I give up. I can't keep up with the straw men. Frex:
However, where bc is concerned, I do think his Sweet Summer Child (SSC) status is utterly confirmed by any suggestion that Trump’s approach to this or any other issue is anything to do with mastery of the art of the deal.
What did I actually say about Trump's negotiation strategy (that I shorthanded "Art of the Deal")?
"Not only do I not like the rhetoric and the disrespect, I think it backfires here."
Good grief people. Shorter me:
1) Greenland is strategically very important whatever Trump says. (sidenote, wjca, you could be right, but what I read says the rare earth situation is much more important national security wise, and Greenland is important. https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1802/a/pp1802a.pdf)
2) Trump is going about it stupidly re Greenland. My read is he is setting up the next negotiations, or prompting the EU to take further action, but I could be wrong.
3) It's never right, absent an imminent threat (e.g. WWII) to occupy over objection. Or to threaten to. And no, I don't think we buy Greenland. Get a minerals deal. Satisfy the Inuit (that will be hard).
4) I'm glad Maduro is gone, the operation was done amazingly well, but I'm really worried about the future of Venezuela.
I could go on, but I don't have the time or inclination.
P.S. Tony P, touche. P.P.S. And I hope you wrote that with the same seriousness I did, lol.
3 weeks ago
Denmark was at the time occupied by an enemy nation.
And that European problem became a world war.
If you think Trump (and much of the current GOP) is more aware of the threat from Russia than the Europeans are . . .
Using the word ‘historically’ is pretty interesting, especially since Denmark is one of the top bilateral donors to Ukraine . . .
Actions speak louder than words (well, unless its Trump, lol). Yes, Europe is finally getting serious and starting to put its money where its mouth is, rather than relying on the US taxpayers. It's nice to see. And yes, Denmark is one of the top donors to Ukraine. I think it might actually be right at the top as a percentage of GDP. "Historically", however, meaning as recently as 2023, Denmark was below the NATO 2% standard. And a low of 1.11% in 2015. Slid below 2% in 1990 down to that low in 2015. So yes, historically.
Are you by any chance falling into what I will call the “McKinney Trap” . . .
In my own way, I may consider many here to be a different version of summer children on some issues, but I don't think anyone actually supports the CCP. Unless you voted for Bernie, Zohran, Waltz et.al. Then I might have a few questions.
It’s almost as if you haven’t been observing the Trump administration in action,
I've been observing the results achieved, the rhetoric and the resistance. IMO, many are falling for the rhetoric. If this isn't prodding, it's the Art of the Deal, trying to get a better bargaining position IMO for a minerals deal. Not only do I not like the rhetoric and the disrespect, I think it backfires here. We shall see.
Are there any instances in which Denmark has refused to co-operate with the USA over collective security in Greenland?
Denmark tried to get the US to leave after WWII, leading to the 1951 treaty (US refused to leave due to the Soviet threat). But I think this is more about rare earths, strategic positioning and what it is going to cost to do what is necessary to keep China and Russia at bay. And a concern that Greenland has, I understand, toyed with deals involving the Chinese in infrastructure and mining. Denmark has vetoed the projects. With the Chinese trying to monopolize rare earths, having the Chinese involved in mining is obviously a huge concern, and one that could be dealt with by getting a minerals agreement with the US. It makes sense to have some sort of economic deal to offset US defense costs. Threats of invasion are unhelpful, to say the least.
3 weeks ago
russell: I did not say they did. I specifically support moves by the EU and Denmark to take global security vis-a-vis Greenland seriously that take any sort of unilateral action off the table.
3 weeks ago
lj: most of them are talking about the precedent of Panama and Noriega . . .
If memory serves, Noriega tried every argument that Maduro might try and failed as far as the extradition is concerned in his criminal case. Things don't look great for him from a criminal law perspective. Of course separation of powers, international law and foreign policy concerns are another matter.
I’m hoping bc will tell us what her reasoning is (or will be) about the menacing of Greenland (or its takeover), given her extraordinary comments about the US occupation in WW2, bearing in mind for example that Greenland has been Danish longer than the United States has existed.
Well, I'm a guy, but thanks for not assuming. And while I am reluctant to respond to what appears to be another litmus test of some sort, I'll bite.
I think the comments by both Trump and Miller are stupid, disrespectful and unnecessary. It threatens NATO. Prodding NATO members to pay their fair share is one thing. This is entirely another. Or is it?
