Forum menu
Maduro pleads not guilty
considering the US government have lost a few cases lately, what are the odds of the fumbling this and Maduro being found not guilty?
imagine the lols
"President Donald Trump has confirmed he spoke with oil companies "before and after" the operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
I read that same report, and my initial thous were, bullshit. Those words as written probably came out of his mouth, but the man's a pathological liar and the oil companies were probably as surprised as the rest of the work was, but of course aren't able to call him out on it, so are saying nowt.
Those words as written probably came out of his mouth, but the man's a pathological liar and the oil companies were probably as surprised as the rest of the work was, but of course aren't able to call him out on it, so are saying nowt.
Why would they want to call him out? You're probably right about them being as suprised as we are but they'll all be queueing up at Mar a Lago to find out what the craic is now.
Ryan McBeth thinks it's about security of the region including the US oil infrastructure in this part of the globe being perhaps vulnerable.
considering the US government have lost a few cases lately, what are the odds of the fumbling this and Maduro being found not guilty?
I wondered this too! I get the impression that the judiciary isnt as entirely corrupted as the rest of the goverment so its plausible they'll throw it out for some reason or other. All the same, 'not entirely corrupted' allows for 'somewhat corrupted' to do the heavy lifting get get some 'team players' invovled. Does anyone know why its all happening in NY rather than somewhere else?
You're probably right about them being as suprised as we are but they'll all be queueing up at Mar a Lago to find out what the craic is now.
Especially as their "investment" is likely to be funded by the taxpayer, while they reap all the profits. Has anyone investigated the investments made by Trump and associates recently yet, I expect rather a lot of money has flowed into exon, Haliburton etc
I read that same report, and my initial thous were, bullshit.
Quite possibly. Leaving aside his habit of just making stuff up on the spot he is clearly in severe decline (if you are boasting about how many cognitive tests thats a hint you might have a problem).
Looking for grand and subtle plans is generally a waste of time just take project 2025 who advertised everything in advance but were protected by the cunning ruse of Trump lying.
The most likely sounding cause for his kidnapping is that he did some dances which upset Trump. Nothing upsets a thin skinned narcissist like being mocked.
The best president America never had, nails it as ever
https://youtube.com/shorts/yKXhLyB6egw?si=nFNVwOmqQFOMqHGM
John Bolton, who’s worked closely with Trump in his previous term, was on channel 4 news earlier.
He said that those looking for any kind of plan or strategy will inevitably be disappointed. He confirmed what we all really know that it’s all just impulsive and done on a whim, like the oversized toddler he is. He won’t have given a second thought as to what happens next.
Literally making it up as he goes along
As mentioned above though, the US oil companies don't seem to be flocking to the feeding pit now the opportunities have been created!
When Trump says he spoke to the "oil companies", it's quite plausible he means Jared's mate's company ShonkOil that promised the moon, not necessarily Exxon and Schlumberger. (I'm not saying they wouldn't do it, just that maybe they didn't).
Second go at posting what I think is an interesting analysis:
From Graham Jones (ex MP, I hadn't heard of him)
I appeared on the news yesterday to talk about Venezuela. It’s not a country that directly affects the UK, but it is one where people have suffered for years.I was, bizarrely, asked to chair the Parliamentary Committee on this far-flung place, so I know a great deal about it. That experience often left me despairing at the poor quality of our politicians and media coverage.I met hundreds of Venezuelans. Many of them also despaired at outside voices pursuing international ideals while conveniently forgetting the plight of ordinary Venezuelans, who have been pleading for help for years.From an observer’s point of view, this is how it looks to me.It appears Trump has struck some kind of deal for a bloodless transition. It also appears that members of Maduro’s government have betrayed him for their own ends—financial and criminal—under unrelenting US pressure.We are told the CIA have been in Caracas since August; that they accessed the presidential palace with ease; and that Maduro was taken without resistance. We are told the Venezuelan air defences, supplied by Moscow, were switched off as a swathe of Chinooks carrying 200 Delta Force personnel flew in.Trump’s speeches are littered with hyperbole and nonsense, and it’s difficult to pick the bones out of his comments. But two points caught my attention.First, he said a second US wave wouldn’t be necessary—subtext: the regime remnants have conceded. Second, he implied the US would govern during a transition, which is worrying. Subtext: remnants of Maduro’s system want assurance that the opposition won’t take over immediately and come after them for their crimes and profiteering.Trump also described the opposition leader, Maria Machado, as a “nice woman” but “not capable”. Subtext: he isn’t picking sides. The read-through is that there is a guarantee