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.
I'm not sure that even the most ardent anti-monarchist would wish to put America on HM Charles III's shoulders...
...which sort of reminds me that Trump is actually older than Charles III, and may well go down into Sheol first...
In the short term, demand for oil is unlikely to change much. In the medium term, things get more complicated, as the supply side becomes increasingly significant. As the International Energy Agency reports (overview plus executive summary):
Much attention today focuses on uncertainties affecting the future evolution of oil and natural gas demand, with less consideration given to how the supply picture could develop. However, understanding decline rates – the annual rate at which production declines from existing oil and gas fields – is crucial for assessing the outlook for oil and gas supply and, by extension, for market balances.
…
If all capital investment in existing sources of oil and gas production were to cease immediately, global oil production would fall by 8% per year on average over the next decade, or around 5.5 million barrels per day (mb/d) each year. This is equivalent to losing more than the annual output of Brazil and Norway each year.
…
Under natural decline rates, global oil and gas supply would become much more concentrated among a small number of countries in the Middle East and Russia, with implications for energy security. Most oil production in the United States comes from fast declining unconventional sources, while in the Middle East and Russia most oil is produced from slowly declining conventional supergiant fields.
…
In recent years, it has taken almost 20 years on average to bring new conventional upstream projects online.
Which puts into perspective the decade it would take to get Venezuela's oil production back up to speed.
But I reckon Donald's primary goal during his second term is to double his wealth every year he's in office.
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.
A Rashomon, even!
And I feel like that describes so many current events. Evil times are great for highlighting big characters. Is that why people fixate on Great Men of History?
I've also read that the oil companies may not want to sink all of that money into upgrading the Venezuelan industry. Does that mean Trump is going to do it all at taxpayer expense?
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.
A Rashomon, even!
And I feel like that describes so many current events. Evil times are great for highlighting big characters. Is that why people fixate on Great Men of History?
I've also read that the oil companies may not want to sink all of that money into upgrading the Venezuelan industry. Does that mean Trump is going to do it all at taxpayer expense?
Nothing so simple as that. He'll invite Gazprom in to partner.
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.
We're not really in a position to throw stones at the Americans, given the recent Tory omnishambles and the very real possibility of having Farage as our next PM. But it's cute that you think we'd do a better job of being 'a responsible player on the world stage.'
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.
Ahem. They are Canada's Lost Provinces. Oh that British North America could be one again!
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.
I am convinced that Trump could leave the chavistas in power(*), send no further troops to Venezuela, do nothing with the oil industry there, and his dimwitted cultists would still get duped into thinking he's accomplishing world-historical feats.
(*) re: the apparent sidelining of Machado in favour of continued chavista rule, one thing I'll note is that the America First crowd centred around Tucker Carlson has been attacking the Venezuelan intervention, and dropping in reference to the chavistas enforcing right-wing social teachings on abortion, LGBTQ issues etc, with Machado being portrayed as a reprehensible liberal. Not that I think this is the primary reason Trump might be leaning toward Rodriguez rather than Machado, though that posture might make it an easier sell to otherwise skeptical religious factions among MAGA.
This is my impression. A lot of the MAGA crowd are loyalty-grafted to their leader, and so they'll defend whatever he does, no matter what he does, because he is the one who did it.
If he walks away, he was smart to not get further involved and turn it into Iraq. If he doubles down, then it was worth it for the oil.
This is the fun of politics in complex situations. No matter what you do, with enough cognitive effort, you can construct a plausible sounding rationalization. It's like magical thinking that gets people killed!
I've also read that the oil companies may not want to sink all of that money into upgrading the Venezuelan industry. Does that mean Trump is going to do it all at taxpayer expense?
The Guardian reports that
Donald Trump has suggested US taxpayers could reimburse energy companies for repairing Venezuelan infrastructure for extracting and shipping oil.
Trump acknowledged that “a lot of money” would need to be spent to increase oil production in Venezuela after US forces ousted its leader, Nicolás Maduro, but suggested his government could pay oil companies to do the work.
I've read that even if there was a lot of investment money, it would take a decade or more to actually make significant changes to the oil industry in Venezuela.
