One of the things that I learned a very long time ago was that if you want to succeed at something, you have to do a bit of planning.
Knowing how to start anything is not enough. In fact, it is the easy bit. Keeping going, and even more importantly, having an idea of what success looks like, so that you can know when you have achieved it, are even more important than knowing how to start. In fact, you should not start until you know these things. Otherwise, you guarantee confusion, disorganisation, waste and, eventually, failure. Each follows as night does day.
Nothing I say should be a surprise to anyone. However, look at most people's progress with their New Year's resolutions, and it is evident that most people know what I say, but very few seem able to plan.
It would seem that Donald Trump and his cohort of henchmen and women in Washington, DC can be ranked amongst their number. Trump has started a war against Venezuela. Invading a country, seizing its president, removing that person and their wife by force, and then declaring that you will run the country henceforth because no one present within it is apparently capable of doing so, is as close to a declaration of war in the modern world as we have yet got, and that is what Trump has done.
There is just one problem with this. It would seem as if no one in his administration thought about what might happen next.
The support of Congress for this illegal act was not secured. In itself, that failure was illegal.
A UN resolution to justify this action was not secured. In itself, that too was illegal.
Failing to take the necessary steps to ensure that the action he was taking was legitimate was the very first sign that Trump had not thought through the consequences of what he was doing, but things then get very much worse than that.
Trump is claiming that the US will now run Venezuela. But it seems that he will have alienated just about everybody in Venezuela by saying so. Maduro still has supporters. His opponents will be aggrieved at being denied the opportunity to govern, which has been their goal. And there is an army in the country, and it is not insignificant. It, too, might have an opinion on this matter, and armies in South American countries have been politically crucial for a very long time. To claim you are going to govern without having considered how you might do so, let alone bothering to secure any support for the processes that you plan to put in place, looks like a significant act of folly, and a surefire way to begin a very long and drawn-out war of attrition with many groups, all of whom might hate each other, but who will hate the external aggressor even more.
Then there is Trump's claim that US oil companies will now take over production of that commodity, which is vital to Venezuela's economy and its future, and the well-being of its people. But none of those companies appear to have indicated that they had any notification of this, or that they want to participate, and you can well understand why. As multinational corporations operating around the world, they might not wish to be associated with a hostile takeover of a state, and who could blame them?
The domino effect is something else that I rather suspect Trump did not think about. Did he realise that he was giving the green light to China to walk into Taiwan? And was it his intention to tell Putin that he can now invade the Baltic states, which he has for so long wanted to do?
Or might it be that he thought this was a trade-off he was willing to accept in exchange for seizing Cuba, Greenland, and maybe Canada too? We do not know, but the consequences of all this are very clearly uncertain. If there is a success criterion implicit in his actions, then the one thing that we can be sure of is that we cannot identify it.
So what are the risks?
Firstly, the chance that this invasion might fail is very high. If there are two things that the American people are keen to avoid, they are on-the-ground involvement of troops in foreign wars and those troops returning in body bags. Despite this, the chance that Trump can deliver his claimed objectives without substantial on-the-ground military involvement in Venezuela, with significant conflict arising, appears very small. I am plenty old enough to recall Vietnam and all that went with it. The spectre of that US military fiasco now hangs all over this campaign.
Secondly, in such a situation, the obvious economic goal that Trump has in pursuing this campaign, of securing additional oil resources that would remove oil price pressure from the United States in the event of instability in the Middle East, seems unlikely to be achieved. Running a successful oil industry in a war zone, when acts of terrorism against oil targets would be so easy to achieve, is going to be near impossible. It really does not look as though he has thought this one through.
Third, with luck, the international order might realise that there is value in upholding the United Nations Charter. I cannot guarantee this, but at least in the short term, Russia and China might want to align with Europe in doing this precisely so they can isolate Trump, even if it is only to secure short-term advantage. History is riddled with such events.
Fourth, if Trump fails, and I think he will, then Russia and China might actually take note. I am not sure I would call that a silver lining, because whilst both view international law with some disdain at present, they do also have a tokenistic form of compliance as well, and so this lesson did not need to be learned. However, its reinforcement might do no harm.
