GftNC,
Re editing: I have found that, once I post something, I can tap on the text of the post and then (but only then) a little gear wheel appears at the bottom right of the post. Click on that to get to edit mode.
To say "It's always about what happens next" comes very close to saying "The ends justify the means". Don't get me wrong: I am not an absolutist about ends and means; I freely confess to inconsistency on that proposition.
Hairshirt's practical question ("Why to a lesser extent?") is one I would have asked, myself. But I also have to wonder about about a couple of other things.
For one, is there a difference between intended ends and the actual ones? If your intent is criminal but the unintended consequences of your action turn out to be "good", maybe that mitigates your criminality?
For another, what is the intended end here? I have a hard time believing that the end He, Trump and his cabal intend is a free and sovereign Venezuelan democracy. And I seriously doubt that, intended or unintended, this "good" consequence is a likely outcome of the Maduro snatch.
It’s always about “what happens next”, right? I have similar feelings about Venezuela, but to a lesser extent.
Why to a lesser extent? It appear that there was little forethought on this action. The administration is generally incompetent (even worse than Trump's first) and is terrible with follow-through once it becomes apparent that whatever they're trying to do is actually difficult or complicated.
DOGE? The healthcare plan from over a decade ago? Trump's infrastructure bill? Ending the hostilities in Ukraine and Gaza? Inflation? Rounding up all the actual violent criminals in the country illegally?
I don't think it is real worthwhile to try and figure out where Trump gets his ideas. I suppose that everything is similar to something, until it is not. I'm thinking that bc is a lawyer, so I have to wonder if he sees everything that is going on as simply an extension of previous trends or something that is actually different?
The question was whether Trump got the idea to "purchase Greenland" from the GRU letter, not whether there is justification for simply taking it over. That's the context of my response. As a 3rd generation Alaskan (currently living outside my home state), I'd point out that William Seward tried to buy Greenland (and Iceland too). At one point he wanted to bring Canada into the US. So maybe Trump got both ideas from Seward? There were other attempts in the 20th century, (including Truman, I believe) and the US refused to leave after WWII due to the Cold War. But I don't support taking over Greenland by force over the Denmark's objection.
TP: As I recall, I had mixed feelings about Libya, but more practical than whether or not the President had the authority. It's always about "what happens next", right? I have similar feelings about Venezuela, but to a lesser extent. But I am concerned about not leaving the Venezuelans worse off due to a power vacuum than before. I don't like how Trump is talking about Machado nor do I like leaving the illegitimate VP in power. I am glad that Venezuela has a fighting chance to be free.
This from GftNC's Atlantic link seems relevant to norm busting.
But in that sense, we are in a kind of breakthrough moment. I mean, it is a different kind of U.S. military operation. The U.S. has invaded other countries before; you can argue the U.S. has broken international law before. But to do so without any justification, without any explanation, without any support in Congress or any attempt to get it, without looking for any legal cover, even without having a coherent set of reasons or a coherent strategy, it’s all very strange.
And for anyone who wants to listen to (or read a transcript of) a conversation between David Frum and Anne Applebaum on the Venezuela story, this is a gift link from the Atlantic. It's a couple of days old - I always wait for transcript because that's how I prefer to take in my information and media if possible:
As I've said before, I'm interested in what saner and more clear-sighted rightwingers think of Trump's adventures, and as far as I know nobody has ever accused Anne Applebaum of being any kind of lefty!
Apart from that, the only thing we haven't mentioned is the much quoted opinion going round that the reason Trump did not instal María Corina Machado as president given that she won the last election is that she accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, and didn't immediately say "I can't take it, it should be President Trump's". She came to her senses afterwards, but it was too late. Again, no "basis in fact".
bc:I think Panama, Grenada and Libya show this to not be so norm-crushing as some might think.
I don't have the time to look through the archive for bc's comments on "Panama, Grenada, and Lybia", and the first two (Panama, 1989, Poppy Bush; Grenada, 1983, Saint Reagan) were too long ago anyway, but surely bc was as supportive of Obama on Libya as he appears to be of He, Trump on Venezuela. Right?
I mean, a consistent attitude toward "norms" for the President of the United States, however wrongheaded, is one thing. A variable definition of "norms" based on who happens to be president at the moment would be a different, and more worrisome, thing.
