What's new
New posts

US aggression of Venezuela

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the recent U.S. military actions against Venezuelan fishing boats, which have reportedly led to these vessels painting Russian flags to avoid capture. Participants draw parallels between current U.S. aggression and historical conflicts in Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, and Afghanistan, highlighting the lack of clear objectives and moral justification for such actions. The conversation critiques the motivations behind these military operations, suggesting they primarily serve the interests of politicians and the military-industrial complex rather than addressing the situation in Venezuela or the regime of Nicolás Maduro.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of U.S. foreign policy and military strategy
  • Familiarity with the geopolitical landscape of Latin America
  • Knowledge of historical U.S. military interventions
  • Awareness of the role of the military-industrial complex in defense policy
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of U.S. military strategy in Latin America
  • Examine the historical context of U.S. interventions in Vietnam and the Persian Gulf
  • Analyze the impact of military actions on international relations with Russia
  • Investigate the influence of the military-industrial complex on U.S. foreign policy
USEFUL FOR

Political analysts, historians, military strategists, and anyone interested in understanding U.S. foreign policy and its implications for Venezuela and broader Latin American relations.

This regime's current campaigns reek of the endless wars waged against Vietnam then in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan. These asymmetrical wars with no discernible objectives or moral reason mainly benefit the politicians in power, Pentagon stratified officer class who require active battles for promotion, and the military/industrial foundations that supply essential material.
 
The New York Times reports the invasion of Venezuela and capture of Mr. Maduro and wife. The articles include comments from US congress members and international leaders.

www.nytimes.com

Venezuela Live Updates: Trump Says President Nicolás Maduro Has Been Captured

President Trump announced that U.S. forces had carried out “a large scale strike against Venezuela” and were taking President Nicolás Maduro and his wife to New York. The Trump administration had been building pressure on Mr. Maduro for months.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
 
I have no sympathy for Maduro. I'm not sure how I feel about the idea of serving an arrest warrant on a head of state inside another sovereign nation. On the face of it, it seems like a de-stabilizing policy to adopt, but I suspect that it will end up being judged on its own record. If Venezuela does not de-stabilize, this will fade from the news cycle in a couple of weeks.

This doesn't make my list of shocking things from Trump admin v2, though, to me it seems not out-of-line with what most US presidents want to do, think they should be able to do, and look for ways to get away with doing. If congress doesn't impose any consequences, then executive power has just been expanded yet again.
 
Trump says that the US will be running Venezuela until a proper leadership transition takes place. “We can’t take a chance that somebody else takes over Venezuela that doesn’t have the good of the Venezuelan people in mind.”

The military is still under the control of a staunch Maduro supporter. Like so many US adventures, it may not go well for the Venezuelan citizenry.
 
@gleem I don't know what to make of that. Trump first term I'd have dismissed it out-of-hand as un-implementable nonsense, just a remark that occurred to him but wouldn't get any follow-through because its just not actionable. Now, though, I don't know - maybe he really will try to take action on "running" Venezuela. To me, that requires an occupying force. The only thing I can picture is some kind of security corridor to allow Chevron to et al to load oil tankers. I can't imagine what he has pictured when he says this - I still think its more likely than not just nonsense, and when a new president emerges if they are sufficiently subservient to Trump he will just claim to have ceded control which he never really had.

Did you see Mountainhead on HBO? This actually happened in that movie - I wonder if that's what inspired Trump to take this bizarre direction; although in the movie it was intended as absurd satire; hubris gone mad. I can picture Rubio on a conference call "running" Venezuela. Good Lord.
 
gleem said:
Trump says that the US will be running Venezuela until a proper leadership transition takes place. “We can’t take a chance that somebody else takes over Venezuela that doesn’t have the good of the Venezuelan people in mind.”
Click to expand...

... or anyone else rip Venezuela's oil resources other than us.
 
There are so many unknowns in this situation. Did Trump set a precedent for other nations? Will he send troops to Venezuela? If not, will the new government change its governance policies? Will Trump not care? If he sends troops and we get bogged down, would that be the last straw for the GOP? Will Iran get involved?

Whatever, this is another reason for other nations to distrust the US. For that matter, for more Americans say they have had enough of Trump.
 