Finally, if Trump thought he needed a war to divert attention from the US domestic agenda of Epstein, affordability, the collapse of MAGA, and the forthcoming midterm elections, then I think he is very wrong. There have been political leaders saved by war, of whom the most recent notable example was Margaret Thatcher, for whom the Falklands conflict was transformational. However, whatever its merits, that war was entirely legally defensible and, rather surprisingly, worked well against a military force also operating far from its homeland and with little conviction. That is where the similarity ends with Venezuela, where almost everything is different. If Trump thinks that this is his role model, he is sadly mistaken.
So, what is there to conclude?
Firstly, the Trump administration has exposed its total inability to think, plan and, in all likelihood, deliver.
Secondly, we will need to watch what happens in Venezuela with care, because the situation is highly combustible in almost every way in which that word can be interpreted.
Third, disastrous as this action is, hope remains possible because Trump's ineptitude has made the likelihood of the long-term success of what he has set out to achieve so unlikely.
You can accuse me of struggling to find any good interpretation of unfolding events in what I have written here.
Alternatively, you can look at this as a rational interpretation of apparent incompetence.
Both views might be fair.
My point is that whilst the world is most definitely a darker place as a consequence of what Trump has done, and fear is wholly justified, there are reasons for thinking that this action may not end in catastrophe.
As I have said many times before, at the end of many blog posts, we have to live in hope.
Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
My view of the world hasn’t changed. The US simultaneously acts as the world’s police man in defense of international law as well as says their is no international law, only US law. The confusion has been pretty consistent among the US right wing. The US administration is grossly confused about the location of US borders.
Agreed, and not meaning to be a buzz-kill here, but all I would add is that it could get worse and ‘ethno-nationalistic’ tendencies seem to be increasingly gripping the nation and people like Robert Jenrick revise social history – as John Harris reports in the Guardian today. The fact that some of this is driven by under-taxed millionaires with these gripes is also something to be concerned about.
Accepted. That is possible. `
Good article by John Harris.
As invaders keep on discovering the one thing that will unite an invaded nation is hatred of the invader especially of course in the case of South America when the invader is the US.
Oh and while Venezuela has a lot of oil its very heavy low grade stuff that isnt straightforward to extract and refine……….
Agreed
The heavy crude is the very point of the invasion. Sky news did a good presentation of that fact that the refineries on the southern US coast are designed to process heavy, and the US imports a lot of the stuff. Basically, this is a smash and grab. Who does he think he is? The British Empire?
The refineries for heavy oil are largely owned by the Koch brothers (as were) who have a long record of distorting US democracy by eg funding the transformation of Buchanan’s Public Choice theory into political strategy, as described in Nancy MacLean’s ‘Democracy in Chains’.
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2025/11/10/economic-questions-the-nancy-maclean-question/#comment-area
Good book
You write so often about “hope”. I’ve been thinking a lot about that, recently.
We all use the work casually without thinking on what “hope” really means.
“I live in hope…”
“One can only hope.”
“I hope nothing happens…”
“We have to hope that politicians…”
It is a sharing of a vision for the future. How much it has to be an exchange between people with the same dream was brought home to me watching Mamdani’s swearing-in and his inauguration speech.
He carries a light of conviction that *gives* hope to those who feel hopeless. There’s an all-encompassing welcome into his world of plans and strategy and action, a trajectory in place, as you write today. There’s a smile in all his face to say, “Look up. There are stars to light our way.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/01/zohran-mamdani-inauguration-speech
I guess there’s a reason for the success of the universal anthem:
**Walk on with hope in your heart and you’ll never walk alone**
Happy New Year, Richard, and all contributors to this blog, and may we all travel in hope.
Thank you.
And to you.
If Europe, Russia and China can cooperate at the United Nations to curb some of the excesses of this current US administration, then there is a small window. But time and again, Starmer and other European leaders have failed to do the right thing. We do not have the leaders we need.
On a longer time scale, I’m thinking that Trump wants to take China’s resources too. The reason he keeps promising Putin whatever he wants, is to split Russia from China and then blockade China from international trade unless they pay their dues. I’m defining their dues, as any amount the US wants.
I’m not looking forward in hope, more in fear.
On hope, I am reminded of the Greek myth of Pandora’s box which Trump seems to have gleefully opened.
As most people know who are familiar with the myth, when the box was opened, all the evils of the world flew out, leaving only hope.
Events are now in danger of cascading out of control on the world stage, which many predicted would happen if Trump ever got back into power. If they do, the UK will be badly affected economically, perhaps unable to implement the policies required to reduce poverty by redistribution. I sense that such a crisis might be an opportunity to change our economic system because neoliberalism cannot deal with a big economic downturn.