I was generally optimistic about the near future (within the framework of being a doomfreak) until this week. I thought the tide was tipping against King Pussygrabber and that, as his support eroded, the Rs in Congress would start showing some spine and Dems would win lots of elections.
Instead it's Iraq all over again except this time with an executive who is literally insane. Rubio is similar to the people around Bush in that he believes in a kind of domino theory (US takes one nation and the others fall into line, maybe with some more pushing we win!) that completely ignores the spirit of nationalism in other nations and their desire to not be de facto colonies. The war(s) will be marketed to the rubes in the US by wrapping it up in a flag and demanding that all good true real Americans all salute.
Bush's Great Adventure ended in tears, of course, and now even Republican voters will say that Bush fucked up. The initial flush of jingoistic excitement ran aground on the short American attention span and some American deaths (Who cares about all the civilians who died or the million refugees or the destabilization of Syria? Down the Memory Hole.)
So I think the War for Greater Trumpistan will also run around on the limited attention span of the voters and the unwillingness to invest more than a couple thousand American lives. I think that even MAGAs would object to trading American lives for oil--if they know that's what's happening.
The past being the best predictor of the future, moral principles, rule of law, the exposure of lies, and foreign civilian deaths will not influence public opinion here beyond those who are already appalled, so the Republican party won't be held responsible for this any more than they were for Watergate, Iran/countra, Iraq, Trump's attack on Congress, or Trump and all of his crimes, or anything else they do. They represent the worst in human nature and, sadly, there's always going to be enough of that around for a viable party.
The US has wanted Greenland for a long time. We occupied it during WWII invoking the Monroe Doctrine.
That's kind of a stretch. During World War II, you will recall that Denmark had been conquered the Nazi Germany. Holding Greenland was merely keeping the Germans from establishing a base from which to attack the North Atlantic convoys. When Denmark was liberated, Greenland immediately returned to Danish rule. The US maintains bases there still, but it has bases on lots of countries around the world.
Certainly Greenland still has strategic value. But while there have been contingency plans to keep it out of hostile hands for a century, that's quite a ways from just flat out wanting to take it over. (I'm not willing to concede Trump might be capable of strategic thinking to the point of considering Denmark a future hostile power. No matter how much he bad-mouths the EU.)
Her testimony was not that the Trump Administration was actually considering a Ukraine/Venezuela swap
Her testimony was in 2019, and she left her job with Trump 10 days before his famous "perfect" phone conversation with Zelensky unsuccessfully seeking help against Biden. Since then, Russia has invaded Ukraine, Trump has "mystifyingly" favoured Russia over Ukraine at almost every point, and has now invaded Venezuela and kidnapped its appalling president, while claiming the US is "running" Venezuela.
Citing her testimony to say “Trump got the idea from the Russians” has no basis in fact.
Hmm. An interesting observation.
And what Ambassador Ken Fairfax actually said was "It's interesting that Russia withdrew all of its personnel from Venezuela exactly 14 days before Trump's invasion. China didn't withdraw their personnel. Cuba didn't withdraw theirs. Just Russia. It is almost as if someone called Putin to warn him what's up as part of a quid pro quo. Not almost."
To quote Monty Python, "a nod is as good as a wink to a blind bat". Or, to put it in a more pedestrian fashion "there are none so blind as those who will not see".
Re Greenland, I'm confused. That GRU letter is dated October 23, 2019, right? And addressed to Cotton? Cotton had already been advocating for the US to purchase Greenland in August before that letter:
And as Cotton notes in his op ed, Trump had expressed interest to purchase Greenland before the op ed. So how exactly did the fake letter give Trump the idea? Am I missing something?
As Fiona Hill testified, the Russians like to disrupt. That's all this letter was.
This ignores the testimony of Fiona Hill during the hearings for Trump’s first impeachment in 2019.
Her testimony was not that the Trump Administration was actually considering a Ukraine/Venezuela swap, but to the contrary. She was charged with telling the Russians to (her words) "knock this off." And she testified that the Russians were floating this in the press, not directly to the administration. Nowhere (that I saw) does it indicate Trump was actually thinking about the swap.