I wish I were an American lawyer. Then I would know how to file a complaint with the ICC, and how and where to send it.

I know that the USA does not recognize the ICC. But it would prevent him from coming to Europe. His Scottish Golf resort is included. If the USA is accepting open theft, then it's time for the rest of the Western world to step in.

I have no access to FOX tv so I cannot confirm it, and I also hesitate to search for it because I cannot stand him. But I've read on FB that he already confirmed on FOX that it was all about oil! The USA isn't even pretending anymore that it is still obeying the law. Bush invented weapons of mass destruction. Trump skipped that farce and openly confirmed the illegitimacy of the action.
 
Last edited:
fresh_42 said:
he already confirmed on FOX that it was all about oil
Click to expand...

He did say that, more or less. At least it short-circuits years of people wasting energy making the case that it was all about oil; Michael Moore won't need to make a documentary explaining the obvious to Americans. We can go straight to the phase of Americans deciding what they are willing to stomach.

I'd be very surprised if any NATO states do more than express concerns, tbh.
 
fresh_42 said:
I wish I were an American lawyer. Then I would know how to file a complaint with the ICC, and how and where to send it.
Click to expand...
Another useless organization.
Why didn't the ICC indict Maduro themselves for winning a biased election.
Isn't that crime of concern that needed to be investigated on behalf of the Venezuela population?
They seem to pick and choose their cases on which direction the wind blows.

While not a United Nations organization, the Court has a cooperation agreement with the United Nations. When a situation is not within the Court’s jurisdiction, the United Nations Security Council can refer the situation to the ICC granting it jurisdiction. This has been done in the situations in Darfur (Sudan) and Libya.
 
I do not think it is a useless organization. Quite the opposite is true. After wars, especially those involving war crimes, it is crucial for the population to investigate and punish such crimes. Otherwise, a reckoning with the events cannot take place, and societies remain trapped in a vicious cycle of blood feuds. The ICC provides such a platform.
 
fresh_42 said:
I do not think it is a useless organization. Quite the opposite is true. After wars, especially those involving war crimes, it is crucial for the population to investigate and punish such crimes. Otherwise, a reckoning with the events cannot take place, and societies remain trapped in a vicious cycle of blood feuds. The ICC provides such a platform.
Click to expand...

I know where you are coming from, but quite a few international organizations are wanting, of which the ICC is probably one of the worst.
Without the Us and several other countries not signing it does lack complete jurisdiction.
Seems like a half- n - half split.
Signatory countries seem to be middle power to less than.

It's half a court of the world affairs.
1767497248488.webp

Green - State party
Yellow - Signatory that has not ratified
Purple - State party that subsequently withdrew its membership
Orange - Signatory that subsequently withdrew its signature
Red - Non-state party, non-signatory

Purple seems to be the Philippines, and Burundi in Africa

1. Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel - if he lands on Canadian soil, he is to be expected to be arrested through powers of the ICC. Then what? Canada keeps him in a Canadian jail? For how long? Most countries are not equipped to deal with imprisonment of foreign politicals, and deal with the aftermath if they exercise the verdict on a country much more powerful than themselves.
2. UN referred. The UN Security Council would have a tough time agreeing to anything of the sort due to geopolitical maneuvering.
3. Reparations - how can the ICC enforce reparations from a guilty verdict. For one, with the US not being member, sanctions against the guilty party by other member states do little as encouragement to pay up if the US would not be in agreement with the ICC findings.

If the ICC did not investigate the faulty election, they could have investigated
This study will examine the background and prevalence of racial and poverty-based discrimination, as well as extrajudicial killings perpetrated against these vulnerable groups within Venezuelan society, all under the umbrella of state-terrorism practices. As of 2019 under Maduro, at least 20000 estimated. If that wasn't a crime against humanity worthy of investigation, the ICC dropped the ball leaving these people to suffer their fate.
This had a report, but not the ICC
 
dlu said:
I know where you are coming from, but quite a few international organizations are wanting, of which the ICC is probably one of the worst.
Click to expand...

That is an opinion, not an argument. My opinion differs. What am I expected to answer on a personal assessment?

dlu said:
Without the Us and several other countries not signing it does lack complete jurisdiction.
Seems like a half- n - half split.
Signatory countries seem to be middle power to less than.

