The Cubans are reporting that the 32 soldiers and intelligence agents tasked with protecting Maduro (presumably because, after several coup and assassination attempts, he didn't trust his own military to protect him) "fulfilled their duty with dignity and heroism and fell, after fierce resistance, in direct combat against the attackers or as a result of bombings on the facilities." (quoted on BBC News website). So, the Cubans are reporting that their people fired back. I thought initial reports from the US indicating that some US forces had been injured, which was also suggest someone firing back.
There may be some confusion on that point because the reports have all stated that no US troops were killed, but of course that does not mean there wasn’t any resistance at all.
I find it plausible (without any direct evidence, of course) that, given the recent political history of Venezuela and the fact that none of the other leaders of that country have been removed, American agents made a deal with Venezuelan military leaders (many of whom, as Alan notes, are no friends of Maduro) ahead of time along the lines of “make it easy for us to get him and we’ll leave you alone and/or let you fill the power vacuum afterwards”.
We don't know for sure how much the fossil fuel industry spent on getting him back into office, but Donald made it clear that they would get a good return on their investment. Trumpism is just capitalism out of the barrel of a gun. aka colonialism.
Coming back to Venezuela, I see no reason to believe that the footage of Maduro is 'fake'. Like @A Feminine Force though, I find it strange that nobody apparently fired a shot - even a token one - against the US forces but perhaps the US ballistics were out range and the special forces had the advantage of surprise (after a month's build up?) or some collusion on the ground.
Whatever the case, I do see this as more sinister and potentially far-reaching than Panama and Grenada.
Trump is now admitting some US personnel obtained injuries, though we do not yet know the means of those injuries.
In his interview on Air Force One, he says he has eyes on Mexico, Cuba and Greenland.
We don't know for sure how much the fossil fuel industry spent on getting him back into office, but Donald made it clear that they would get a good return on their investment. Trumpism is just capitalism out of the barrel of a gun. aka colonialism.
Over and above the business that Chevron currently does in the country, I'm not sure that there's that much profit to be had.
The rare earth elements are more likely to be of interest, to those in the fossil fuel industries who are playing a long game. Presumably he wants to invade so they can be mined without having to comply with EU regulations.
One of the interesting things here is that the Trump administration doesn't really have a clear narrative about the Venezuelan invasion. Trump himself and a few others like to go on about the oil and the money to be made. For people like Steven Miller it's about immigration. The courts have ruled that Venezuelans in the U.S. can't be rounded up under then Enemy Aliens Act because the U.S. was not at war with Venezuela. Still others like Marco Rubio believe that the fall of the Maduro regime will (somehow) cause the collapse of the Cuban government. It's kind of a MAGA Rorschach test where what is seen tells you more about the person looking than what it is they're looking at.
We don't know for sure how much the fossil fuel industry spent on getting him back into office, but Donald made it clear that they would get a good return on their investment. Trumpism is just capitalism out of the barrel of a gun. aka colonialism.
Over and above the business that Chevron currently does in the country, I'm not sure that there's that much profit to be had.
Maybe not so much in the short term.
But in the longer term, as China continues supplying the world with renewable energy and reducing the demand for oil #, the increasingly significant factor regarding oil production is going to be the *cost* of production. This varies significantly from area to area. The countries with the lowest production costs include … Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Venezuela, Iraq, Iran, and Nigeria. Can you spot which of these is in the Western Hemisphere?
Estimates are that it will take an investment of around $10 billion per year over the next decade to get low-cost production in Venezuela back up to speed. Next to this $100 billion investment in the future of western hemisphere oil, the $1 billion that Trump mentioned during his fossil fuel fundraiser looks like petty cash…
We don't know for sure how much the fossil fuel industry spent on getting him back into office, but Donald made it clear that they would get a good return on their investment. Trumpism is just capitalism out of the barrel of a gun. aka colonialism.
Over and above the business that Chevron currently does in the country, I'm not sure that there's that much profit to be had.
Maybe not so much in the short term.
But in the longer term, as China continues supplying the world with renewable energy and reducing the demand for oil #, the increasingly significant factor regarding oil production is going to be the *cost* of production.