I don't disagree that Fiona Hill seems like an impressive person. Citing her testimony to say "Trump got the idea from the Russians" has no basis in fact.
According to former ambassador Ken Fairfax on BSKY, the Russians pulled their people ten days before the US op. Make of that what you will.
It was reported before Christmas that the Russians were pulling their people, but I remember it being diplomats mostly. And there was plenty of saber-rattling by Trump, not to mention the buildup of force. They had already pulled a lot of military personnel earlier, from what I remember, but I always thought that was because of Ukraine. Still, they didn't pull the air defense systems they sold to Maduro. I'm sure the nations relying on Russian air defense are making of that what they will. See here:
bc - Really? The US has wanted Greenland for a long time. We occupied it during WWII invoking the Monroe Doctrine. And comparing Venezuela to Ukraine at this point is truly balloon juice.
Yes, really. The Danes were the ones that released the image of the forged letter, purportedly from Greenland but actually from the GRU, sent to Tom Cotton suggesting that Greenland was primed to join the US.
As for the Venezuela/Ukraine swap suggestion, that info comes from Fiona Hill's sworn testimony in 2019.
The best propaganda ops are always woven into historical contexts and appeal to the known biases of the targets.
The success of the mission in light of Russian air defense has to be taken into account.
According to former ambassador Ken Fairfax on BSKY, the Russians pulled their people ten days before the US op. Make of that what you will.
And comparing Venezuela to Ukraine at this point is truly balloon juice.
This ignores the testimony of Fiona Hill during the hearings for Trump's first impeachment in 2019. She is a deeply impressive person who had been at the time Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for European and Russian Affairs on Trump's National Security Council.
Just make a search box, and enter "Venezuela", and it goes straight there, including Ukraine. Adam Silverman is right, and so is nous. To have US patsies for Putin in position to be manipulated by him into breaching international law, and talk about taking the territory of NATO allies, is a truly extraordinary development. O brave new world, that has such American politicians in it!
There hasn’t even been any sign of a Congressional resolution
Does 21 USC 960a count? I mean, Maduro is a narcoterrorist and was illegally importing cocaine. Even Biden agreed that he was a threat to the US, raising the reward for Maduro's capture to $25M. (query: Does Trump get that reward now?).
Harmut's comment was snark, but I'm being serious: if you have a de facto head of state that is illegitimate, also a narcoterrorist, no extradition treaty, refuses to stop drug trafficking after warning, is very badly dressed, etc., does extraditing by force require independent Congressional approval? If this was some prolonged military action, I get it. This was surgical (so far).
If I recall what I’ve seen this morning correctly, the indictment that is the basis for the arrest warrant says “fully automatic firearms”.
From what I read in the indictment (superseding from 2020; I think they are basically the same), the "full auto" counts are dependent on counts 1 and 2 (narcoterrorism and importation of cocaine). So it's not like the grounds are just "you have machine guns."
the galloping norm-crushing
I think Panama, Grenada and Libya show this to not be so norm-crushing as some might think. On top of the drugs, the Chinese, Russian, Cuban and Iranian ties, 8 million people having left (more than left Syria), and the elections give ample reason to want Maduro gone. Not that "wanting him gone" is justification for a forced extradition, but there is much more going on here.
Over at BJ, Adam Silverman is reminding everyone that both the Greenland nonsense and the Venezuela idea were planted by the GRU.
Really? The US has wanted Greenland for a long time. We occupied it during WWII invoking the Monroe Doctrine. And comparing Venezuela to Ukraine at this point is truly balloon juice.
That being said, time will tell. It's what happens now that gives me more concern. Venezolanos are celebrating but cautious about what comes next too.
China and Russia are delighted, I presume, about the current events. It’s exactly what they need for their own propaganda.
Sure, for their own, internal propaganda. But from a strategic standpoint, the US action should counter not only China and Russia's strategic aims in Venezuela, but Iran's and Cuba's too. The success of the mission in light of Russian air defense has to be taken into account. If this ends up toppling the Cuban or Iranian government by domino effect, who is going to cry? Shoot, it already caused the illustrious Gov. Waltz to stop his reelection campaign, lol.
I'm the first one to wrap myself in a blue flag with golden stars - in fact, that was my Facebook profile picture for a few years after Brexit - but goodness, we need new leaders.