If true that seems to me to support the idea that Trump sees himself as a mafia boss.
I've also read that the oil companies may not want to sink all of that money into upgrading the Venezuelan industry. Does that mean Trump is going to do it all at taxpayer expense?
The Guardian reports that
Donald Trump has suggested US taxpayers could reimburse energy companies for repairing Venezuelan infrastructure for extracting and shipping oil.
Trump acknowledged that “a lot of money” would need to be spent to increase oil production in Venezuela after US forces ousted its leader, Nicolás Maduro, but suggested his government could pay oil companies to do the work.
I've also read that the oil companies may not want to sink all of that money into upgrading the Venezuelan industry. Does that mean Trump is going to do it all at taxpayer expense?
Although the chances of the companies being stiffed later is not insignificant.
Tshis Venezuelan action has become a campaign issue, along with affordability, tariffs, and the Epstein files. My bet is the new Democratic House in 2027 will not be willing to fund taxpayer money into Venezuela's petroleum shambles, and I think the American oil execs know that too.
Tshis Venezuelan action has become a campaign issue, along with affordability, tariffs, and the Epstein files. My bet is the new Democratic House in 2027 will not be willing to fund taxpayer money into Venezuela's petroleum shambles, and I think the American oil execs know that too.
That then leads to Trump trying to spend money appropriated for other things and daring SCOTUS or Congress to try and stop him.
Tshis Venezuelan action has become a campaign issue, along with affordability, tariffs, and the Epstein files. My bet is the new Democratic House in 2027 will not be willing to fund taxpayer money into Venezuela's petroleum shambles, and I think the American oil execs know that too.
That then leads to Trump trying to spend money appropriated for other things and daring SCOTUS or Congress to try and stop him.
That means imposing de facto austerity measures on other government endeavours. Depending on how precious those endeavours are to the heart of John Q. Public, it might not be that easy a sell to voters outside of the Trump cult.
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.
Ahem. They are Canada's Lost Provinces. Oh that British North America could be one again!
As an aside, the 13 colonies were 'one' in name only before the American War of Independence/American Revolution (select name of your choice).
The thing that united them was British recalcitrance and push back on them having more autonomy.
Coming back to the 21st century, I understand that Trump hasn't ruled out military action in relation to Greenland. Bluster?
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.
Ahem. They are Canada's Lost Provinces. Oh that British North America could be one again!
The thing that united them was British recalcitrance and push back on them having more autonomy.
Really? I thought it was being asked to pay part of the cost of their own defence.
He'll make the cuts anyway and blame the Democrats.
He is already laying the groundwork for that. He is bragging that the oil will start flowing "in 18 months"...so safely after the midterm elections this year and, if the Democrats take control of the House and/or Senate, he can then blame that for the fact that the oil is not flowing a few months later. And then he will spin THAT into urging that the Dems be thrown out and the Republicans be put back in Control of Congress in 2028. This isn't 3-dimensional chess. It is just politics.
He'll make the cuts anyway and blame the Democrats.
That's the thing. Trump is currently engaged in beating up on "blue states", and finding pretexts to deny them federal funding by claiming fraud. What that actually means is that he has chosen to have his minions stare closely at the blue states, and chosen not to have them stare closely at the red states.
Trump doesn't actually care about people at all, in any way. The fact that what he is doing will cause actual real harm to a whole bunch of innocent people doesn't matter to him - it's all about "sticking it to the libs".
A future Democratic administration would not retaliate in the same way, because normal people (of which most Democrats are a subset) aren't sociopaths, and actually care about causing harm to people.
One thing I have noticed particularly in the last few days is that Trump seems to categorise everyone as either "weak" or "strong". People he sees as strong are those who essentially have weathered his bluster; the Chinese, the Russians and even the North Koreans. Netanyahu is strong because he has set his mind on achieving something and is refusing to budge from it.
The "weak" are those who he has decided are too small to bother with, those who have "folded" under pressure too easily, those who are not aggressive enough. So Mike Pence was a weak Vice President. Maria Macado is too weak to be in charge of Venezuela. Greenlandish people are, collectively, too weak to be left in charge of strategically important resources. Palestinians are weak for lots of obvious reasons.
