The confusion over what happened in Venezuela on Saturday and what happens next will not go away. Comments from Maroc Rubio yesterday only made the situation more opaque. The New York Times, scratching its head on the issue, noted:
It's not an occupation. Pentagon officials said yesterday that there were no U.S. military personnel in the country. (Though U.S. troops will remain in the Caribbean Sea to exert “leverage” on the new leadership, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said.)
They added:
It's also not regime change. Venezuela's opposition leader, María Corina Machado, who won the Nobel Peace Prize last year and dedicated it to Trump, has been sidelined: Trump said Machado lacked the “respect” needed to govern.
Instead, the U.S. has accepted having Maduro's vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, as interim leader. Trump said she would hold power as long as she “does what we want.”
Then they noted:
[T]he administration has vaguely sketched out an arrangement similar to a guardianship: The U.S. will provide a vision for how Venezuela should be run and will expect the interim government to carry that out in a transition period, under the threat of further military intervention.
So what is going on? It seems to be three things.
First, the threat of violence is presumed sufficient to induce compliance. Trump's language on Saturday highlighted the violent element of what happened.
Second, the aim is to create compliant puppet governments. Vichy, anyone?
Third, sanctions are the threat, for now. The effective choice is 'take it or leave it, we're having it'.
Where does that leave the world?
Firstly, this is open thuggery.
Second, diplomacy is over.
Third, the gunboat is back.
Fourth, colonialism has returned.
Fifth, abuse will follow.
And where are we in the UK? We are between the devil and the deep blue sea. We have chosen not to have a sphere of influence now. Brexit delivered that outcome. That inevitably means we are within someone else's sphere of influence. We have a choice, and there are only two. We can be European or an ally of the USA. That's it. There are no other cards on the table.
The problem is, we already look as though, firstly, we supposedly can't decide, and secondly, that this is a cover for not admitting we are Trump's Trojan Horse in Europe.
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!
No steer believes that the one sided trade with Trump is a triumph of UK fence sitting.
Eyes have been closed to the reality, Trump can and probably will unilaterally change it.
The EU it appears is not for the UK, too many rules apparently.
The UK is happy to accept US rules even if it damages the UK.
Continued decline is the prospect facing the majority of the UK population.
? Sixth, lack of reasonably objective and balanced reporting by the main stream media?
Keir Starmer is a lawyer yet apparently it takes him more than two days to decide out whether the bombing of another country – including it seems killing and injuring its citizens – and the kidnapping of its head of state, is illegal, in the absence of an immediate requirement of self defence.
But according to the minister on the radio this morning that doesn’t so matter much because Maduro was an “evil dictator”. I could list at least a dozen world leaders who are more “evil” and dictatorial so where does that take us?
Agreed
‘Trojan Horse’ sounds like a compliment to me Richard.
We are – in reality – even LESS than that in my view.
I believe an inexorable return to the EU fold, initially via customs union, is in motion. Trust in US is now zero. Language of course will be muted, but the direction of travel is set.
What’s clear is that Europe has a range of views, but generally is supportive of democracy and the rule of law. Trump is demolishing any checks and balances to his authority and views the Western Hemisphere as all being the USA’s (and therefore his) by right of power.
There is no real choice. The only way to have a voice is a closer alignment with Europe, because Trump is on a path of subjugation.
Tend to agree with PSR. We were a sort of TH when we were in the EU, now we are just another small boat , tethered to , and trying to survive the backwash from , Trumps rogue ocean liner
There is a YouTube short coming out on this very soon
Airstrip One?
We had some value to the USA as a Trojan Horse up until the end of the Cold War. After that, more and more former Warsaw Pact states were sucked into the EU, most of them more than willing to play Trojan Horse to the triumphant remaining super-power. Our value plummeted then and has dropped still further since we left the EU.
I’ve read (and believe) that this is not about oil per se, but rather about oil being sold not in dollars. That’s the real issue they want resolving. China, having proved that countries can now trade effectively in Yuan, not Dollars, is causing the US real issues, especially if bonds stop being bought.