"The Danes, and the Canadians better get to work on a nuclear deterrent, and hope it’s ready in time."
France sent a nuclear sub to a port in the Maritimes back in the early days of Trump II. Both France and Canada are NATO nations.
As are we, for that matter. So who knows what was intended, or how any of it would play out. But my understanding is that it was... unusual for a French nuke to show up in North America .
Trump is basically flipping the tables. Who knows where it will all end up.
My expectations of the Trump administration were of course low, but I did expect at least a token gesture of resistance from the EU and the UK. Instead, they all folded immediately: Kallas, von der Leyen, Macron, Starmer and Merz. It is beyond belief how pathetic they are
I suppose the Canadians and the Danes feel some temporary relief that the crazies are still looking south for the moment.
Be careful, it could just be a clever (good joke!) distraction, so the strike will come as a surprise.
Again more seriously: It was no joke about other threatened states likely ramping up air and ground defenses around their seats of government. But that could serve as justification to not go for abduction next time but outright assassination, if need be by air dropped ordnance.
His Orangeness is said to already have phoned Maduro's temporary successor and it is strongly implied that this included death threats in case of lack of unconditional surrender to His demands.
The Danes, and the Canadians better get to work on a nuclear deterrent, and hope it's ready in time.
For that matter, the Dutch better also do so, since the ICC is on their land.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “2026, as f**ked up as 2025”
GftNC,
Re editing: I have found that, once I post something, I can tap on the text of the post and then (but only then) a little gear wheel appears at the bottom right of the post. Click on that to get to edit mode.
"
bc,
To say "It's always about what happens next" comes very close to saying "The ends justify the means". Don't get me wrong: I am not an absolutist about ends and means; I freely confess to inconsistency on that proposition.
Hairshirt's practical question ("Why to a lesser extent?") is one I would have asked, myself. But I also have to wonder about about a couple of other things.
For one, is there a difference between intended ends and the actual ones? If your intent is criminal but the unintended consequences of your action turn out to be "good", maybe that mitigates your criminality?
For another, what is the intended end here? I have a hard time believing that the end He, Trump and his cabal intend is a free and sovereign Venezuelan democracy. And I seriously doubt that, intended or unintended, this "good" consequence is a likely outcome of the Maduro snatch.
--TP
"
It’s always about “what happens next”, right? I have similar feelings about Venezuela, but to a lesser extent.
Why to a lesser extent? It appear that there was little forethought on this action. The administration is generally incompetent (even worse than Trump's first) and is terrible with follow-through once it becomes apparent that whatever they're trying to do is actually difficult or complicated.
DOGE? The healthcare plan from over a decade ago? Trump's infrastructure bill? Ending the hostilities in Ukraine and Gaza? Inflation? Rounding up all the actual violent criminals in the country illegally?
All they seem good at is breaking things.
"
I don't think it is real worthwhile to try and figure out where Trump gets his ideas. I suppose that everything is similar to something, until it is not. I'm thinking that bc is a lawyer, so I have to wonder if he sees everything that is going on as simply an extension of previous trends or something that is actually different?
"
wjca:
The question was whether Trump got the idea to "purchase Greenland" from the GRU letter, not whether there is justification for simply taking it over. That's the context of my response. As a 3rd generation Alaskan (currently living outside my home state), I'd point out that William Seward tried to buy Greenland (and Iceland too). At one point he wanted to bring Canada into the US. So maybe Trump got both ideas from Seward? There were other attempts in the 20th century, (including Truman, I believe) and the US refused to leave after WWII due to the Cold War. But I don't support taking over Greenland by force over the Denmark's objection.
TP: As I recall, I had mixed feelings about Libya, but more practical than whether or not the President had the authority. It's always about "what happens next", right? I have similar feelings about Venezuela, but to a lesser extent. But I am concerned about not leaving the Venezuelans worse off due to a power vacuum than before. I don't like how Trump is talking about Machado nor do I like leaving the illegitimate VP in power. I am glad that Venezuela has a fighting chance to be free.
"
This from GftNC's Atlantic link seems relevant to norm busting.
"
By the way, I see people have edited their comments, but I don' t know how to. Can anyone explain?