Tshis Venezuelan action has become a campaign issue, along with affordability, tariffs, and the Epstein files. My bet is the new Democratic House in 2027 will not be willing to fund taxpayer money into Venezuela's petroleum shambles, and I think the American oil execs know that too.
That then leads to Trump trying to spend money appropriated for other things and daring SCOTUS or Congress to try and stop him.
That means imposing de facto austerity measures on other government endeavours. Depending on how precious those endeavours are to the heart of John Q. Public, it might not be that easy a sell to voters outside of the Trump cult.
At this point, I don't think the administration gives a rat-fart about anyone outside of their base. And I'm not sure they care about their base.
They operate in a world of threats, and they're profoundly calloused. If they're not very directly threatened, I don't think it matters to them.
I half expect they think they can cheat their way through elections, or just render the other branches of government irrelevant. It's a war being waged against all of us from the executive branch. And the more we "resist" (as we must) the most obvious that'll become.
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.
Ahem. They are Canada's Lost Provinces. Oh that British North America could be one again!
The thing that united them was British recalcitrance and push back on them having more autonomy.
Really? I thought it was being asked to pay part of the cost of their own defence.
Sure. And that was part of it, with the irony that in 1763 Britain had proscribed further westward expansion into Native American territories, not because it cared about the indigenous people's but because it felt the cost of protecting the colonists would be prohibitive.
A bit like Trump's View of NATO ...
Anyhow, I think @Basketactortale is on the money with Trump's categorisation of the world into 'strong' and 'weak', the deserving and the undeserving.
The United States has seized another Venezuelan tanker. It had been called the Bella-1. When it approached the blockade imposed by the US, it turned around and made a run toward Russia. Two weeks ago, it reflagged itself, flying a Russia flag, and renamed itself the Marina. I understand Russia was in the process sending a submarine to shadow the vessel. Sounds like the US was able to board it before the submarine arrived.
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.
Ahem. They are Canada's Lost Provinces. Oh that British North America could be one again!
As an aside, the 13 colonies were 'one' in name only before the American War of Independence/American Revolution (select name of your choice).
The thing that united them was British recalcitrance and push back on them having more autonomy.
Coming back to the 21st century, I understand that Trump hasn't ruled out military action in relation to Greenland. Bluster?
Untrue.
There was a single "Indian Affairs" Department (then a military department) and a single Post Office. That is why Ben Franklin is regarded as Canada's first postmaster.
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.
Ahem. They are Canada's Lost Provinces. Oh that British North America could be one again!
As an aside, the 13 colonies were 'one' in name only before the American War of Independence/American Revolution (select name of your choice).
The thing that united them was British recalcitrance and push back on them having more autonomy.
Coming back to the 21st century, I understand that Trump hasn't ruled out military action in relation to Greenland. Bluster?
Untrue.
There was a single "Indian Affairs" Department (then a military department) and a single Post Office. That is why Ben Franklin is regarded as Canada's first postmaster.
You can because prior to full American independence, his jurisdiction as US Postmaster General extended into the Canadas?
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.
Ahem. They are Canada's Lost Provinces. Oh that British North America could be one again!
As an aside, the 13 colonies were 'one' in name only before the American War of Independence/American Revolution (select name of your choice).
The thing that united them was British recalcitrance and push back on them having more autonomy.
Coming back to the 21st century, I understand that Trump hasn't ruled out military action in relation to Greenland. Bluster?
Untrue.
There was a single "Indian Affairs" Department (then a military department) and a single Post Office. That is why Ben Franklin is regarded as Canada's first postmaster.
No, @Gamma Gamaliel is correct when he says “the 13 colonies were ‘one’ in name only before the American War of Independence/American Revolution (select name of your choice).” Your examples don’t show otherwise.
The American Revolutionary War started in April 1775. The Second Continental Congress convened in May 1775. It was the Second Continental Congress that established the United States Post Office (July 1775), which Franklin headed, and the first Office of Indian Affairs.
Both of those are untrue, Nick. Franklin's term as Deputy Postmaster for British North Amerca began in 1753 as a Crown appointment. Franklin established post offices at Quebec City, Montreal and Trois-Rivieres, hence his standing in Canadian history.