That's always a factor, and I don't see it would particularly favour Venezuela. A reduction in demand will lead to a glut of possible production, a scenario favouring the lowest cost producers sure, except Saudi Arabia and Kuwait can produce sweeter oil at half the production cost.
I think it's about oil insofar as Trump is an old guy who thinks in those terms, I'm not sure there's much money to be made.
An oil dude interviewed on BBC Radio 4's midday news was very much in favour of the action (quelle surprise) but felt there'd be little return until the 2030s.
China imports 4% of its oil from Venezuela but this analyst felt it would only hit the little guys - China has a plethora of small scale oil refineries - not the big boys.
He felt the influence on China would be more geopolitical than economic as it denies them a toehold in the region.
Part of me thinks that Trump wouldn't attempt military action to annexe Greenland as the potential deaths of Greenlanders and Danes - sad as it seems - would cause more international outrage than the deaths of Cubans.
My guess would be he'd occupy some key installations there without firing any shots and dare the Danes to do something about it. 'Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough ...'
Knowing full well that neither the Danes or NATO would hit back.
Putin, President Xi, Trump. I'm beginning to think we are entering a new Dark Age as per @Gramps49's thread on that theme.
Russia and China seem quite upset about this, but one would think that the end result will be global destabilisation. Every strongman will now feel compelled to "arrest" their enemies in other countries to show their strength. Russia might not be able to win a war in Ukraine but they're likely able to kidnap and poison on the streets of European cities.
One could even imagine China testing the waters with moves against Taiwan. If the USA responds, that could create space for some other win in a place they're not looking. If they don't respond, which seems likely in this moment, then that could be a green light for invasion.
I don't think China is really going to invade Taiwan any time soon, but I wouldn't be surprised if they became much more aggressive with their neighbours in the region.
As Trump is going back to a spheres of influence foreign policy, it seems entirely possible that China could invade Taiwan and not face a response from the US. If we continue with a spheres of influence foreign policy, it could in time make the US a regional power rather than a global power.
I would say the United States is not a rogue state. The president is a rogue president. Congress needs to grow a spine ...
There is no check on Trump. He is governing like a dictator, without any regard for the popularity (never mind the legality) of his actions, and with all of the capacity of the US at his disposal. He has executed a coup in a sovereign nation. This is a massive destabilization of the post-war global order. Like it or not, this makes the US a rogue state.
The US is a rogue state. Is there anything other countries can do to punish us for this that they can do without badly hurting themselves?
This is a key salient point. I've been reading Isaac Chotiner in the latest New Yorker (behind a paywall so not linking) who talks about the 'brazen illegality' of the US invasion of Venezuela and kidnapping of President Maduro and the impunity with which the US was able to act from a position of extensive global military, economic and political hegemony. At this point, international diplomatic pressure, threats of non-alignment and appeals to the UN Charter mean very little. The consequences of intensifying polarisation and isolation are not negligible but mean very little in the short term.
My own feeling is that the most effective form of protest would only come from within the US itself and not the international community.
I had a feeling this would be the answer, but it's good to have that confirmed by someone outside the US.
There have been a few protests - people in Chicago turned out quickly, and I've seen reports of others - but nothing in Los Angeles County. There's not even anything planned for Jan 20 around here.
I think it's about oil insofar as Trump is an old guy who thinks in those terms, I'm not sure there's much money to be made.
Yeah. Trump bragging that America now controls all the oil in Venezuela might be a good way to sell this to the people who voted for him because they thought he'd deliver lower prices, and will assume that the more oil America controls, the cheaper it will be for Americans.
And that might be what's going on in his head as well, but I'm not sure if it's exactly what's motivating his enablers.
The thing is, oil prices are pretty low right now! And gasoline prices in the US aren't crazy. Trump keeps talking about lower oil prices, which would be nice for those of us driving internal combustion engines, but I don't see how it's good for oil companies.
The next 12 months will be one hell of a ride for the United States and thereby the rest of the world. I say this because Trump will have no more than 12 months to intervene in Mexico, Cuba, and Iran. He will likely try to wrest Greenland away from Denmark too. After the midterms, the Dems will likely be in control of the House, maybe even the Senate, and Trump will be impeached.