Maybe it's prodding to wake Denmark and the EU up. There is a geopolitical reality that Denmark's comments seem to indicate it isn't really grasping the threat, IMO. I hear about Greenlander self-determination but precious little about the strategic threat posed by the Russians and Chinese and what I understand is an inadequate response by Greenland specifically and Denmark and the EU in general. As I understand it, Greenland's autonomy has led to more Chinese involvement than the US wants (and in fairness, Denmark seems to be concerned too). China is claiming to be a "near arctic state" and is expanding its influence in places like Greenland (and the waters off of Alaska). The Chinese want access to the rare earth minerals in Greenland and access to shipping lanes and have signaled they want more. Trump has made it clear that Greenland's location and rare earths are a national security concern. Because of the strategic importance and threat to the US, the US is right to be very concerned about any Chinese or Russian presence in or near Greenland.
I don't see my comments about WWII and Greenland as extraordinary. The question was whether the GRU letter prompted Trump's comments on Greenland. I wasn't using WWII as an excuse to annex Greenland.
That being said, when I hear "Danish longer than the United States has existed," that was true at the time of WWII and the geopolitical reality required its occupation militarily. Could that be the case in the future? It doesn't need to be if the situation could be dealt with by agreement now. And maybe it has been to a large extent in terms of US military access? Denmark signed an agreement last July that had been sitting on its desk since 2023 (drafted under Biden). Why did it take so long? Why is that not enough? Agreement here:
Before, the US had to coordinate and it appears Denmark may not have been all that nimble in responding. But maybe this is entirely about giving China access and threatening security and not taking the threat (and the Russians in the Arctic) seriously. If you think the belts and roads initiative is entirely benign, well, I don't. And the Chinese have tried in Greenland (airport and harbor).
Yes, Denmark's claim to Greenland deserves respect. So does the fact that the US tends to pay the bill when things get really tough. Denmark has historically been way behind on NATO commitments. Trump is right to push NATO countries into their fair share (Canada, that means you). You would think Russian aggression would prompt more concern about Greenland. And maybe, just maybe, all this rhetoric is meant to get Denmark and the EU to care enough to do something about it. It seems to be working. Interesting article here from an EU perspective that covers what EU should do (and I largely agree with the suggestions).
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.
3 weeks ago
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.
3 weeks ago
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.
3 weeks ago
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:
Now maybe it was turned off and the US flipped some people. I don't know.
3 weeks ago
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 give up. I can't keep up with the straw men. Frex:
However, where bc is concerned, I do think his Sweet Summer Child (SSC) status is utterly confirmed by any suggestion that Trump’s approach to this or any other issue is anything to do with mastery of the art of the deal.
What did I actually say about Trump's negotiation strategy (that I shorthanded "Art of the Deal")?
"Not only do I not like the rhetoric and the disrespect, I think it backfires here."
Good grief people. Shorter me:
1) Greenland is strategically very important whatever Trump says. (sidenote, wjca, you could be right, but what I read says the rare earth situation is much more important national security wise, and Greenland is important. https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1802/a/pp1802a.pdf)
2) Trump is going about it stupidly re Greenland. My read is he is setting up the next negotiations, or prompting the EU to take further action, but I could be wrong.
3) It's never right, absent an imminent threat (e.g. WWII) to occupy over objection. Or to threaten to. And no, I don't think we buy Greenland. Get a minerals deal. Satisfy the Inuit (that will be hard).
4) I'm glad Maduro is gone, the operation was done amazingly well, but I'm really worried about the future of Venezuela.
I could go on, but I don't have the time or inclination.
P.S. Tony P, touche.
P.P.S. And I hope you wrote that with the same seriousness I did, lol.
Denmark was at the time occupied by an enemy nation.
And that European problem became a world war.
If you think Trump (and much of the current GOP) is more aware of the threat from Russia than the Europeans are . . .
Using the word ‘historically’ is pretty interesting, especially since Denmark is one of the top bilateral donors to Ukraine . . .
Actions speak louder than words (well, unless its Trump, lol). Yes, Europe is finally getting serious and starting to put its money where its mouth is, rather than relying on the US taxpayers. It's nice to see. And yes, Denmark is one of the top donors to Ukraine. I think it might actually be right at the top as a percentage of GDP. "Historically", however, meaning as recently as 2023, Denmark was below the NATO 2% standard. And a low of 1.11% in 2015. Slid below 2% in 1990 down to that low in 2015. So yes, historically.
Are you by any chance falling into what I will call the “McKinney Trap” . . .
In my own way, I may consider many here to be a different version of summer children on some issues, but I don't think anyone actually supports the CCP. Unless you voted for Bernie, Zohran, Waltz et.al. Then I might have a few questions.