The Indian Department, as it was known, was established for the whole of British North America in 1755; it was primarily a military department and reported to the Commander-in-Chief, North America and the Home Office in London. Canada's Crown-Indigenous Relations Department is its direct continuation.
Both of those are untrue, Nick. Franklin's term as Deputy Postmaster for British North Amerca began in 1753 as a Crown appointment. Franklin established post offices at Quebec City, Montreal and Trois-Rivieres, hence his standing in Canadian history.
The Conquest wasn't until 1759, though. I assume Quebec City, Montreal, and Trois-Rivieres had passed into British hands, at least temporarily, by 1753?
Both of those are untrue, Nick. Franklin's term as Deputy Postmaster for British North Amerca began in 1753 as a Crown appointment. Franklin established post offices at Quebec City, Montreal and Trois-Rivieres, hence his standing in Canadian history.
The Indian Department, as it was known, was established for the whole of British North America in 1755; it was primarily a military department and reported to the Commander-in-Chief, North America and the Home Office in London. Canada's Crown-Indigenous Relations Department is its direct continuation.
What I said is definitely true: The American Revolution began in April, 1775, the Second Continental Congress convened the following month, and later in 1775 established the first United States Post Office and Office of Indian Affairs were established later in 1775.
The problem is that you are responding to something other than what @Gamma Gamaliel or I have said. What you describe are entities of the British Crown/British government in North America, not of united colonies or of the colonial governments prior to the Revolution.
Sigh. Seeing as I was the one who raised it, I should think I know what i am speaking of.
What the Second Continental Congress said is irrelevant as I was not referring to that. It is not germane to what I raised.
Sadly, you are committing an anachronism of trying to find a difference between colonial and Crown government; there wasn't one as perceived at that time. (c. 1770). Everyone was still British at that time. The separate identity came later.
Certain affairs were handled on an all-BNA basis prior to 1775, the two examples being the post office and Indian Affairs.
As an aside, the 13 colonies were 'one' in name only before the American War of Independence/American Revolution (select name of your choice).
The thing that united them was British recalcitrance and push back on them having more autonomy.
What GG was referring to—at least what it seems clear to me that he was referring to—and what I was referring to is actual political cohesion among the 13 colonies that would form the United States. Yes, they were all British colonies, but they were 13 separate British colonies, each with their own government, and with no particular political cohesion among them, much less among all of them. Indeed, one advantage that the British initially thought they had in the war was the lack of political cohesion among the colonies.
When the colonies declared independence, they did so as “United States,” but with the understanding that they were a uniting of 13 sovereign states. It’s hardly a commission of anachronism to acknowledge these facts.
A little late to the party and apologies if this has been said before but it's pretty clear from the National Security Strategy (Nov 2025) published on the White House website what's going on in Venezuela. As Gamaliel said.
pg 15 on the Western Hemisphere:
"After years of neglect, the United States will reassert and enforce the Monroe
Doctrine to restore American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere, and to
protect our homeland and our access to key geographies throughout the region. We
will deny non-Hemispheric competitors the ability to position forces or other
threatening capabilities, or to own or control strategically vital assets, in our
Hemisphere. "
It's a pushback to China and Russia in the region.
Maybe too little too late. I haven't read the whole document.
Today Trump met with 100 US oil executives to discuss their commitment to invest in Venezuelan oil. He expects them to invest at least $100 billion in the venture. They told him they are hesitant to do that without security guarantees.
The arrogance of Trump assuming he can sell Venezuelan oil is beyond me.
It will take four to five years before the oil will come online.
Of course, there is going to be a regime change in the US by that time.
It's a pushback to China and Russia in the region.
Maybe too little too late.
Too late for what? Stemming a Chinese invasion via Mexico? Is this a bit?
Too late for pushing back on Chinese and Russian influence in the region. Heck in the world. BRICS+ has made inroads everywhere. China is now South America's largest trading partner.
Invasion? Now? No. The US military is still too strong. Thankfully.
It's a pushback to China and Russia in the region.
Maybe too little too late.
Too late for what? Stemming a Chinese invasion via Mexico? Is this a bit?