So far, only one poll has been released following the arrest kidnapping of Maduro and his wife. The poll, released by The Washington Post on Monday, found that Americans are equally divided over whether they approve or disapprove of sending the U.S. military to apprehend Maduro, by a 40% to 42% margin, respectively. Along party lines, the results are split sharply: 74% of Republicans approve of the operation, while 76% of Democrats disapprove.
According to the poll, a majority of U.S. adults, however, believe that such actions should have required approval from Congress, with more than 6 in 10 in agreement. While 76% of Republicans think the operation was appropriate under Trump’s order, 94% of Democrats said it should have received prior approval.
The Washington Post poll is behind a paywall so I have to cite a secondary report.
I would agree if the majority of Americans favored the Venezuela action we would be a rogue state; but, if anything, our rogue president is taking advantage of our divisions to get his way before the (prison) door is slammed on him.
The thing is, oil prices are pretty low right now! And gasoline prices in the US aren't crazy. Trump keeps talking about lower oil prices, which would be nice for those of us driving internal combustion engines, but I don't see how it's good for oil companies.
Yeah, I doubt the oil companies were really on board for this. And, as a non-driver who hadn't been checking the crude prices lately, I will note that at this exact moment, the price appears to be going up. Not sure if that's just an ephemeral fluctuation, or an ongoing trend.
If I were advising Trump, what I'd do is...
...sign an EO announcing something like "America will take control of all the oil in Venezuela!!" Then, the next day, have a bunch of US oil CEOs over to the White House, posed in such a way as to look slightly subservient to Trump, and sign a proclamation praising the previous day's EO. If the price at the pumps later goes down or at least treads water, a certain portion of the public might believe that Trump ordered the CEOs to do something or other in Venezuela, and this lowered the prices.
CBS This Morning had a discussion on whether Venezuelan oil will be all that attractive. While Venezuela's proven reserves are around 303 billion barrels of oil, it is not all that easy to extract or refine. Besides, Venezuela's oil infrastructure will have to be upgraded. Money Watch predicts it will take $100billion to upgrade the system. The question is, will American companies want to invest that amount of money if the world will be converting to EVs over the next fifteen to twenty-five years?
There has been similar discussions on the BBC over the last couple of days. Businesses are reluctant to invest where there's political uncertainty, and it remains to be seen whether kidnapping a President will bring stability or whether the new government (even if stable) will be friendly to foreign investment. With oil prices currently low, and current over-production there's little incentive for oil companies to increase production, let alone start producing from fields potentially opening up in Venezuela. And, the majority of the oil in Venezuela is heavy, and demand for this is relatively low anyway.
Of course, investment decisions will be made looking to the future, spending significant money in Venezuela won't lead to returns for several years. Which is the timescale over which political stability is needed - the Madura government seems to be stable at the moment without him, but will they be able to steal another election? Will the drug cartels seize more power? If Trump goes after others in the region, what effect on stability will that have? Predicting oil prices and demand over 5-10 years is probably easier for oil companies, they'll be doing that anyway.
There's a chance that not zero that crazed people around Trump told him to go after Venezuelan oil and the big oil corporations are now refusing to cooperate with his plan to invest billions of their money.
There's a chance that not zero that crazed people around Trump told him to go after Venezuelan oil and the big oil corporations are now refusing to cooperate with his plan to invest billions of their money.
My theory is that Trump is being as explicit as he is about saying it's about oil because he knows that's a crowd pleaser, if people interpret it as meaning that oil prices will soon be going down.
Venezuelan VP Delcy Rodriguez has stated that the attack had "a zionist tinge", and people in the tuckersphere and other isolationist camps have said it was done on Netanyahu's orders. I kinda doubt that, but I think geopolitics of some sort probably plays a role, eg. Rubio unhappy that Venezuela helps Cuba economically.
@Gramps49 I admire your optimism. While it is entirely possible that a Democratic house would impeach Trump, I can't see any chance of the Senate doing the same.
There is no check on Trump. He is governing like a dictator, without any regard for the popularity (never mind the legality) of his actions, and with all of the capacity of the US at his disposal. He has executed a coup in a sovereign nation. This is a massive destabilization of the post-war global order. Like it or not, this makes the US a rogue state.