to Delcy Rodriguez. In effect, he is telling both sides they will have to accept something uncomfortable for a while.I’m not sure Trump was comfortable saying America was going to “run” the country. His body language looked flaky—like this is ugly, but necessary.There are back-channel reports that the US initially wanted the opposition to take over. But after long conversations, the US may have concluded the opposition is divided and not yet capable of managing a transition—especially if the armed forces remain loyal to the old regime and the country risks sliding into civil conflict.Rubio indicated a pragmatic, reluctant conclusion—probably informed by the mistakes of Iraq, where the Ba’ath Party was dismissed and the state became ungovernable—would not be repeated in Venezuela. He said as much. US thinking seems more detailed than some commentary suggests.It appears a lot of thought has gone into US plans, but the plan pivots on whether the regime remnants “play ball”, and that likely includes uncomfortable guarantees. Trump made an interesting point: a bloodless transition is better than a bloody one. That may be the centre of his decision—but it may also produce ugly, unacceptable, and negative outcomes.Legally, the issue is simpler than many commentators suggest. The West—including the United Kingdom—recognises the opposition as the legitimate authority, and they have welcomed the US action. If the recognised sovereign authority is not making the case to trigger UN Article 51, then there is no case for illegality on that basis.There are rival opinions supporting Maduro’s claim that he is the sovereign leader; the corollary is that this was an illegal invasion. You can pick your side on who speaks for the nation. But from a legal point of view, the recognised Venezuelan authority has welcomed the action, describing it as liberation. This also affects who speaks for Venezuela at the UN: two different speeches, two different approaches—one that supports legality, one that argues illegality.The UK’s legal position since Maduro stole the 2017 election is that the opposition is the legitimate authority. On that view, it is for them to decide whether they were invaded or assisted.Many commentators mix up the law as they want it to be with the law as it is. My position is aligned with the UK’s stated position: the legitimate opposition is sovereign, and given they won 80/20 in an election that Maduro refused to recognise after losing, it is their view we accept.Maria Machado was given the Nobel Peace Prize in Norway recently, with every Liberal Democrat wanting a selfie in support. We should not retreat from that support.There are moral issues too—but there’s more to it.Maduro held a referendum in 2023 on taking over neighbouring Guyana. The Maduro regime is not in a strong position to lecture on illegal “big brother” interventions.And given the West believes the opposition won the elections of 2017 and 2024, it is difficult to argue this is “regime change” in the usual sense. The opposition won and should take rightful office.Maduro is being investigated for serious alleged crimes by the ICC, and Delcy Rodriguez may be mindful not just of US power, but of international courts too. That may be one explanation for why they have thrown Maduro under the bus. I’m sure their own status—and what they are guilty of having done—is front and centre in their thinking.It also appears the “rules-based order” is fraying—if it ever existed. As I said on TV, there are wider ramifications we need to be mindful of: global threats.The US cannot be allowed to subsume the democratic process, the will of the Venezuelan people, or Venezuelan sovereignty. Nor can the US be given a green light to act unilaterally elsewhere—for example, Greenland.In the South China Sea, we must be absolutely clear about what American interventionism means, because we cannot equivocate it with Chinese military action in Taiwan. If we misunderstand Venezuela, we fall into the trap of false equivalence—and into Beijing’s hands.Then there is the thorny issue of Ukraine: whether the United States continues to supply arms and funding, the effect on the war’s outcome, and the risk of NATO fragmentation. One thing is clear: Europe has to get off US dependency and dramatically increase defence spending to backfill any potential US withdrawal from NATO or from collective allied action.Then there is Trump’s peace plan in Gaza, which trundles along.Yesterday, the most worried person was probably President Zelenskyy, who is desperately trying to keep the Western coalition—including the United States—intact. Any fragmentation over Venezuela could have serious implications for Ukraine and for Europe.We must not lose sight of the humanitarian catastrophe: around 80% of Venezuelans live in poverty; roughly 60% are malnourished; inflation is around 178%; crime is out of control; and trafficking routes through Venezuela—including via ports and airports—have been significant, particularly toward places like Medellín and Honduras and other transit destinations.Waving placards does nothing to help Venezuelans, and they despair at the likes of Jeremy Corbyn.There is a parallel with Iraq—right or wrong: a US invasion, the Ba’ath Party kept in place rather than dismissed, and Saddam sent to the courts. Has the US learned lessons?For Europe, the red lines will rightly include: freezing out the opposition; any temporary US sovereignty over another nation; and, for some, the protection of regime figures from