It's half a court of the world affairs.
View attachment 828

Green - State party
Yellow - Signatory that has not ratified
Purple - State party that subsequently withdrew its membership
Orange - Signatory that subsequently withdrew its signature
Red - Non-state party, non-signatory

Purple seems to be the Philippines, and Burundi in Africa
Click to expand...

How many nations backed the trials in Nürnberg? 3? 4? I think these numbers can be read just the other way around: How many nations are afraid of exposing their cruelties to an international court? In my opinion, it only shows all the parts of the world that have something to hide, and unfortunately, there are many.

dlu said:
1. Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel - if he lands on Canadian soil, he is to be expected to be arrested through powers of the ICC. Then what? Canada keeps him in a Canadian jail? For how long? Most countries are not equipped to deal with imprisonment of foreign politicals, and deal with the aftermath if they exercise the verdict on a country much more powerful than themselves.
Click to expand...

This would be an even bigger problem for Germany. I don't think we could arrest a Jewish prime minister and extradite him to the Netherlands. To my knowledge, he has already submitted a petition for clemency. Personally, I still believe that Israel had the right to respond this way. The USA did similar in Afghanistan for over a decade! But I do not want to justify wrong with wrong. Hamas started all this, which, by the way, was itself a war crime, so Israel should be allowed to do whatever is necessary to protect itself from a repetition.

dlu said:
2. UN referred. The UN Security Council would have a tough time agreeing to anything of the sort due to geopolitical maneuvering.
Click to expand...

You mean like weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? The Security Council is more or less useless, I agree. It is a remnant of World War II and has never been modernized since. This makes the ICC even more important in my view.

dlu said:
3. Reparations - how can the ICC enforce reparations from a guilty verdict. For one, with the US not being member, sanctions against the guilty party by other member states do little as encouragement to pay up if the US would not be in agreement with the ICC findings.
Click to expand...

Reparations are generally difficult to enforce. The EU is currently in a heavy debate on how far Russian frozen assets can be used to pay for the damages Russia is responsible for in Ukraine. However, difficult is barely an argument against.

dlu said:
If the ICC did not investigate the faulty election, they could have investigated
This study will examine the background and prevalence of racial and poverty-based discrimination, as well as extrajudicial killings perpetrated against these vulnerable groups within Venezuelan society, all under the umbrella of state-terrorism practices. As of 2019 under Maduro, at least 20000 estimated. If that wasn't a crime against humanity worthy of investigation, the ICC dropped the ball leaving these people to suffer their fate.
This had a report, but not the ICC
Click to expand...

Where do you start? The USA would be on that list, too! Electoral college, gerrymandering electoral districts, or staffing the Supreme Court. All of which is not democratic. However, such a list would be long, very long. I don't think it is the duty of the ICC to judge this. But what I do think is that separating parents from their children, and detaining people without process, is a crime against humanity, and thus indeed a case for the ICC.

My main argument pro ICC is not a political one. I have the victims in my view. It is for them to receive as much justice as possible under the law. We owe them this chance.
 
fresh_42 said:
This would be an even bigger problem for Germany. I don't think we could arrest a Jewish prime minister and extradite him to the Netherlands. To my knowledge, he has already submitted a petition for clemency. Personally, I still believe that Israel had the right to respond this way. The USA did similar in Afghanistan for over a decade! But I do not want to justify wrong with wrong. Hamas started all this, which, by the way, was itself a war crime, so Israel should be allowed to do whatever is necessary to protect itself from a repetition.
Click to expand...

Based on my internet search - he is not asking for clemency from the ICC, Israel is disputing ICC jurisdiction, not surprising as they are not a member state. He is asking for a pardon vs corruption charges against him by Israel.

Why do you say Germany could not arrest him? Are there legal constraints, or do you mean it would be politically too unpopular to stand? Do you expect Germany would do as Hungary did, and withdraw from the ICC should Netanyahu travel there, or simply deny him entry to avoid the no-win situation?

I can't imagine Germany would allow him entry and then simply do nothing about the ICC warrant - that kind of hypocrisy just doesn't seem the German way of doing things to me.
 
Grinkle said:
Why do you say Germany could not arrest him? Are there legal constraints, or do you mean it would be politically too unpopular to stand? Do you expect Germany would do as Hungary did, and withdraw from the ICC should Netanyahu travel there, or simply deny him entry to avoid the no-win situation?
Click to expand...

