lj: I don't know that I see everything as an extension of what has come before, but I do see similarities. This is a lot like Noriega, but with much bigger risks and incentives. I hope the end result is a lot like Panama.
What acts of terrorism has he committed? The charges are he conspired to financially support terrorist organizations, namely FARC, FARC-EP, Segunda Marquetalia, ELN, TdA, the Sinaloa Cartel and CDN.
Why to a lesser extent? Only because of my sense that the Venezuelan people are largely unified in wanting something different, Venezuela has an educated population, they had a successful economy not all that far in the past and the risks are less from outside groups than they were in Libya for example.
It looks (so far) that the plan is to keep the regime sans Maduro in place, at least temporarily, to keep stability, using pressure to keep the regime/Rodriguez in line. There are rumors of a secret agreement with Rodriguez. There are questions whether she could deliver if there is. Opening up oil is a good idea if the government is going to lose drug revenue and get the economy going again. If the plan includes pressure for a free and fair election in the immediate to near future, and it actually happens, and there is a peaceful transition of power, that would obviously be amazing. I have no way of assessing whether an approach like this will work. It is a completely different look than boots on the ground, putting Machado or Gonzalez in power by force. It might be brilliant. It could be incredibly stupid. I have a hard time keeping a Chavista in power, but the problems with the alternative are obvious. Let's hope we end up with a free Venezuela with a duly elected leader in six months or so.
How can one be even-handed about this? It's clearly illegal according to international law, the charges are ridiculous and hypocritical and the self-interested motivation is crystal clear.
I guess that Venezuela is seen as different from Iraq because Venezuelans (papist Latino weaklings) are not expected to put up as much or as successful a resistance as the sand n-words in the Middle East. The US looks at a long tradition of controlling South American countries via right-wing authoritarian proxies who use death squads.
Btw, legally the UK has first rights to buy Greenland. After the US in the past tried to purchase Greenland several times with implied threats that a refusal to sell could lead to a hostile takeover, Denmark turned to the UK for help and there is a legal agreement that, if Greenland would be sold, the UK has right of first refusal. Of course, at the time the UK was as or even more powerful than the US. Not that His Orangeness knows or cares.
No doubt, this will be enthusiastically repeated when the US invades Greenland and thereby officially ends the postwar consensus and NATO:
“We live in a world, in the real world, ... that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power,” he said. “These are the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time.”
Stephen Miller Asserts U.S. Has Right to Take Greenland
Whenever the US intervenes abroad at least half of its population will unquestioningly believe, parrot or justify the most ridiculous propaganda disseminated by the government and the rule of law will be ignored completely, contorted or aggressively ridiculed.
WRT "narcoterrorism" - hoo boy, how fraught and tactical a word.
The FBI defines international terrorism as "Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups who are inspired by, or associated with, designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations." From that definition, all that is required is for the federal government to declare a group or a nation as "terrorist." They are a bit more helpful on the subject of domestic terrorism: "Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature." Neither of these definitions, however, really do much to differentiate terrorism from other political crimes, especially hate crimes.
From my readings on the subject, I think that the crucial element of terrorism is that terrorism is a narrative crime. The media identity of the party doing the terrorizing must be announced to the public, or at the very least the reason for the violent spectacle must be made known to the public in some way, and that violence must have an ideological goal. I'd argue that the tool of the violence itself is not the weapon of the terrorist, but rather that the media is the weapon and that the media narrative is the intended injury.
From this viewpoint the Mexican cartels would qualify as narcoterrorists, but only in as much as they engage in kidnap, torture, and grisly executions as a means to subjugate the Mexican populace and intimidate, subvert, or control the legitimate government. Killing US citizens with the product that they sell is not an act of terror, it's just an illegal business enterprise. The drug cartels don't have any ideological goals they are trying to achieve through the deaths of their customers. They'd probably prefer to keep those customers alive in order to continue selling the drugs to them.
Maduro was a tyrant who violated the human rights of Venezuelans: https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/americas/south-america/venezuela/report-venezuela/ He engaged in political intimidation and authorized arbitrary detentions and unfair trials for his political opponents. He wielded the Bolivaran National Guard against his political opponents in much the same way that the KKK engaged in terrorism against blacks after the Civil War.
But "narcoterrorism" against the US? That's propaganda. The illegal drug trade is just typical organized crime, and not the sort of thing that justifies military intervention in my non-lawyerly view of things.
“Maduro is a narcoterrorist and was illegally importing cocaine”
What acts of terrorism has he committed?
The users of the term "narcoterrorism" argue that anyone who traffics narcotics is, ipso facto, a terrorist. Regardless of where the narcotics are from or where they are going to. (Except US manufacturers, e.g. the Sackler family, of course.)
On editing... To add slightly to @wj's comment, you generally have to be logged in to WordPress and have sufficient privileges to edit comments. I have enough privileges to be really dangerous, so if I want to edit, I log in, do the edit, then log out immediately.
Are the G-I-UK gap sonar facilities to keep Russian submarines from reaching the North Atlantic undetected still a thing? I assume so, since some of NATO's strategy still involves holding open the sea lanes between Europe and the (supposedly) vast manufacturing capacity of the US.
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.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “2026, as f**ked up as 2025”
lj: I don't know that I see everything as an extension of what has come before, but I do see similarities. This is a lot like Noriega, but with much bigger risks and incentives. I hope the end result is a lot like Panama.
What acts of terrorism has he committed? The charges are he conspired to financially support terrorist organizations, namely FARC, FARC-EP, Segunda Marquetalia, ELN, TdA, the Sinaloa Cartel and CDN.