So, my ‘hope’ is that Trump’s folly, notwithstanding the world troubles it may ignite, will precipitate different solutions to our own economic problems. That’s assuming we manage to survive his madness in a position to make the changes. Or, am I being naive in underestimating the ability of those in power now to cling on to it, regardless of what happens?
Hello Richard,
My name is JR, I’m running in a local council seat for the Greens across the pond.
I’m running on a platform of community and reinvestment. Is it possible to chat it up with you and speak directly via email.
Enjoy your material discovered you via politics joe the 2nd to last time you were on, your essay on knowledge vs understanding perfectly, adequately and correctly defines my pursuit for public office.
May you have additional availabilities.
Thanks from a long time viewer.
Sorry, but your name is not JR, because nobody has that name. And what you mean by the pond I do not know. And you have clearly not done your research. So, sorry, but I do not have time to spare.
Putting two and two together to make five. 1) An interesting post via Brad de Long https://michaeldsellers.substack.com/cp/18344474.. The implication is that this may have been an inside job. 2) The immediate coronation of the vice president, Delcy Rodrigues rather than the Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Corina Machado or even the actual winner of the last election.
Vice presidents always succeed. What is surprising about that?
Just wait until ICE find out that Maduro and his wife entered US illegally. They will be straight back to Caracas.
Very dark, but quite funny.
Richard, this is an excellent analysis — and there’s one additional angle that seems worth adding because it changes the wider strategic picture.
By acting so abruptly, the US has unintentionally driven the wedge created by the recent intelligence revelations much deeper into the Kremlin. Russia was already under severe internal strain: falling oil revenues, refinery disruptions, rising prices, a restless population, and visible unease within Putin’s inner circle. In that context, a sudden geopolitical shock — even one unrelated to Ukraine — forces Moscow into a reactive posture at the very moment it can least afford it.
There’s also a material dimension that may prove relevant. Much of the US Gulf Coast refining capacity is configured for heavy crude, and Venezuela is one of the few global suppliers of that grade. Even if the current action wasn’t planned with any sophistication, the perception that the US might be trying to secure access to heavy crude adds another layer of uncertainty for Russia, whose own energy revenues are already under pressure. That uncertainty alone can deepen internal fractures.
Whatever the intention behind the action, the consequence is that Russia now has to divide its attention, its diplomatic bandwidth, and its narrative control. For a regime already stretched thin, that loss of focus is costly. Ukraine doesn’t need dramatic breakthroughs; it needs time. And this episode, however recklessly initiated, may inadvertently give them exactly that.
None of this makes the situation less dangerous, but it does mean the strategic fallout is more complex than it first appears.
Thank you.
And much to agree with.
The Trump team seems to be back pedalling, waking up to the realisation that they have not removed the government just the leader.
It’s a botched regime change.
If Trump puts US troops on the ground the potential US internal backlash could be enormous.
Why go for oil when the US needs rare earth smelting and magnet manufacturing facilities to work in the USA?
The Trump reasoning seems to be ” I can do it, so I have”.
Don’t expect no steer to be critical. Too scared to make a stand.
(1) See “The president spoke at length about securing American industry access to Venezuela’s oil fields, which account for roughly 17 percent of the world’s known reserves. A sustained U.S. military presence will be required, he indicated, for the foreseeable future. How many troops will be needed and for how long is anyone’s guess.” https://www.nytimes.com/…/trump-venezuela-congress-war…
(2) the Trump administration probably consulted with Chevron CEO Mike Wirth about Venezuelan crude, because Wirth stated that Chevron has been operating continuously in Venezuela and that Venezuela has more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2025-12-10/chevron-ceo-on-oil-price-demand-venezuela-ai-power-video at 9:46; and
(3) Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had spoken by phone with Maduro’s vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, and reaffirmed their “mutual commitment to bolster up comprehensive [sic] strategic partnership between Russia and Venezuela.” Russia also called the Maduro kidnapping “an unacceptable violation of the sovereignty of an independent state, the respect for which is a fundamental principle of international law.” Pot, meet Kettle.
(4) See Climate Effects of the Venezuelan Crude Oil Coup Might Depend on Making More War https://marthature.substack.com/p/climate-effects-of-the-venezuelan
I fear the probabilities for the planet, the Venezuelans, and for the United States.
This is getting more complex by the monent.
Thank you.