Too late for pushing back on Chinese and Russian influence in the region. Heck in the world. BRICS+ has made inroads everywhere. China is now South America's largest trading partner.
If I wanted to fix this I would simply offer South America more equitable terms for trading.
Comments
I'm not sure that even the most ardent anti-monarchist would wish to put America on HM Charles III's shoulders...
...which sort of reminds me that Trump is actually older than Charles III, and may well go down into Sheol first...
But I reckon Donald's primary goal during his second term is to double his wealth every year he's in office.
A Rashomon, even!
And I feel like that describes so many current events. Evil times are great for highlighting big characters. Is that why people fixate on Great Men of History?
I've also read that the oil companies may not want to sink all of that money into upgrading the Venezuelan industry. Does that mean Trump is going to do it all at taxpayer expense?
Nothing so simple as that. He'll invite Gazprom in to partner.
We're not really in a position to throw stones at the Americans, given the recent Tory omnishambles and the very real possibility of having Farage as our next PM. But it's cute that you think we'd do a better job of being 'a responsible player on the world stage.'
Ahem. They are Canada's Lost Provinces. Oh that British North America could be one again!
I am convinced that Trump could leave the chavistas in power(*), send no further troops to Venezuela, do nothing with the oil industry there, and his dimwitted cultists would still get duped into thinking he's accomplishing world-historical feats.
(*) re: the apparent sidelining of Machado in favour of continued chavista rule, one thing I'll note is that the America First crowd centred around Tucker Carlson has been attacking the Venezuelan intervention, and dropping in reference to the chavistas enforcing right-wing social teachings on abortion, LGBTQ issues etc, with Machado being portrayed as a reprehensible liberal. Not that I think this is the primary reason Trump might be leaning toward Rodriguez rather than Machado, though that posture might make it an easier sell to otherwise skeptical religious factions among MAGA.
If he walks away, he was smart to not get further involved and turn it into Iraq. If he doubles down, then it was worth it for the oil.
This is the fun of politics in complex situations. No matter what you do, with enough cognitive effort, you can construct a plausible sounding rationalization. It's like magical thinking that gets people killed!
The Guardian reports that
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/jan/06/trump-us-taxpayers-oil-firms-venezuela-investment
Not exactly what he ran on, but pays attention to that?!
If true that seems to me to support the idea that Trump sees himself as a mafia boss.
Apparently my years spent studying political science weren't completely wasted!
@Basketactortale : That's exactly what he sees himself as, I think. The only rule is power.
Although the chances of the companies being stiffed later is not insignificant.
That then leads to Trump trying to spend money appropriated for other things and daring SCOTUS or Congress to try and stop him.
That means imposing de facto austerity measures on other government endeavours. Depending on how precious those endeavours are to the heart of John Q. Public, it might not be that easy a sell to voters outside of the Trump cult.
As an aside, the 13 colonies were 'one' in name only before the American War of Independence/American Revolution (select name of your choice).
The thing that united them was British recalcitrance and push back on them having more autonomy.
Coming back to the 21st century, I understand that Trump hasn't ruled out military action in relation to Greenland. Bluster?
Really? I thought it was being asked to pay part of the cost of their own defence.
He is already laying the groundwork for that. He is bragging that the oil will start flowing "in 18 months"...so safely after the midterm elections this year and, if the Democrats take control of the House and/or Senate, he can then blame that for the fact that the oil is not flowing a few months later. And then he will spin THAT into urging that the Dems be thrown out and the Republicans be put back in Control of Congress in 2028. This isn't 3-dimensional chess. It is just politics.
That's the thing. Trump is currently engaged in beating up on "blue states", and finding pretexts to deny them federal funding by claiming fraud. What that actually means is that he has chosen to have his minions stare closely at the blue states, and chosen not to have them stare closely at the red states.
Trump doesn't actually care about people at all, in any way. The fact that what he is doing will cause actual real harm to a whole bunch of innocent people doesn't matter to him - it's all about "sticking it to the libs".
A future Democratic administration would not retaliate in the same way, because normal people (of which most Democrats are a subset) aren't sociopaths, and actually care about causing harm to people.