I think this is right. What concerns me is that the Venezuelan operation seems to have been the culmination of months of military planning and the deliberate positioning of military forces. Which suggests that the military command, at many levels, cannot have been prepared to voice concerns about the national or international legality of the plan, simply its operational parameters.
Reaching back to the first Trump administration, it’s hard to believe that Secretary of Defence Mattis would have gone along with this. Which points to the loss of any concerned voices about national or international legality in the current Trump administration. Trump has silenced opposition, neutered separation of powers, and is indeed behaving like a dictator.
There's some dark humour in the MAGA people going onto Fox news saying that this is a victory for democracy when Trump is clearly saying it's about oil. Not even about narcotics according to him.
And the "victory for democracy" claim rings hollow while the Maduro regime is still in control of the government (possibly more compliant to US government instructions), even without Maduro present. If the opposition who won the last elections were now in government that claim would be easier to make with a straight face. Even better, if the opposition were in government and had asked the US government for military assistance in displacing the illegitimate government.
As I said on the Greenland thread, Mike Waltz, the US ambassador to the UN, has now openly asserted the claim of US hegemony over the Western Hemisphere. Democracy in other countries is, as Waltz implies, now subservient to US control over the Western Hemisphere.
The US no longer has Western Hemisphere allies. It has vassals. I’ve been around a long time but never seen anything like that before.
In the short term, US oil companies have plenty of refineries set up to process the heavy, sour oil that Venezuela has (and which it can produce more cheaply than Canada), even if Venezuela's current production capacity is restricted. And diverting Venezuela's away from China, where most of its output currently ends up, would increase China's energy costs.
In the longer term…
The production and sale of crude oil does not operate in a free market. Since OPEC was set up in 1960 (by Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela) to counter US dominance of the oil markets, it has operated as a cartel to control the international price of oil, to maximise revenues and for geo-political influence. Donald Trump is old enough to remember the 70's. One consequence was that many countries significantly developed their own supplies of crude oil, even if they were more expensive. OPEC's influence has consequently reduced, but remains significant. From the US point of view, it is still a dangerous competitor.
Global demand for oil is likely to decease as different sectors of the economy transition away from fossil fuels. However, I don't think anyone is expecting a slow and steady decline in prices. Just because it's harder to control prices in a declining market doesn't mean any of the major players are going to stop trying, especially given the continuing strategic significance of oil.
One sector of the global economy that is unlikely to transition away from fossil fuels any time soon is the military-industrial complex. The newer elements of military hardware might be battery powered, but the fossil-fuel powered stuff will be around for a while yet, even if NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said in 2021:
I’m absolutely confident that in the future, the most effective, the best planes, the best ships, the best military vehicles, they will be fuelled by something different than fossil fuels. They will not emit.
While we wait for this version of the future to arrive, the current US administration has revived the Monroe doctrine, the reassertion of hegemonic control in the Western Hemisphere of influence. Intervening in the region and protecting vested interests largely comes down to wielding a bigger stick than anyone else, which requires the creation and enforcement of end-to-end control of the strategic supply chains on which the stick depends.
Donald might only be interested in parts of this narrative, but I suspect other members of his regime have their own vested interests.
Global demand for oil is likely to increase according to an oil pundit intervewed on BBC Radio 4's World at One.
Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?
He believed it would a long time before the advantages of controlling Venezuelan oil are realised but he felt it was a worthwhile endeavour for the long haul.
The geopolitical element here has nothing to do with 'zionism' or Netanyahu but everything to do with keeping Russia and China out of South and Central America.
I feel Trump's actions are sufficiently explained by a desire to look like a strong man together with an inability to think about consequences.
Successful military action against a bogey person for the right makes him look tough, therefore he did it.
Global demand for oil is likely to increase according to an oil pundit intervewed on BBC Radio 4's World at One.
Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?
He believed it would a long time before the advantages of controlling Venezuelan oil are realised but he felt it was a worthwhile endeavour for the long haul.
The geopolitical element here has nothing to do with 'zionism' or Netanyahu but everything to do with keeping Russia and China out of South and Central America.