justice by the US.The UK has faced its own dilemmas on accountability for criminal political activity through the Good Friday Agreement. Difficult questions may lie ahead if Trump has struck this sort of deal.I can only presume the US is telling Delcy Rodriguez—who one minute pledged total allegiance to “the only president, Nicholas Maduro,” and later in the day was sworn in as Venezuela’s new president, albeit for a limited period—to go with the flow and accept it. And the same message to Maria Riccardo, the opposition leader: go with the flow and accept it.Is this Trump’s best-case, bloodless option? We don’t know.But everything pivots on the actions of the remnants of the regime, and that is directly linked to their assessment of the risks of further US action—a “second wave”.It appears there have been many conversations in the background between all parties, excluding Maduro. That may explain why Maduro increasingly relied on Cuban advisers and Cuban security rather than Venezuelan forces. His grip was slipping.The American question to Delcy Rodriguez is simple: do you want your country to continue as an economic basket case? It’s a powerful emotional offer.Another major factor is oil. Venezuelan crude is heavy, low-grade sludge requiring enormous investment to process. Up to the 1990s—and before Chavez—major foreign companies had the infrastructure, capital, resources, and skills to keep pumping stations and refineries operating.During the Bolivarian revolution, when Hugo Chavez took power, he nationalised the industry, kicked the oil companies out, and took over their investment. That is the basis for Trump’s grievance.More importantly, over the following 30 years the Venezuelan regime has been unable to manufacture parts or manage production well enough to sustain the industry. Output has plummeted to a fraction of what it was. State seizure has been a catastrophe.Given Venezuela cannot currently support its own oil industry, it requires foreign expertise and investment. There is an argument for a proper framework to enable this. However, Trump’s “America First, no one else” posture is not exactly the sort of foreign investment approach that democratic countries can accept.At the moment there is an oil embargo, so no one is benefiting from Venezuelan oil. Opening it up depends on where companies sell it and whether it returns to open markets.Nicolas Maduro now looks like the fall guy for all sides. Trump’s decision to keep remnants of the regime in power—and effectively protect them with a piece of the pie—does not incentivise them to man the barricades for Maduro, regardless of the noise they make for domestic audiences and party apparatchiks.One issue that cannot be overlooked is the layered nature of the regime: police and defence structures. Army generals may have cut a deal through Rodriguez, or through an informal agent. But beneath them are criminal colectivos, gangs, and drug cartels that were given sanctuary so long as they defended the regime in the streets—plus the risk of rogue elements loyal to Maduro.The US may be trying to avoid repeating Iraq’s disaster by not dismantling the whole system overnight.Trump’s knock-down of Maria Riccardo may be the other side of the same coin. He cannot allow the opposition to surge and “scare the horses”—scare the remnants of the regime whom he calculates he needs for this transition.I’m sceptical. I’m not convinced Trump’s plan will work when you are dealing with people who have flagrantly disregarded laws and rights and do not respect their own people, solely for their own ends. It appears Trump has factored this in: the US has been on the ground for months, not just “pricing it in” but trying to smooth it out. It remains to be seen whether the plan works or fails.One of Venezuela’s problems is the people commenting on it. Many know little to nothing about it and quickly overlook ordinary Venezuelans in favour of global politics. There is very little value in what they say.There is also a danger that political posturing within Venezuela is misread: inward-facing noise gets amplified externally, and the international community turns Venezuela into a political football.If Delcy Rodriguez has done a deal, sticks to it, and can hold things together, and then—phase two—whoever wins elections can also hold things together, then Trump’s plan may work. But there are quite a few “ifs” in that sentence.Not notifying Europe is a big issue. Europe backs the opposition and will have serious concerns about democracy and a “dirty deal” with regime remnants. There has clearly been a coordinated response across Western capitals: they have not opposed the intervention for obvious reasons, and they have not stated it is illegal—probably the correct position, given they back the opposition as the sovereign authority. But with Ukraine in mind, they will have to be exceedingly diplomatic in pursuing any democratic agenda in Venezuela.The diaspora across Europe is absolutely delighted at the action taken by the US administration, and that adds another dimension—particularly in countries like Spain.Trump might pull this off, and I wouldn’t bet against him doing it. But it might be historic.
From Graham Jones
That’s a lot of words, but I did see he refers to Trump’s Gaza peace plan as “trundling along” so that doesn’t give good vibes about the rest of his take.
I watched an interesting youtube video that claimed the Venezuela invasion was more about derailing BRICS rather than actually taking the oil reserves.