I think we cannot do it because of our history. Every single democratic party in Germany confirmed the sentence: "Die Sicherheit Israels ist deutsche Staatsraison." I don't know how to translate Staatsraison. Google suggests "The security of Israel is a matter of German national interest." but interest doesn't really match. It's more obligation than interest. Leaving the ICC is not the alternative; no action is probably what would happen, including the trials afterwards.

Grinkle said:
I can't imagine Germany would allow him entry and then simply do nothing about the ICC warrant - that kind of hypocrisy just doesn't seem the German way of doing things to me.
Click to expand...

That's why I said it would be even more difficult for Germany than for Canada. Yes, Germany would face guilty verdicts afterwards, but arresting a Jewish prime minister would have severe consequences within the society that would weigh heavier than a verdict.
 
Last edited:
Trump says Mexico is next, after they criticized him. Rubio says everyone involved with the government of Cuba should be afraid for their lives. Stephen Miller's wife is posting this:
1000120514.webp
 
Greg Bernhardt said:
Dave Troy https://x.com/davetroy has been talking about a conspiracy for Putin to control europe, trump to control the americas and xi to control asia. Imperialism is back in the worst ways.
Click to expand...
I was going to mention something similar.

The three major powers exercised control as they see fit, through economic or military persuasion.
The democratic European nations ( Germany, France, UK, will allowed to peck away like chickens, huff and puff to sound tough, but really won't be able to exert the influence they think they have, or wish they could.
Wonder where India fits in.

Leaving Canada and Australia having to choose.

Is this something like Animal Farm II, but shared 'leadership'?
 
fresh_42 said:
That's why I said it would be even more difficult for Germany than for Canada. Yes, Germany would face guilty verdicts afterwards, but arresting a Jewish prime minister would have severe consequences within the society that would weigh heavier than a verdict.
Click to expand...

I did mention implications.

Canada would definitely face wrath, inside and out.
fresh_42 said:
My main argument pro ICC is not a political one. I have the victims in my view. It is for them to receive as much justice as possible under the law. We owe them this chance.
Click to expand...
Same here.
The ICC in its present form has little clout, except that from middle power to lessor, which pales in comparison to the "super power".

Why do I say it is the worst?
A legal agency needs a framework in order to exercise those powers.
ICC relies upon the good nature of states willing to carry out a verdict.
The suppressed may have to wait for justice in the present framework.

According to the map I presented, the sphere of influence powers either did not sign in or withdrew support.
Having them not part of the ICC jurisdiction hampers its reach, and raises questions whether a verdict can be carried out.

The idea of a court to levy decisions on crimes against humanity is surely noble, but the ICC being hamstrung as it is and relying on individual nations to carry out a verdict of guilty was not thought out adequately - at the time no one thought withdrawal would ever happen, reducing it to now a shell of what was expected.

Verdicts ( political verdicts surpassing criminal ) are now, or will be, being carried out by the super powers in their region of responsibility - Russia's attempt on Ukraine, and US on Venezuela. Both show that crimes against humanity is not the issue it once was. Instead tow the line seems to be the more important.

Same happened to peace keeping - a lot of energy in the beginning, but support faltered, especially when the original supporting nation, Canada, became ho-hum on sending blue helmet troops.
 
Last edited:
Jorge Rodríguez, the head of the Venezuela National Assembly and brother of the President pro tem Delcy Rodríguez accorrding to the NYT, assisted in the planning of Mauro's capture. Apparently, there were four centers of power in Venezuela: Maduro, the Rodríguez's, the Defence Minister Vladimir Padrino López, and the Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello. Lopez controls the military, and Cabello controls intelligence and security, and is considered the most unpredictable. They both have federal drug charges pending. All three do not like the US, with Lopez and Cobello more anti-imperialistic and more deeply entrenched in Chavismo.

That's the group that is going to run the country. The administration thinks this is the group that will maintain stability. The US has a long history of misjudging the results of its intervention in South American countries.

Though Trump seems more interested in the oil than in the democratization of Venezuela, he has to convince US oil companies to invest a great deal in fixing the drilling infrastructure and maintaining a suitable environment for their workers. Trump said he talked with oil company CEO's about the eventual takeover of Venezuela, but apparently lied.