Demand for oil is a strange thing that I don't really understand. If they'd assumed in the models that Venezuela would release x billion barrels but actually it turns out to be x+y billion barrels then this could cause prices to go down. But if the Middle Eastern producers in the oil cartel decide to correspondingly reduce production, which leads to no increase in the total global supply of oil then the price might not decrease.
But then there's a whole other thing if Trump is planning to undercut the global price of oil to supply US businesses. The question then is about whether there is demand for oil in the USA which could cover the costs of production, given that the rest of the world would likely boycott US petroleum extracted from Venezuela.
I suppose ignoring national and international law is good for his ego. Plus his diehard supporters don’t really care about legalities which get in the way of his “big man” actions?
I suppose ignoring national and international law is good for his ego. Plus his diehard supporters don’t really care about legalities which get in the way of his “big man” actions?
I suppose ignoring national and international law is good for his ego. Plus his diehard supporters don’t really care about legalities which get in the way of his “big man” actions?
Maybe Dafyd has nailed it?
Read above from this Antipodean: of coursehe bloody has
@Gramps49 I admire your optimism. While it is entirely possible that a Democratic house would impeach Trump, I can't see any chance of the Senate doing the same.
Indeed. I’ll believe Democrats having a majority in the Senate when I see it. And I suspect that regardless of whether Democrats actually have a majority, finding enough Republicans willing to vote “guilty” on articles of impeachment to get to a 2/3 majority of senators present and voting is a just not going to happen.
I think our best case scenario is the Dems take the House and gum up the works for a couple of years, and as @Gramps49 points out, that's a year away. The time to grab things is this year, and Trump and his cronies and the techbros and every other piece of pond scum benefiting from the shit show in Washington all know it.
I am assuming that it was Trump's bright idea, rather than say a bright idea that Hegseth had and sold to Trump.
Not that that changes matters; from what I gather Hegseth's grasp of strategy and geopolitics seems no more sophisticated than Trump's.
OTOH not specifically on this issue but there are also bound to be people trying to push Trump's buttons to get specific policy outcomes with aim of using him as a sin eater.
I had been hoping, as a tongue-in-cheek joke, that on the 1st of April, the UK government would announce that America's trial period of independence had now expired and that, having failed to show itself a responsible actor on the world stage, ita independence would henceforth be revoked and it would return to British rule, with the role of president downgraded to that of governor-general.
Comments
I find it plausible (without any direct evidence, of course) that, given the recent political history of Venezuela and the fact that none of the other leaders of that country have been removed, American agents made a deal with Venezuelan military leaders (many of whom, as Alan notes, are no friends of Maduro) ahead of time along the lines of “make it easy for us to get him and we’ll leave you alone and/or let you fill the power vacuum afterwards”.
On the other hand, it appears that there were a significant number of other military actions, including one or more SEAD missions involving 150 aircraft: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/4/how-the-us-attack-on-venezuela-abduction-of-maduro-unfolded
Over and above the business that Chevron currently does in the country, I'm not sure that there's that much profit to be had.
Given that Rubio is already waving sabers at Cuba, I'm guessing not.
And international law is only as effective as its enforcement, and America has been the de facto enforcer for years now.
One of the interesting things here is that the Trump administration doesn't really have a clear narrative about the Venezuelan invasion. Trump himself and a few others like to go on about the oil and the money to be made. For people like Steven Miller it's about immigration. The courts have ruled that Venezuelans in the U.S. can't be rounded up under then Enemy Aliens Act because the U.S. was not at war with Venezuela. Still others like Marco Rubio believe that the fall of the Maduro regime will (somehow) cause the collapse of the Cuban government. It's kind of a MAGA Rorschach test where what is seen tells you more about the person looking than what it is they're looking at.
But in the longer term, as China continues supplying the world with renewable energy and reducing the demand for oil #, the increasingly significant factor regarding oil production is going to be the *cost* of production. This varies significantly from area to area. The countries with the lowest production costs include … Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Venezuela, Iraq, Iran, and Nigeria. Can you spot which of these is in the Western Hemisphere?