"
And for anyone who wants to listen to (or read a transcript of) a conversation between David Frum and Anne Applebaum on the Venezuela story, this is a gift link from the Atlantic. It's a couple of days old - I always wait for transcript because that's how I prefer to take in my information and media if possible:
https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/2026/01/david-frum-show-bonus-venezuela/685492/?gift=cx0iluuWx4Cg7JjlT8ugCZ27BPAKdMsjTztCEaEK_K4&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
As I've said before, I'm interested in what saner and more clear-sighted rightwingers think of Trump's adventures, and as far as I know nobody has ever accused Anne Applebaum of being any kind of lefty!
Apart from that, the only thing we haven't mentioned is the much quoted opinion going round that the reason Trump did not instal María Corina Machado as president given that she won the last election is that she accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, and didn't immediately say "I can't take it, it should be President Trump's". She came to her senses afterwards, but it was too late. Again, no "basis in fact".
"
bc: I think Panama, Grenada and Libya show this to not be so norm-crushing as some might think.
I don't have the time to look through the archive for bc's comments on "Panama, Grenada, and Lybia", and the first two (Panama, 1989, Poppy Bush; Grenada, 1983, Saint Reagan) were too long ago anyway, but surely bc was as supportive of Obama on Libya as he appears to be of He, Trump on Venezuela. Right?
I mean, a consistent attitude toward "norms" for the President of the United States, however wrongheaded, is one thing. A variable definition of "norms" based on who happens to be president at the moment would be a different, and more worrisome, thing.
--TP
"
I was generally optimistic about the near future (within the framework of being a doomfreak) until this week. I thought the tide was tipping against King Pussygrabber and that, as his support eroded, the Rs in Congress would start showing some spine and Dems would win lots of elections.
Instead it's Iraq all over again except this time with an executive who is literally insane. Rubio is similar to the people around Bush in that he believes in a kind of domino theory (US takes one nation and the others fall into line, maybe with some more pushing we win!) that completely ignores the spirit of nationalism in other nations and their desire to not be de facto colonies. The war(s) will be marketed to the rubes in the US by wrapping it up in a flag and demanding that all good true real Americans all salute.
Bush's Great Adventure ended in tears, of course, and now even Republican voters will say that Bush fucked up. The initial flush of jingoistic excitement ran aground on the short American attention span and some American deaths (Who cares about all the civilians who died or the million refugees or the destabilization of Syria? Down the Memory Hole.)
So I think the War for Greater Trumpistan will also run around on the limited attention span of the voters and the unwillingness to invest more than a couple thousand American lives. I think that even MAGAs would object to trading American lives for oil--if they know that's what's happening.
The past being the best predictor of the future, moral principles, rule of law, the exposure of lies, and foreign civilian deaths will not influence public opinion here beyond those who are already appalled, so the Republican party won't be held responsible for this any more than they were for Watergate, Iran/countra, Iraq, Trump's attack on Congress, or Trump and all of his crimes, or anything else they do. They represent the worst in human nature and, sadly, there's always going to be enough of that around for a viable party.
"
That's kind of a stretch. During World War II, you will recall that Denmark had been conquered the Nazi Germany. Holding Greenland was merely keeping the Germans from establishing a base from which to attack the North Atlantic convoys. When Denmark was liberated, Greenland immediately returned to Danish rule. The US maintains bases there still, but it has bases on lots of countries around the world.
Certainly Greenland still has strategic value. But while there have been contingency plans to keep it out of hostile hands for a century, that's quite a ways from just flat out wanting to take it over. (I'm not willing to concede Trump might be capable of strategic thinking to the point of considering Denmark a future hostile power. No matter how much he bad-mouths the EU.)
"
Her testimony was not that the Trump Administration was actually considering a Ukraine/Venezuela swap
Her testimony was in 2019, and she left her job with Trump 10 days before his famous "perfect" phone conversation with Zelensky unsuccessfully seeking help against Biden. Since then, Russia has invaded Ukraine, Trump has "mystifyingly" favoured Russia over Ukraine at almost every point, and has now invaded Venezuela and kidnapped its appalling president, while claiming the US is "running" Venezuela.
Citing her testimony to say “Trump got the idea from the Russians” has no basis in fact.
Hmm. An interesting observation.