Angus Hanton’s book “Vassal State: How America Runs Britain” seems to suggest that we are already that Trojan Horse. The 2025 National Security Strategy of the USA is keen help Britain correct its current trajectory and to restore Britain to its former greatness (under a strong leader like Nigel Farage?).
George Orwell’s “1984” had Airstrip One as a province of Oceania. Donald Trump’s Donroe Doctrine doesn’t yet stretch as wide as Oceania and the EU is still disputed territory to be fought over with Eurasia.
Interesting times ahead in 2026.
Isn’t Trump totally isolating himself and The USA?
He won’t support Ukraine in it’s just struggle with Russia whilst trying to ‘take over’ Argentina and its oil where Russia and China want to and have influence.So in one area he is pro-Russia and in another anti.At the same time he seems to be turning against Europe.
He says he despises Argentinia for its drug activities but as I understand it some ketamine is made in China and exported abroad so is he going to attack China?
He has it seems been saying he wants to go for Greenland and that he doesn’t like the way Russia and China are ‘circling’ the area so here he is anti -Russia and China.I believe Trump has also pardoned drug smugglers [Hernandez]
He seems like a madman to me and surely the best way to counter him is for Europe to form alliances with Canada which he’s upset and other democratic countries like NZ and Australia and move away from Trump and his bunch of fools.What with The Epstein files and his present activities hopefully Trump will lose support and people will turn against him.
I would love Argentina and other countries to peacefully transfer to democratic rule but Trump seems to want to let the thugs ruling Argentina stay in place as he doesn’t want the opposition politicians to govern.
The way Trump talks and behaves suggests he is nothing but an arrogant, narcisistic, [spoiled] child and sadly none of those in his government seem to be holding him to account.
It all seems so confusig to me.
What is going on?
interesting to note Jeremy Bowen’s piece on the BBC news website – “Bowen: Trump’s action could set precedent for authoritarian powers across globe” – https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y45nyz124o –
He is right
Thanks, I will take a look. Patrick Cockburn has written pieces (I see them in the i) – I find him good.
Apologies.In my last post I talked of Argentina when I meant Venezuela.Sorry
Europe needs its own army. Not as an alternative to NATO, but because relying on the outcome of US elections for our collective defence is no longer credible.
NATO only works if all members are reliable. The US is openly signalling that its commitment is conditional and transactional. A defence system that can switch off every four years is not a security guarantee, it is a gamble.
The Brexit era scare stories about a “EU army” destroying sovereignty were deliberately misleading. No one proposed conscription by Brussels or foreign generals ordering national troops into war. What was proposed was shared command, pooled capability, common procurement, and strategic autonomy. In other words, Europe taking responsibility for its own survival.
Ask who benefited from killing that idea.
Russia benefits from a militarily fragmented Europe that depends on an unreliable ally. So does any US administration that wants leverage rather than partners. Weak, divided allies are easier to pressure, easier to manipulate, and easier to ignore.
You do not need secret payments or conspiracies to see what happened. A bought narrative does not require envelopes of cash. It requires repetition, fear, and useful idiots amplifying talking points that align perfectly with hostile interests.
A European army strengthens NATO, strengthens democracy, and strengthens deterrence. The claim that it was a threat to sovereignty weakened Western Europe and made us more dependent, not less.
Intent is debatable. Effect is not.
As it stands, NATo makes no sense. The US is the enemy.
I have no affection for the Iranian regime, but its depiction of the USA as “the Great White Satan” seems increasingly justifiable as Trump continues on his wrecking-ball way.
Shetland’s still got oil and even more if Labour goes ahead with Rosebank. What happens when the USS Gerald R Ford turns up in Sullom Voe?
I understood that the spheres of ‘influence’ were to divide the world into three sectors; the US, China and Russia. The EU and the UK are to be within the Russian sector .. not a standalone.
Why?