BRICS is an alliance of countries founded by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa to trade for oil using an ecoin system called unit rather than US dollars. Other countries have joined and, if it seriously takes off, it will undermine the power of the US dollar and greatly change the face of world trade.
Who would have thought that introducing stupid tariffs would have resulted in things like this gaining momentum?
Yes I was wondering about Brazil being in the Brics, Trump must hate that.
The Graham Jones piece rings true about the transition of power to the VP
Im more sceptical about his thoughts on the Americans plan for the future, it looks like Steven Miller is being given a big roll in running Venezuela
https://bsky.app/profile/ronfilipkowski.bsky.social/post/3mbol3gwt6s2b
he a white supremacist lunatic
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3mbplx5sygx2h
Its easy to picture Vladimir Harkonen Donald Trump telling The Beast Raban Stephen Miller to squeeze every last drop of Spice oil out of Arakis Venezuela
As mentioned above though, the US oil companies don't seem to be flocking to the feeding pit now the opportunities have been created!
Oil prices are artificially set (fixed?) on the global market based on actively throttling supply. Bringing more oil into the (potentially shrinking) market reduces the profitability for oil companies - i.e. it's against their interests.
yep
its business as usual for the regime
. https://bsky.app/profile/chadbourn.bsky.social/post/3mbqp4nja522x
Unless the Americans put a significant political/civil service team into Caracus with some military control to manage the Venezuelan army I don't understand how they are going to 'run' the place. Steven Millar having a weekly zoom call with the incumbent prime minister isn't going to do it, it's almost as if the White House hasn't really given this much thought!
They aren’t going to run Venezuela - they are using their military power to coerce whoever is in power to allow the US to take over their oil. They don’t give a dam about running the country, democracy or improving the lot of the average Venezuelan.
They aren’t going to run Venezuela - they are using their military power to coerce whoever is in power to allow the US to take over their oil. They don’t give a dam about running the country, democracy or improving the lot of the average Venezuelan.
Correct. Stephen Miller said the quiet part out loud on that clip up there ^^^^.
This is about stopping a county within the US sphere of influence providing resources to their adversaries. They don't really care about the average Venezuelan in the street.
As mentioned above though, the US oil companies don't seem to be flocking to the feeding pit now the opportunities have been created!
Oil prices are artificially set (fixed?) on the global market based on actively throttling supply. Bringing more oil into the (potentially shrinking) market reduces the profitability for oil companies - i.e. it's against their interests.
Is it?
If I can buy oil more cheaply then I'll possibly sell more because the retail price is reduced.
Even if it doesn't increase sales then my profits will remain because transport costs will reflect lower fuel prices, the RPI is lower so I don't have pesky staff demanding a pay rise to keep up with the cost of living, infrastructure costs are lower because steel is cheaper to forge and transport, etc.
Oil companies don't typically decline to produce oil because of the effect that it has on the market. That's something that cartels like OPEC have done in the past. What companies might do is shut in fields which are not profitable at the prevailing price.
As mentioned above though, the US oil companies don't seem to be flocking to the feeding pit now the opportunities have been created!
Oil prices are artificially set (fixed?) on the global market based on actively throttling supply. Bringing more oil into the (potentially shrinking) market reduces the profitability for oil companies - i.e. it's against their interests.
If I can buy oil more cheaply then I'll possibly sell more because the retail price is reduced.
You're imagining you're a trader but the conversation is about oil production. Extraction costs etc are fixed in the medium term.
It will take a huge investment to rebuild Venezuela's oil industry, it will take years. Trump will be out of office in three years, long before any benefits are seen. No company is going to invest billions in a country as unstable and unpredictable as Venezuela. The whole "take over the country and get the oil" idea is just a fantasy.
the FT has some coverage on which oil companies are lining up: https://www.ft.com/content/5d76670c-398e-41b6-823e-264c1308ebb5
DLDL; the majors are cautious after losing there shirts last time, but not to fear, there's a bunch of startups / PE firms who are willing to take the risk. Predictably, many have personal ties to the president.
Does the USA actually need more cheap oil though? I mean, prices are not high currently. Are they looking at securing a supply before they do something terrible that will cause the rest of the world to place sancitons on them?
Does the USA actually need more cheap oil though? I mean, prices are not high currently. Are they looking at securing a supply before they do something terrible that will cause the rest of the world to place sancitons on them?
There was a bit of discussion about this earlier in the thread (and I'm paraphrasing @timba who I might have misunderstood here so bear with). Essentially the US needs some heavy crude for refining, most of this currently comes from Canada. The distances are about the same, the issue is that Venezuela lacks the modern means of extracting it, and Venezuelan oil has a high sulfur content which is an issue.
