injury was severe).
He fired one shot, through the front windshield, perhaps he felt threatened*, but his next 2 shots were through the side window - when he was clearly not in danger of being hit. After this, he referred to her as a "f*cking bitch". Those 2 shots could not possibly be self-defense, and his attitude suggests anger. Every fact I've related is supported by the video I linked to (here again: https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1Ahcukffo7/) - it's a composite of all publicly available videos, time synchronized to help one see what was happening from different angles at each critical instant.
There's additional malfeasance. Right after the event, both Nohem and Trump publicly expressed their judgrment that Good was a "domestic terrorist" who intentionally tried to kill the agent. The proper response would have been to withhold judgement, pending an investigation. In fact, the DOJ has decided that an investigation is unnecessary (although they are investigating both the victim and her widow). A dozen DOJ attorneys promptly resigned after this.
* If the agent felt threatened, it was due to "officer created jeopardy": the legal term for positioning oneself in the potential path of a vehicle. Here's a reference to a general discussion of this: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/17sCTa9bpJ/ Nevertheless, he could plead self-defense in court, and perhaps rationalize where he stood when he took the first shot. This may be sufficient to establish reasonable doubt for a criminal acquital- but this applies solely to the first shot. He was not in the vehicle path when he took the 2nd and 3rd shots. If one of those was the fatal shot, then he has no viable self-defense claim.
The DOJ and border security guidance is discussed here: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1GBYXBWKWy/
The notion (expressed by many Trump supporters) that it's fine to shoot a criminal trying to escape is contrary to US law. There's a 1975 Supreme Court ruling on this: Tennessee v Garner (link).
More recently, the Supreme Court ruled (Barnes v Felix) that "An officer cannot manufacture a threat by placing themselves in harm’s way like jumping in front of a car trying to get away and then claim self?defense just because the car moves toward them." In Good's case, the agent leaned in. It's very obvious in the video.
If you choose to respond, I ask that you at least watch the composite video. If you're going to challenge what I said about law or policy, read those links.
Excellent synopsis — so of course you either (1) misunderstood, (2) are approaching in bad faith, (3) are being emotional, or (4) have an unseen liberal bias thanks to your consumption of “mainstream media.” Fortunately the guy repeating Kristi Noem talking points is here set you straight.
There’s is no doubt that he was pissed off and looking for a reason to shoot. Standing in the way of a car gives the perfect pretext to do so— “she was trying to run me over!” No, she wasn’t. She shouldn’t have driven away, no doubt. But she turned the wheel to AVOID him. But as I said before, the consequence isn’t death.
So once again another murderer walks free because of bullshit reasons. Or as the totally objective “I’m left of center but” Trump-lite crowd would say: natural causes.
Quoting Relativist
I cannot have a discussion with someone who is this incapable of watching a video. Quoting Relativist
False, and this is the exact kind of emotional over-reaction that is going to have all of you crying into your soup while the law does its thing. I shouldn't really care, but I like talking to you guys. This is absolute nonsense. As someone who reads case law for a living, I am just stumped as to the ignorance shown toward this event. Its astounding.
Quoting Relativist
I cannot fathom being so beyond rational assessment as to say something like this, having seen the videos. I'll see myself out.
Such situations should not be judged by the public based on videos. An internal affairs type investigation should take place. When the president publicly pushes back on the idea of an investigation, it's bad joo joo.
You brought no video to my attention, but I brought one to yours. Did you watch it? It doesn't seem so.
Quoting AmadeusD
It's very obvious in the video I linked to. You should have watched it before jumping to conclusions.
Quoting AmadeusD
Emotion? I've examined the evidence, the law, departmental policy- and the history that led to that policy. You have responded to none of the specific points I made, but even so - I'm willing to consider any analysis you care to present. So far, you have given none to me - you've simply attacked me and ignored the information I gave. In particular, I'm very curious how you would argue for self-defense when he is on the side of the vehicle, not in the path, and he is firing into the side window. You should explain this in light of the departmental policy that he violated, and in light of the "reasonable officer" standard, as alluded to in Barnes v Felix (2025). I pointed you at all the relevant information.
Quoting Mikie
So add to this being “incapable of interpreting the video the same way as I do.”
You’re of course exactly right, and it’s obvious from the video. But when dealing with emotional Trumpers, don’t expect a good faith conversation. Just the usual post hoc justification — or in this case, lashing out and running away. Not a single point you brought up was refuted, just lazy ad hominems about your rationality.