The "weak" are those who he has decided are too small to bother with, those who have "folded" under pressure too easily, those who are not aggressive enough. So Mike Pence was a weak Vice President. Maria Macado is too weak to be in charge of Venezuela. Greenlandish people are, collectively, too weak to be left in charge of strategically important resources. Palestinians are weak for lots of obvious reasons.
Of course this is all nonsense.
At this point, I don't think the administration gives a rat-fart about anyone outside of their base. And I'm not sure they care about their base.
They operate in a world of threats, and they're profoundly calloused. If they're not very directly threatened, I don't think it matters to them.
I half expect they think they can cheat their way through elections, or just render the other branches of government irrelevant. It's a war being waged against all of us from the executive branch. And the more we "resist" (as we must) the most obvious that'll become.
Sure. And that was part of it, with the irony that in 1763 Britain had proscribed further westward expansion into Native American territories, not because it cared about the indigenous people's but because it felt the cost of protecting the colonists would be prohibitive.
A bit like Trump's View of NATO ...
Anyhow, I think @Basketactortale is on the money with Trump's categorisation of the world into 'strong' and 'weak', the deserving and the undeserving.
Drama on the High Seas
Untrue.
There was a single "Indian Affairs" Department (then a military department) and a single Post Office. That is why Ben Franklin is regarded as Canada's first postmaster.
You can because prior to full American independence, his jurisdiction as US Postmaster General extended into the Canadas?
The American Revolutionary War started in April 1775. The Second Continental Congress convened in May 1775. It was the Second Continental Congress that established the United States Post Office (July 1775), which Franklin headed, and the first Office of Indian Affairs.
The Indian Department, as it was known, was established for the whole of British North America in 1755; it was primarily a military department and reported to the Commander-in-Chief, North America and the Home Office in London. Canada's Crown-Indigenous Relations Department is its direct continuation.
The Conquest wasn't until 1759, though. I assume Quebec City, Montreal, and Trois-Rivieres had passed into British hands, at least temporarily, by 1753?
The problem is that you are responding to something other than what @Gamma Gamaliel or I have said. What you describe are entities of the British Crown/British government in North America, not of united colonies or of the colonial governments prior to the Revolution.
What the Second Continental Congress said is irrelevant as I was not referring to that. It is not germane to what I raised.
Sadly, you are committing an anachronism of trying to find a difference between colonial and Crown government; there wasn't one as perceived at that time. (c. 1770). Everyone was still British at that time. The separate identity came later.
Certain affairs were handled on an all-BNA basis prior to 1775, the two examples being the post office and Indian Affairs.
You raised your specific point about the post office and Indian Affairs in response to this from GG: What GG was referring to—at least what it seems clear to me that he was referring to—and what I was referring to is actual political cohesion among the 13 colonies that would form the United States. Yes, they were all British colonies, but they were 13 separate British colonies, each with their own government, and with no particular political cohesion among them, much less among all of them. Indeed, one advantage that the British initially thought they had in the war was the lack of political cohesion among the colonies.
When the colonies declared independence, they did so as “United States,” but with the understanding that they were a uniting of 13 sovereign states. It’s hardly a commission of anachronism to acknowledge these facts.
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
pg 15 on the Western Hemisphere:
"After years of neglect, the United States will reassert and enforce the Monroe
Doctrine to restore American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere, and to
protect our homeland and our access to key geographies throughout the region. We
will deny non-Hemispheric competitors the ability to position forces or other
threatening capabilities, or to own or control strategically vital assets, in our
Hemisphere. "
It's a pushback to China and Russia in the region.
Maybe too little too late. I haven't read the whole document.
Too late for what? Stemming a Chinese invasion via Mexico? Is this a bit?
The arrogance of Trump assuming he can sell Venezuelan oil is beyond me.
It will take four to five years before the oil will come online.
Of course, there is going to be a regime change in the US by that time.
We hope.
Too late for pushing back on Chinese and Russian influence in the region. Heck in the world. BRICS+ has made inroads everywhere. China is now South America's largest trading partner.
Invasion? Now? No. The US military is still too strong. Thankfully.
If I wanted to fix this I would simply offer South America more equitable terms for trading.