Of course, you'd imagine that if Venezuela was politically stable and they had modern means of extraction, it would be cheaper than Canadian oil (given cost of labour) and we all know what The Donald's relationship with Ottawa is like.
As mentioned above though, the US oil companies don't seem to be flocking to the feeding pit now the opportunities have been created!
Oil prices are artificially set (fixed?) on the global market based on actively throttling supply. Bringing more oil into the (potentially shrinking) market reduces the profitability for oil companies - i.e. it's against their interests.
If I can buy oil more cheaply then I'll possibly sell more because the retail price is reduced.
You're imagining you're a trader but the conversation is about oil production. Extraction costs etc are fixed in the medium term.
They're fixed, but they vary by region. Venezuelan oil is comparatively simple to produce and it has the largest reserves in the world. Reserves are calculated by economy of production; the North Sea was economically done for although O&G still exists there.
The most successful producers diversify around the world and are also traders and retailers.
It isn't a simple picture and I don't profess to understand it (that's obvious!) but I'd certainly agree that oversupply and production economics are part of the risk, but also the attraction
Does the USA actually need more cheap oil though? I mean, prices are not high currently. Are they looking at securing a supply before they do something terrible that will cause the rest of the world to place sancitons on them?
USA is energy independent, but their oil is lighter so you can't make *everything* from it. So no, its not really about the USA importing the oil for their own use - more about controlling who has access to it and for what price.
I know % is not absolutes, and there's probably still higher volume and reliance on hydrocarbons for all purposes currently, but this is a worrying thought.
If the US holds Venezuela, we will seize 17% of oil -- yesterday's technology. If China uses this precedent to take Taiwan, it will own 60% of semiconductors -- tomorrow's technology.
@theotherjonv Isn't the difference is that with investment, semiconductors can be made anywhere? Certainly used to be a fabrication plant in Greenock (edit: apparently still is)
This all assumes that people are willing to make the investment, of course.
USA is energy independent, but their oil is lighter so you can't make *everything* from it.
The oil they mostly extract is shale, which has a market fo'shure, but it doesn't imply that the USA is energy independent. It imports it's heavy oil (for petrol) from Canada currently. There's quite a bit of under-utilised heavy oil oil refining capacity/capability along USA's southern coastline, conveniently close to Venezuela. I'm sure that's just coincidence though.
If China uses this precedent to take Taiwan, it will own 60% of semiconductors -- tomorrow's technology.
Can't run an aircraft carrier, or the airplanes it carries on semi-conductors.
If China uses this precedent to take Taiwan, it will own 60% of semiconductors -- tomorrow's technology.
Can't run an aircraft carrier, or the airplanes it carries on semi-conductors.
The US Navy (unlike the RN) doesn't run its aircraft carriers on oil either.
The oil they mostly extract is shale, which has a market fo'shure, but it doesn't imply that the USA is energy independent. It imports it's heavy oil (for petrol) from Canada currently. T
my understanding was they are good for petrol etc but it was bitumen and other petrochems they need the heavy stuff for?
Can't run an aircraft carrier, or the airplanes it carries on semi-conductors.
In the 21st century you can't run them without semiconductors either.
As @ratherbeintobago points out semiconductors can be made anywhere. But that rather misses the point. Oil can be refined anywhere. It's the source of raw materials that is the issue.
Bidens CHIPS act was designed to move semiconductor manufacturing to the USA , Trump initially wanted to get rid of it because hes a raving idiot, but he was persuaded to keep it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act
It is a question of investment but there's a heck of a load of knowhow involved and not just building facilities, and it doesn't happen overnight.
The UK has a semiconductor strategy, to invest ca £1Bn in the next decade and over the course of the next 20 years secure a world leading position.
which is great but if CN were to invade Taiwan and (extreme case) cut supply chains overnight, 20 years is a long time
which is great but if CN were to invade Taiwan and (extreme case) cut supply chains overnight, 20 years is a long time
Same as the lack of urgency about the potential for the US backing out of NATO, and the need to decarbonise if for no other reason than it reduces our dependence on unsavoury petrostates.
I was only semi joking about Maduro getting off with no charges, yet...........
which is great but if CN were to invade Taiwan and (extreme case) cut supply chains overnight, 20 years is a long time
the need to decarbonise if for no other reason than it reduces our dependence on unsavoury petrostates.
And increases the world's dependence on China because that's where all the solar panels and electric cars are made! :/
To a point. The difference is that fossil fuels require ongoing purchase, and other than existing supply chains there's no reason why solar panels need to be made in China.