A good Rorschach test of political bias, this is. They’re so in their bubble that to them this is all as obvious as gravity, and to contradict their “objective truth” is as shocking as to question gravity. Amazing to witness.
He had decided to kill the victim when he realised that she was going to attempt to drive away, rather than exist the vehicle. A few seconds before conducting the murder, which is why he remained in front of the vehicle, so that he could lean into it as it moved towards him. So he could claim she was attempting to run him down. This was premeditated murder.
Protesters are domestic terrorists. That looks similar to what the regime in Iran would say.
Quoting Relativist
Look at those poor drug runners, blown up in their boats. Since when is 'shoot on sight' the strategy for dealing with cocaine traffickers? Oh I forgot, they're not cocaine traffickers, they are "unlawful combatants" in "a non-international armed conflict" with the USA. I suppose, "non-international" makes them domestic terrorists so 'shoot on sight' is warranted.
Indeed.
Quoting Punshhh
Good point.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yes. But the bullshit pretext would be easy to see, given it’s Iran. But if Trump says Good was a domestic terrorist hellbent on running officers over— then it gets taken as fact, despite the video evidence.
I see the point. If thousands of protesters are being shot, then the "bullshit pretext" is easily seen. If it's just the odd one here and there, it's easily hidden, though the pretext is the same bullshit. And the intended effect, intimidation, is very similar.
My overall take is the same, but it was a lazy, unsupported response. I'll get to a more substantive response today but i apologise for what appears to be an essentially useless response.
The only thing I want to add here is that the number of "lies" swirling around ICE, Trump, the overall situation and about Good, her wife, ICE, Trump and the overall situation from what would be termed 'the other side' are pretty clear.
It's hard to know what to do in those situations. Anyway, I apologise for that repsonse. I'll fix it up later today.
In one of the first transactions, the U.S. granted Vitol, the world's largest independent oil broker, a license worth roughly $250 million. A senior partner at Vitol, John Addison, gave roughly $6 million to Trump-aligned political action committees during the presidential election, according to donation records compiled by OpenSecrets.
Worse still, the Supreme Court case Barnes v. Felix ruled that, "An officer cannot manufacture a threat by placing themselves in harm’s way like jumping in front of a car trying to get away and then claim self?defense just because the car moves toward them.".
These factors may, or may not, be sufficient for a criminal conviction. But a civil judgement, from a lawsuit, looks like a slam dunk.
And what do you think happens if after the Midterms Trump and the GOP would lose both the House and the Senate majorities? It is a possibility.
Still, impeachment needs a majority in House and in the Senate a 2/3 majority. Now there's 35 seats in the Senate in election and those 65 that don't have elections 35 are Dems and 31 GOP. So if the GOP get only 10 Senate seats and the Dems (or people willing to impeach Trump) 25, that makes in my arithmetic 60 seats, which is the 2/3 majority. But then, even if the Dems don't get the 2/3 majority, still the GOP senators can see the writing on the wall and do what they would have done to Nixon.
That's why Trump isn't so keen to have the midterms.
And any, even the Venezuela thing hasn't come to an end.
But...I looked at the KASHI betting site, which has a pretty good track record at making predictions. I was surprised to see that 39% of bets have him leaving office before his term is up. This would include impeachment/removal as well as death, or incapacitating health issue. I focus all my prayers* on him leaving office early, but in good health (it's inappropriate to wish harm to anyone. Kash may be watching).
*BTW, I'm an atheist.
If Trump would be just an ordinary president, it would be after all 5% (or well, with an ordinary prez I guess the percentage would be 0,05%), but he's not. Greenland, Minneapolis, mocking the NATO members in Afghanistan... it's not going to end there.
I think in reality Trump getting impeached or being sidelined is about 11%. Him dying (of natural causes) is more like 20%. Alzheimers runs in the family. All those tests he brags of doing tells something real.
In reality, there may also be the "Biden moment", when he is just put aside when he is totally incapable of ruling. If the Dems did it to Biden, it can indeed happen to Trump. He just needs to be in a worse condition.
In fact,
My little country which thinks it's a good democracy had an experience of this. A President that had basically destroyed the opposition and had the backing of the Soviet Union, simply got too old and demented. And then it wasn't great political drama, but a small announcement that he has retired for health reason. Not with a bang, but with a whimper.
(Last moments of Urho Kekkonen as the President of Finland, here assisted by the Iceland's President, Vigdis Finbogadóttir and his Finnish army adjutant in August 1981 in Iceland, next month the president "took" sick leave and then died in 1986.)
Trump's health simply going down is a real possibility. If Alzheimer takes hold, then the "ouster" is quick and easy.