Estimates are that it will take an investment of around $10 billion per year over the next decade to get low-cost production in Venezuela back up to speed. Next to this $100 billion investment in the future of western hemisphere oil, the $1 billion that Trump mentioned during his fossil fuel fundraiser looks like petty cash…
# other scenarios are possible.
That's always a factor, and I don't see it would particularly favour Venezuela. A reduction in demand will lead to a glut of possible production, a scenario favouring the lowest cost producers sure, except Saudi Arabia and Kuwait can produce sweeter oil at half the production cost.
I think it's about oil insofar as Trump is an old guy who thinks in those terms, I'm not sure there's much money to be made.
When did the US last enforce international law rather than use it as a barely discernible fig leaf over doing whatever the hell it wanted?
China imports 4% of its oil from Venezuela but this analyst felt it would only hit the little guys - China has a plethora of small scale oil refineries - not the big boys.
He felt the influence on China would be more geopolitical than economic as it denies them a toehold in the region.
Part of me thinks that Trump wouldn't attempt military action to annexe Greenland as the potential deaths of Greenlanders and Danes - sad as it seems - would cause more international outrage than the deaths of Cubans.
My guess would be he'd occupy some key installations there without firing any shots and dare the Danes to do something about it. 'Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough ...'
Knowing full well that neither the Danes or NATO would hit back.
Putin, President Xi, Trump. I'm beginning to think we are entering a new Dark Age as per @Gramps49's thread on that theme.
One could even imagine China testing the waters with moves against Taiwan. If the USA responds, that could create space for some other win in a place they're not looking. If they don't respond, which seems likely in this moment, then that could be a green light for invasion.
I don't think China is really going to invade Taiwan any time soon, but I wouldn't be surprised if they became much more aggressive with their neighbours in the region.
There is no check on Trump. He is governing like a dictator, without any regard for the popularity (never mind the legality) of his actions, and with all of the capacity of the US at his disposal. He has executed a coup in a sovereign nation. This is a massive destabilization of the post-war global order. Like it or not, this makes the US a rogue state.
I had a feeling this would be the answer, but it's good to have that confirmed by someone outside the US.
There have been a few protests - people in Chicago turned out quickly, and I've seen reports of others - but nothing in Los Angeles County. There's not even anything planned for Jan 20 around here.
Yeah. Trump bragging that America now controls all the oil in Venezuela might be a good way to sell this to the people who voted for him because they thought he'd deliver lower prices, and will assume that the more oil America controls, the cheaper it will be for Americans.
And that might be what's going on in his head as well, but I'm not sure if it's exactly what's motivating his enablers.
So far, only one poll has been released following the arrest kidnapping of Maduro and his wife. The poll, released by The Washington Post on Monday, found that Americans are equally divided over whether they approve or disapprove of sending the U.S. military to apprehend Maduro, by a 40% to 42% margin, respectively. Along party lines, the results are split sharply: 74% of Republicans approve of the operation, while 76% of Democrats disapprove.
According to the poll, a majority of U.S. adults, however, believe that such actions should have required approval from Congress, with more than 6 in 10 in agreement. While 76% of Republicans think the operation was appropriate under Trump’s order, 94% of Democrats said it should have received prior approval.
Source: https://www.nj.com/politics/2026/01/new-poll-democrats-and-republicans-overwhelmingly-agree-on-1-thing-after-trumps-operation-in-venezuela.html
The Washington Post poll is behind a paywall so I have to cite a secondary report.
I would agree if the majority of Americans favored the Venezuela action we would be a rogue state; but, if anything, our rogue president is taking advantage of our divisions to get his way before the (prison) door is slammed on him.
Yeah, I doubt the oil companies were really on board for this. And, as a non-driver who hadn't been checking the crude prices lately, I will note that at this exact moment, the price appears to be going up. Not sure if that's just an ephemeral fluctuation, or an ongoing trend.
If I were advising Trump, what I'd do is...
...sign an EO announcing something like "America will take control of all the oil in Venezuela!!" Then, the next day, have a bunch of US oil CEOs over to the White House, posed in such a way as to look slightly subservient to Trump, and sign a proclamation praising the previous day's EO. If the price at the pumps later goes down or at least treads water, a certain portion of the public might believe that Trump ordered the CEOs to do something or other in Venezuela, and this lowered the prices.