And what Ambassador Ken Fairfax actually said was "It's interesting that Russia withdrew all of its personnel from Venezuela exactly 14 days before Trump's invasion. China didn't withdraw their personnel. Cuba didn't withdraw theirs. Just Russia. It is almost as if someone called Putin to warn him what's up as part of a quid pro quo. Not almost."
To quote Monty Python, "a nod is as good as a wink to a blind bat". Or, to put it in a more pedestrian fashion "there are none so blind as those who will not see".
"
Re Greenland, I'm confused. That GRU letter is dated October 23, 2019, right? And addressed to Cotton? Cotton had already been advocating for the US to purchase Greenland in August before that letter:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/26/opinion/politics/greenland-trump.html
And as Cotton notes in his op ed, Trump had expressed interest to purchase Greenland before the op ed. So how exactly did the fake letter give Trump the idea? Am I missing something?
As Fiona Hill testified, the Russians like to disrupt. That's all this letter was.
"
This ignores the testimony of Fiona Hill during the hearings for Trump’s first impeachment in 2019.
Her testimony was not that the Trump Administration was actually considering a Ukraine/Venezuela swap, but to the contrary. She was charged with telling the Russians to (her words) "knock this off." And she testified that the Russians were floating this in the press, not directly to the administration. Nowhere (that I saw) does it indicate Trump was actually thinking about the swap.
I don't disagree that Fiona Hill seems like an impressive person. Citing her testimony to say "Trump got the idea from the Russians" has no basis in fact.
According to former ambassador Ken Fairfax on BSKY, the Russians pulled their people ten days before the US op. Make of that what you will.
It was reported before Christmas that the Russians were pulling their people, but I remember it being diplomats mostly. And there was plenty of saber-rattling by Trump, not to mention the buildup of force. They had already pulled a lot of military personnel earlier, from what I remember, but I always thought that was because of Ukraine. Still, they didn't pull the air defense systems they sold to Maduro. I'm sure the nations relying on Russian air defense are making of that what they will. See here:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2026/01/05/venezuela-raid-weak-russian-air-defences-maduro-caracas/
Now maybe it was turned off and the US flipped some people. I don't know.
"
bc - Really? The US has wanted Greenland for a long time. We occupied it during WWII invoking the Monroe Doctrine. And comparing Venezuela to Ukraine at this point is truly balloon juice.
Yes, really. The Danes were the ones that released the image of the forged letter, purportedly from Greenland but actually from the GRU, sent to Tom Cotton suggesting that Greenland was primed to join the US.
As for the Venezuela/Ukraine swap suggestion, that info comes from Fiona Hill's sworn testimony in 2019.
The best propaganda ops are always woven into historical contexts and appeal to the known biases of the targets.
The success of the mission in light of Russian air defense has to be taken into account.
According to former ambassador Ken Fairfax on BSKY, the Russians pulled their people ten days before the US op. Make of that what you will.
"
And comparing Venezuela to Ukraine at this point is truly balloon juice.
This ignores the testimony of Fiona Hill during the hearings for Trump's first impeachment in 2019. She is a deeply impressive person who had been at the time Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for European and Russian Affairs on Trump's National Security Council.
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2019/11/FionaHill-compressed.pdf
Just make a search box, and enter "Venezuela", and it goes straight there, including Ukraine. Adam Silverman is right, and so is nous. To have US patsies for Putin in position to be manipulated by him into breaching international law, and talk about taking the territory of NATO allies, is a truly extraordinary development. O brave new world, that has such American politicians in it!
"
There hasn’t even been any sign of a Congressional resolution
Does 21 USC 960a count? I mean, Maduro is a narcoterrorist and was illegally importing cocaine. Even Biden agreed that he was a threat to the US, raising the reward for Maduro's capture to $25M. (query: Does Trump get that reward now?).
Harmut's comment was snark, but I'm being serious: if you have a de facto head of state that is illegitimate, also a narcoterrorist, no extradition treaty, refuses to stop drug trafficking after warning, is very badly dressed, etc., does extraditing by force require independent Congressional approval? If this was some prolonged military action, I get it. This was surgical (so far).
If I recall what I’ve seen this morning correctly, the indictment that is the basis for the arrest warrant says “fully automatic firearms”.