It’s almost as if you haven’t been observing the Trump administration in action,
I've been observing the results achieved, the rhetoric and the resistance. IMO, many are falling for the rhetoric. If this isn't prodding, it's the Art of the Deal, trying to get a better bargaining position IMO for a minerals deal. Not only do I not like the rhetoric and the disrespect, I think it backfires here. We shall see.
Are there any instances in which Denmark has refused to co-operate with the USA over collective security in Greenland?
Denmark tried to get the US to leave after WWII, leading to the 1951 treaty (US refused to leave due to the Soviet threat). But I think this is more about rare earths, strategic positioning and what it is going to cost to do what is necessary to keep China and Russia at bay. And a concern that Greenland has, I understand, toyed with deals involving the Chinese in infrastructure and mining. Denmark has vetoed the projects. With the Chinese trying to monopolize rare earths, having the Chinese involved in mining is obviously a huge concern, and one that could be dealt with by getting a minerals agreement with the US. It makes sense to have some sort of economic deal to offset US defense costs. Threats of invasion are unhelpful, to say the least.
russell: I did not say they did. I specifically support moves by the EU and Denmark to take global security vis-a-vis Greenland seriously that take any sort of unilateral action off the table.
lj: most of them are talking about the precedent of Panama and Noriega . . .
If memory serves, Noriega tried every argument that Maduro might try and failed as far as the extradition is concerned in his criminal case. Things don't look great for him from a criminal law perspective. Of course separation of powers, international law and foreign policy concerns are another matter.
I’m hoping bc will tell us what her reasoning is (or will be) about the menacing of Greenland (or its takeover), given her extraordinary comments about the US occupation in WW2, bearing in mind for example that Greenland has been Danish longer than the United States has existed.
Well, I'm a guy, but thanks for not assuming. And while I am reluctant to respond to what appears to be another litmus test of some sort, I'll bite.
I think the comments by both Trump and Miller are stupid, disrespectful and unnecessary. It threatens NATO. Prodding NATO members to pay their fair share is one thing. This is entirely another. Or is it?
Maybe it's prodding to wake Denmark and the EU up. There is a geopolitical reality that Denmark's comments seem to indicate it isn't really grasping the threat, IMO. I hear about Greenlander self-determination but precious little about the strategic threat posed by the Russians and Chinese and what I understand is an inadequate response by Greenland specifically and Denmark and the EU in general. As I understand it, Greenland's autonomy has led to more Chinese involvement than the US wants (and in fairness, Denmark seems to be concerned too). China is claiming to be a "near arctic state" and is expanding its influence in places like Greenland (and the waters off of Alaska). The Chinese want access to the rare earth minerals in Greenland and access to shipping lanes and have signaled they want more. Trump has made it clear that Greenland's location and rare earths are a national security concern. Because of the strategic importance and threat to the US, the US is right to be very concerned about any Chinese or Russian presence in or near Greenland.
I don't see my comments about WWII and Greenland as extraordinary. The question was whether the GRU letter prompted Trump's comments on Greenland. I wasn't using WWII as an excuse to annex Greenland.
That being said, when I hear "Danish longer than the United States has existed," that was true at the time of WWII and the geopolitical reality required its occupation militarily. Could that be the case in the future? It doesn't need to be if the situation could be dealt with by agreement now. And maybe it has been to a large extent in terms of US military access? Denmark signed an agreement last July that had been sitting on its desk since 2023 (drafted under Biden). Why did it take so long? Why is that not enough? Agreement here:
https://www.fmn.dk/globalassets/fmn/dokumenter/nyheder/2023/-us-denmark-dca-den-prime-english-20dec2023-.pdf
Interesting discussion about the agreement here ("we had to do it" vs. "But Trump!!"):
https://www.dw.com/en/denmark-finalizes-us-defense-deal-despite-greenland-gripes/a-73210846
Before, the US had to coordinate and it appears Denmark may not have been all that nimble in responding. But maybe this is entirely about giving China access and threatening security and not taking the threat (and the Russians in the Arctic) seriously. If you think the belts and roads initiative is entirely benign, well, I don't. And the Chinese have tried in Greenland (airport and harbor).
Yes, Denmark's claim to Greenland deserves respect. So does the fact that the US tends to pay the bill when things get really tough. Denmark has historically been way behind on NATO commitments. Trump is right to push NATO countries into their fair share (Canada, that means you). You would think Russian aggression would prompt more concern about Greenland. And maybe, just maybe, all this rhetoric is meant to get Denmark and the EU to care enough to do something about it. It seems to be working. Interesting article here from an EU perspective that covers what EU should do (and I largely agree with the suggestions).
https://www.epc.eu/publication/its-a-bargain-the-case-of-greenland/
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.
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.
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.
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.