It may take years before the oil can be pumped at a rate that makes their efforts profitable, but by that time, the price of oil may be even less, as demand is falling. Besides the cost, there is a good possibility the political situation will deterioate making it dangerous to be there.

Venezuela's military will most likely not put up direct resistance to a US occupation. Guerrillas already exist In Vensauela, and then there is the Colectivos set up by Chavez. They are a paramilitary group that works with the army but has taken on various social programs. Venezuela is more than half jungle, unlike Iraq's open and arid landscape, making it more like Vietnam.

This situation does not look good for the people. The blood shed from now on is on our hands.

EDIT: I just found this article: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mar...&cvid=00c1e7d52b4745c29606921a74a2b7d6&ei=125
  • Rebuilding the industry would require a decade of work and $80 billion–$100 billion in investments, according to analysts—and that assumes political stability.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Patxitxi said:
No apparently this technique is not going to work either. They just told us a few hours ago that the US has seized a Russian flagged oil tanker and with the help of the UK.
Click to expand...


Just last week, Treasury sanctioned Venezuelan and Iranian entities, including EANSA, a Venezuelan company that "has contributed to Iran's UAV trade with Venezuela." U.S. Department of the Treasury Treasury explicitly stated that "Iran's ongoing provision of conventional weapons to Caracas constitutes a threat to US interests in the Western Hemisphere, including the Homeland."

On December 30, 2025, the first visual evidence emerged of Mohajer-6 drones operational with the Venezuelan Air Force. These are strike-capable drones that can carry guided munitions.

In September, the vessel "loaded Iranian crude at Kharg Island" before "disabling its location transponder near the Strait of Hormuz."

By December, the vessel was "approaching Venezuela without cargo."

The vessel's sanctions designation wasn't for oil. Treasury documents from June 2024 designated the owner "for carrying sanctioned cargo on behalf of Hizballah-owned Concepto Screen SAL Off-Shore to Southeast Asia" under counter-terrorism authority.

So: A vessel with a documented history of carrying non-oil cargo for Hezbollah and IRGC loads at Iran in September, shows up empty at Venezuela in December, the same month Mohajer-6 drones are first confirmed operational there, and when interdiction is attempted, Russia reflagged it, filed diplomatic protests, and deployed a submarine.

🧐
 
EricDMMiller said:
Just last week, Treasury sanctioned Venezuelan and Iranian entities, including EANSA, a Venezuelan company that "has contributed to Iran's UAV trade with Venezuela." U.S. Department of the Treasury Treasury explicitly stated that "Iran's ongoing provision of conventional weapons to Caracas constitutes a threat to US interests in the Western Hemisphere, including the Homeland."

On December 30, 2025, the first visual evidence emerged of Mohajer-6 drones operational with the Venezuelan Air Force. These are strike-capable drones that can carry guided munitions.

In September, the vessel "loaded Iranian crude at Kharg Island" before "disabling its location transponder near the Strait of Hormuz."

By December, the vessel was "approaching Venezuela without cargo."

The vessel's sanctions designation wasn't for oil. Treasury documents from June 2024 designated the owner "for carrying sanctioned cargo on behalf of Hizballah-owned Concepto Screen SAL Off-Shore to Southeast Asia" under counter-terrorism authority.

So: A vessel with a documented history of carrying non-oil cargo for Hezbollah and IRGC loads at Iran in September, shows up empty at Venezuela in December, the same month Mohajer-6 drones are first confirmed operational there, and when interdiction is attempted, Russia reflagged it, filed diplomatic protests, and deployed a submarine.

🧐
Click to expand...
So then why not blow it up?
Ahhh no!
These ones have resale value.
 

Liberal Democracy Values

  • Free and Fair Elections
  • Rule of Law
  • Separation of Powers & Checks and Balances
  • Protection of Civil Liberties and Human Rights
  • Pluralism & Political Competition
  • Independent Media & Free Press
  • Open Civil Society

Community Values

  • Civility
  • Productivity
  • Good Faith Debate
  • Evidence Based Debate
  • Transparency
  • Integrity

Community Motto

"It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies." - Noam Chomsky
Back
Top