Maybe people will be glad Maduro is gone and will welcome a change? — RogueAI

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.

A reporter just asked who's in charge in Venezuela and Trump basically said the US is. We just freakin' annexed Venezuela?

Chaos? Civil war? — Metaphysician Undercover

I think they want to install that Nobel Prize winner, Maria Machado. — 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.

Maybe people will be glad Maduro is gone and will welcome a change? — RogueAI

Depends on the change that actually Trump has in mind for Venezuela and it's people.

It's not like the Middle East, where you have historic enmities like Shia vs Sunni Vs Kurds. — 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?

We should all be glad Maduro is gone. — 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.

Now onto the democratic transition of power — Maduro did not represent the people of Venezuela. — 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.

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. — ssu

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.

So unclear at the moment what the plan actually is to run Venezuela. — boethius

Well, Trump did say just a while ago that they will 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. — 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.

Just what this "deal" will be isn't so easy. — 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.

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. — 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.

Yeah, apparently we're going to be running Venezuela. We're so good at that sort of thing.

Anyone who thinks this is some Trump plan must be high off their rocker. This is clearly the tried-and-true Monroe doctrine in action, which basically states no countries in the western hemisphere get to have a meaningfully independent foreign policy. De facto vassalage - kind of like Europe.

Anyone who thinks this is some Trump plan must be high off their rocker. — Tzeentch

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.

I'm sure you would agree that this administration is capable of acting without any clear long term plan. — boethius

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.

Yeah, apparently we're going to be running Venezuela. We're so good at that sort of thing. — 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.

We just freakin' annexed Venezuela? — frank

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

There’s a plan in place to carve the world up into three superpowers. — Questioner

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.

Ha! Folk think there's a plan...

Oh, the White House has a plan today. It'll be different tomorrow. And then a totally different the next month. And so on....

Hence the Folk is correct. :wink:

They won't try to directly control Venezuela, of course. They'll put a puppet in place. Hasn't this person already been groomed, Nobel prize and all?

I take issue with the constant mentioning of Trump because this isn't about Trump.

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.

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. — ssu

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.

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, — 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.

Hence when you say that there are three Superpowers, you have already swallowed the Kremlin/Beijing rhetoric. Where does this defeatism come from? — 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.

Ha! Folk think there's a plan... — Banno

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 take issue with the constant mentioning of Trump because this isn't about Trump. — Tzeentch

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.

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. — Questioner

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.

I concede that maybe I shouldn't have used the world "superpower" to describe Russia. Maybe "power at play" would have been more accurate. — Questioner

Whose power play is this?

Whose power play is this? — ssu

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 doesn't seem to be any plan for exactly how they are going to "run" Venezuela. — Questioner

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.

Exactly. But when one is stupid and full of oneself, one doesn't even notice how fucked up the whole situation is from the start.

No oil company will invest in infrastructure in the circumstances Trump has created.

Again, his response to a problem is achieving the exact opposite of the desired outcome.

What a fool.

Yep.

No oil company will invest in infrastructure in the circumstances Trump has created. — Banno

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.

My guess is that he has them lined up already, since he has stated an agreement publicly. — Questioner

: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

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. — Banno

From an article linked to the one you linked -

"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."