From what I read in the indictment (superseding from 2020; I think they are basically the same), the "full auto" counts are dependent on counts 1 and 2 (narcoterrorism and importation of cocaine). So it's not like the grounds are just "you have machine guns."
the galloping norm-crushing
I think Panama, Grenada and Libya show this to not be so norm-crushing as some might think. On top of the drugs, the Chinese, Russian, Cuban and Iranian ties, 8 million people having left (more than left Syria), and the elections give ample reason to want Maduro gone. Not that "wanting him gone" is justification for a forced extradition, but there is much more going on here.
Over at BJ, Adam Silverman is reminding everyone that both the Greenland nonsense and the Venezuela idea were planted by the GRU.
Really? The US has wanted Greenland for a long time. We occupied it during WWII invoking the Monroe Doctrine. And comparing Venezuela to Ukraine at this point is truly balloon juice.
That being said, time will tell. It's what happens now that gives me more concern. Venezolanos are celebrating but cautious about what comes next too.
China and Russia are delighted, I presume, about the current events. It’s exactly what they need for their own propaganda.
Sure, for their own, internal propaganda. But from a strategic standpoint, the US action should counter not only China and Russia's strategic aims in Venezuela, but Iran's and Cuba's too. The success of the mission in light of Russian air defense has to be taken into account. If this ends up toppling the Cuban or Iranian government by domino effect, who is going to cry? Shoot, it already caused the illustrious Gov. Waltz to stop his reelection campaign, lol.
"
Regarding the feeble EU reponse:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jan/05/donald-trump-coup-venezuela-break-rules-regret
And an interesting take connecting it to the EU's own immigration policies:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jan/05/donald-trump-coup-venezuela-break-rules-regret
I'm the first one to wrap myself in a blue flag with golden stars - in fact, that was my Facebook profile picture for a few years after Brexit - but goodness, we need new leaders.
"
nous: an excellent reminder from Adam Silverman. I should check BJ more often...
"
Over at BJ, Adam Silverman is reminding everyone that both the Greenland nonsense and the Venezuela idea were planted by the GRU.
https://balloon-juice.com/2026/01/04/war-for-ukraine-day-1410-and-now-we-know-where-the-venezuela-idea-came-from/
None of these idiots should ever have been given security clearance. They are entirely too easily manipulated.
"
"The Danes, and the Canadians better get to work on a nuclear deterrent, and hope it’s ready in time."
France sent a nuclear sub to a port in the Maritimes back in the early days of Trump II. Both France and Canada are NATO nations.
As are we, for that matter. So who knows what was intended, or how any of it would play out. But my understanding is that it was... unusual for a French nuke to show up in North America .
Trump is basically flipping the tables. Who knows where it will all end up.
"
My expectations of the Trump administration were of course low, but I did expect at least a token gesture of resistance from the EU and the UK. Instead, they all folded immediately: Kallas, von der Leyen, Macron, Starmer and Merz. It is beyond belief how pathetic they are
"
Two articles about the relationship to my neighborhood
https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2026/01/04/u-s-action-in-venezuela-risks-encouraging-chinas-claims-taiwan-still-not-the-target/
https://www.firstpost.com/world/venezuela-today-taiwan-tomorrow-trumps-maduro-move-hands-china-cheap-ammunition-for-taipei-strike-13965411.html
And this very interesting recollection by Greg Palast. A bit heavy on the conspiracy theory stuff, but one wonders.
https://www.gregpalast.com/when-venezuelas-president-delcy-rodriguez-banged-on-my-door-at-2am/
"
I suppose the Canadians and the Danes feel some temporary relief that the crazies are still looking south for the moment.
Be careful, it could just be a clever (good joke!) distraction, so the strike will come as a surprise.
Again more seriously: It was no joke about other threatened states likely ramping up air and ground defenses around their seats of government. But that could serve as justification to not go for abduction next time but outright assassination, if need be by air dropped ordnance.
His Orangeness is said to already have phoned Maduro's temporary successor and it is strongly implied that this included death threats in case of lack of unconditional surrender to His demands.
"
The Danes, and the Canadians better get to work on a nuclear deterrent, and hope it's ready in time.
For that matter, the Dutch better also do so, since the ICC is on their land.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.