Why to a lesser extent? Only because of my sense that the Venezuelan people are largely unified in wanting something different, Venezuela has an educated population, they had a successful economy not all that far in the past and the risks are less from outside groups than they were in Libya for example.
It looks (so far) that the plan is to keep the regime sans Maduro in place, at least temporarily, to keep stability, using pressure to keep the regime/Rodriguez in line. There are rumors of a secret agreement with Rodriguez. There are questions whether she could deliver if there is. Opening up oil is a good idea if the government is going to lose drug revenue and get the economy going again. If the plan includes pressure for a free and fair election in the immediate to near future, and it actually happens, and there is a peaceful transition of power, that would obviously be amazing. I have no way of assessing whether an approach like this will work. It is a completely different look than boots on the ground, putting Machado or Gonzalez in power by force. It might be brilliant. It could be incredibly stupid. I have a hard time keeping a Chavista in power, but the problems with the alternative are obvious. Let's hope we end up with a free Venezuela with a duly elected leader in six months or so.
"
How can one be even-handed about this? It's clearly illegal according to international law, the charges are ridiculous and hypocritical and the self-interested motivation is crystal clear.
This is just normalization.
"
This is an even-handed review of recent events.
Everything You Need to Know About Nicolás Maduro's Capture
"
I guess that Venezuela is seen as different from Iraq because Venezuelans (papist Latino weaklings) are not expected to put up as much or as successful a resistance as the sand n-words in the Middle East. The US look
sat a long tradition of controlling South American countries via right-wing authoritarian proxies who use death squads."
Btw, legally the UK has first rights to buy Greenland. After the US in the past tried to purchase Greenland several times with implied threats that a refusal to sell could lead to a hostile takeover, Denmark turned to the UK for help and there is a legal agreement that, if Greenland would be sold, the UK has right of first refusal. Of course, at the time the UK was as or even more powerful than the US. Not that His Orangeness knows or cares.
"
No doubt, this will be enthusiastically repeated when the US invades Greenland and thereby officially ends the postwar consensus and NATO:
“We live in a world, in the real world, ... that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power,” he said. “These are the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time.”
Stephen Miller Asserts U.S. Has Right to Take Greenland
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/05/us/politics/stephen-miller-greenland-venezuela.html?unlocked_article_code=1.CVA.rKYs.cbVC6hJAGyHB&smid=url-share
"
Whenever the US intervenes abroad at least half of its population will unquestioningly believe, parrot or justify the most ridiculous propaganda disseminated by the government and the rule of law will be ignored completely, contorted or aggressively ridiculed.
This is a law of nature.
"
WRT "narcoterrorism" - hoo boy, how fraught and tactical a word.
The FBI defines international terrorism as "Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups who are inspired by, or associated with, designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations." From that definition, all that is required is for the federal government to declare a group or a nation as "terrorist." They are a bit more helpful on the subject of domestic terrorism: "Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature." Neither of these definitions, however, really do much to differentiate terrorism from other political crimes, especially hate crimes.
From my readings on the subject, I think that the crucial element of terrorism is that terrorism is a narrative crime. The media identity of the party doing the terrorizing must be announced to the public, or at the very least the reason for the violent spectacle must be made known to the public in some way, and that violence must have an ideological goal. I'd argue that the tool of the violence itself is not the weapon of the terrorist, but rather that the media is the weapon and that the media narrative is the intended injury.
From this viewpoint the Mexican cartels would qualify as narcoterrorists, but only in as much as they engage in kidnap, torture, and grisly executions as a means to subjugate the Mexican populace and intimidate, subvert, or control the legitimate government. Killing US citizens with the product that they sell is not an act of terror, it's just an illegal business enterprise. The drug cartels don't have any ideological goals they are trying to achieve through the deaths of their customers. They'd probably prefer to keep those customers alive in order to continue selling the drugs to them.
Maduro was a tyrant who violated the human rights of Venezuelans: https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/americas/south-america/venezuela/report-venezuela/ He engaged in political intimidation and authorized arbitrary detentions and unfair trials for his political opponents. He wielded the Bolivaran National Guard against his political opponents in much the same way that the KKK engaged in terrorism against blacks after the Civil War.
But "narcoterrorism" against the US? That's propaganda. The illegal drug trade is just typical organized crime, and not the sort of thing that justifies military intervention in my non-lawyerly view of things.
"
The users of the term "narcoterrorism" argue that anyone who traffics narcotics is, ipso facto, a terrorist. Regardless of where the narcotics are from or where they are going to. (Except US manufacturers, e.g. the Sackler family, of course.)
"
On editing... To add slightly to @wj's comment, you generally have to be logged in to WordPress and have sufficient privileges to edit comments. I have enough privileges to be really dangerous, so if I want to edit, I log in, do the edit, then log out immediately.
"
"Maduro is a narcoterrorist and was illegally importing cocaine"
What acts of terrorism has he committed?
"Panama, Grenada and Libya show this to not be so norm-crushing as some might think"
Precedent does not equal norm. Also, FWIW those are also not the greatest moments in our history.
"The US has wanted Greenland for a long time."
It's not our fucking island. Full stop.
"
Certainly Greenland still has strategic value.
Are the G-I-UK gap sonar facilities to keep Russian submarines from reaching the North Atlantic undetected still a thing? I assume so, since some of NATO's strategy still involves holding open the sea lanes between Europe and the (supposedly) vast manufacturing capacity of the US.
"
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.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.