Of course, investment decisions will be made looking to the future, spending significant money in Venezuela won't lead to returns for several years. Which is the timescale over which political stability is needed - the Madura government seems to be stable at the moment without him, but will they be able to steal another election? Will the drug cartels seize more power? If Trump goes after others in the region, what effect on stability will that have? Predicting oil prices and demand over 5-10 years is probably easier for oil companies, they'll be doing that anyway.
My theory is that Trump is being as explicit as he is about saying it's about oil because he knows that's a crowd pleaser, if people interpret it as meaning that oil prices will soon be going down.
Venezuelan VP Delcy Rodriguez has stated that the attack had "a zionist tinge", and people in the tuckersphere and other isolationist camps have said it was done on Netanyahu's orders. I kinda doubt that, but I think geopolitics of some sort probably plays a role, eg. Rubio unhappy that Venezuela helps Cuba economically.
I think this is right. What concerns me is that the Venezuelan operation seems to have been the culmination of months of military planning and the deliberate positioning of military forces. Which suggests that the military command, at many levels, cannot have been prepared to voice concerns about the national or international legality of the plan, simply its operational parameters.
Reaching back to the first Trump administration, it’s hard to believe that Secretary of Defence Mattis would have gone along with this. Which points to the loss of any concerned voices about national or international legality in the current Trump administration. Trump has silenced opposition, neutered separation of powers, and is indeed behaving like a dictator.
The US no longer has Western Hemisphere allies. It has vassals. I’ve been around a long time but never seen anything like that before.
So much for democracy.
In the longer term…
The production and sale of crude oil does not operate in a free market. Since OPEC was set up in 1960 (by Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela) to counter US dominance of the oil markets, it has operated as a cartel to control the international price of oil, to maximise revenues and for geo-political influence. Donald Trump is old enough to remember the 70's. One consequence was that many countries significantly developed their own supplies of crude oil, even if they were more expensive. OPEC's influence has consequently reduced, but remains significant. From the US point of view, it is still a dangerous competitor.
Global demand for oil is likely to decease as different sectors of the economy transition away from fossil fuels. However, I don't think anyone is expecting a slow and steady decline in prices. Just because it's harder to control prices in a declining market doesn't mean any of the major players are going to stop trying, especially given the continuing strategic significance of oil.
One sector of the global economy that is unlikely to transition away from fossil fuels any time soon is the military-industrial complex. The newer elements of military hardware might be battery powered, but the fossil-fuel powered stuff will be around for a while yet, even if NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said in 2021: While we wait for this version of the future to arrive, the current US administration has revived the Monroe doctrine, the reassertion of hegemonic control in the Western Hemisphere of influence. Intervening in the region and protecting vested interests largely comes down to wielding a bigger stick than anyone else, which requires the creation and enforcement of end-to-end control of the strategic supply chains on which the stick depends.
Donald might only be interested in parts of this narrative, but I suspect other members of his regime have their own vested interests.
Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?
He believed it would a long time before the advantages of controlling Venezuelan oil are realised but he felt it was a worthwhile endeavour for the long haul.
The geopolitical element here has nothing to do with 'zionism' or Netanyahu but everything to do with keeping Russia and China out of South and Central America.
Successful military action against a bogey person for the right makes him look tough, therefore he did it.
Demand for oil is a strange thing that I don't really understand. If they'd assumed in the models that Venezuela would release x billion barrels but actually it turns out to be x+y billion barrels then this could cause prices to go down. But if the Middle Eastern producers in the oil cartel decide to correspondingly reduce production, which leads to no increase in the total global supply of oil then the price might not decrease.
But then there's a whole other thing if Trump is planning to undercut the global price of oil to supply US businesses. The question then is about whether there is demand for oil in the USA which could cover the costs of production, given that the rest of the world would likely boycott US petroleum extracted from Venezuela.
Maybe Dafyd has nailed it?
I don't see 'the rest if the world' boycotting anything from the US anytime soon. Leaders may talk tough but that's all I can see them doing.
I don't understand oil prices and the oil market either but from what I'm hearing, demand isn't likely to decrease.
Read above from this Antipodean: of coursehe bloody has
Happy 250th anniversary, America.
Not that that changes matters; from what I gather Hegseth's grasp of strategy and geopolitics seems no more sophisticated than Trump's.