Watching the news over the last day or so has been unsettling.
It is already clear that the Trump regime in the US does not know what it is doing. Trump is sending out one message; Rubio another. And Venezuela, despite claims that it is now under US control, is behaving as if it is not. Apart from the fact that Maduro has appeared in court, almost nothing else about what is happening in Venezuela, or why, is clear.
What is clear, however, is that hedge funds have already profited from Trump's actions. The value of Venezuela's international debt, largely owned by hedge funds that had gambled on an event like this, has risen by around 30% since Saturday. They are celebrating, and, as I have noted this morning, their plans for the exploitation of Venezuela are developing rapidly. The suggestion that this is an exercise in financial capitalism gone mad is hard to resist.
This is not the only madness on display. Whilst many European countries have reached the obvious conclusion that what is happening in Venezuela is illegal, because international law is unambiguous on this issue, Keir Starmer, despite his supposed expertise in international law, cannot bring himself to say so. Meanwhile, Yvette Cooper, ever eager to demonstrate deference to Washington, went out of her way to embarrass herself in the House of Commons last night by claiming that the UK would always act in support of international law, when it is very clearly doing the opposite. To the credit of the House of Commons, she was thoroughly exposed.
In fact, the only questions she appeared able to answer with any confidence during her two-hour appearance were those conveniently planted by Labour whips, and every one of them made the same demand: that a Labour government should spend more on the military, as if this would somehow alter the global balance of power when it glaringly obviously will not.
So what can be concluded? Three things stand out.
First, in the absence of any clarity from the United States about what it is actually trying to achieve, Keir Starmer and Yvette Cooper are unable to decide what to say and are visibly floundering as a result. Their lack of credibility as potential leaders of the UK, rather than as apologists for US power, could hardly be clearer.
Second, the hole Labour is digging for itself is growing deeper by the day, and the prospect of escape is receding rapidly.
Third, matters are going to get worse. Trump will almost certainly want to repeat this exercise, not least because it benefits his hedge fund allies. More seriously, the international legal order has now been abandoned by three of the four permanent members of the UN Security Council, with France the lone hold-out. That materially increases the risk of global aggression. At the same time, governments such as that envisaged by Keir Starmer will respond eagerly to calls for higher defence spending, seeing what they describe as Keynesian military stimulus, and what I would describe as the advance of the military–industrial complex, as a route to growth, even though no society has ever prospered by living off bombs and bullets.
The unavoidable over-arching conclusion is that the world has changed. It is now more dangerous, more uncertain, and at risk of being much more militarised, whilst defence forces will increasingly exist not to protect people, but to defend the interests of financial capital, which will be the principal beneficiary of what is happening in Venezuela. For the rest of us, one excuse will become familiar: which will be that whatever we want from government is unaffordable because more must be spent on the military to protect us from threats against which tanks and missiles offer no defence.
Meanwhile, there are, and will be, casualties.
They already include the people of Venezuela.
Truth is another casualty.
So, too, is care. In the struggle between might and care, might is winning for now.
The consequence is that millions, perhaps billions, will now live with greater fear, and they are already casualties.
What we know for certain is that the world has changed, and not for the better, because a few are seeking to exploit the many. And what we know for sure is that that narrative still threatens us all, which is why it must be challenged and changed.
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!
What I find so odd about the whole business is that while Maduro has been removed the current Government of Venezuela remains in ‘power’
No doubt somewhat chastened by the whole affair – and terrified by the failures of their defence infrastructure but there has been no regime change.
So whats going on?
That is hard to answer
I think what’s going on is that the US has finally realized that all its past attempts at regime change have ended in total failure, and that it would be far more advantageous to act like the mafia.
The Venezuelan ‘Socialist’ Party has controlled the state apparatus for decades, so seize control of the leadership by violence, the threat of further violence, bribery, and the promise to suspend any democratic processes until further notice: just decapitate the head and then make them an offer they can’t refuse.
Next in line: Greenland, Cuba, Colombia; further down the line: Mexico, Canada, Brazil.
What is going on is good old fashioned mendacity, duplicity – Trump obviously has an agenda and will coat his actions in all sorts of shite in order to create confusion as Roger Stone is no doubt advising. This will help in any legal case against him when this is all over (we hope) and draw a few more suckers in.
The rest of it is typical North American expansionism driven by greed, fueled by exceptionalism (the American way is the best way, and y’all better accept it – God said so).
But again I have to say that there is something admirable about it in a way – he has not messed around in his messing around – he sees what he wants and makes it a reality (the Left please note).
He is however exploiting a situation created by Neo-liberalism that has weakened our international post war institutions. In many ways he has revealed just how weak they were – perhaps from the first day they were created. The U.S. could be doing everything it is doing now with subterfuge in such a dodgy system. But Trump cannot be bothered with all that bullshit and has just ignored it – damning the UN etc., publicly of course first. It is their fault, not his – typically Fascist.
Europe – having grown fat and lazy on America’s own lust for dominance and obsession with communism – has to get used to America’s lack of pretension now – and needs to catch up right quick. It also should reflect a hell of a lot about Russia and Putin in particular who is having the last laugh.
Because at the heart of all this is our moral blindness about money and the secret paths it uses to create people like the Trumps, Putins and many other bad actors in this world of ours who are taking it over.
I am wondering if Trump is there to destroy the rule book, NATO and European Western Democracy?
Brexit
Ukraine
Trump
Greenland
All are a series of events which have destabilised Europe.
If Europe doesn’t unite it is entirely vulnerable to being pincered by US and Russian plutocrats.
sorry to post again Graham Jones used to be the Chair of the Commons committee on Venezuela. De-selected for saying people going to fight for the IDF should be locked up, so no longer an MP.
He has some speculations
https://www.facebook.com/GrahamJonesxMP/posts/i-appeared-on-the-news-yesterday-to-talk-about-venezuela-its-not-a-country-that-/1210461081198774/
It’s been reported elsewhere but but not confirmed that the Russians pulled their staff from Venezuela 14 before the operation, so were tipped off.
Also that despite having a large armed force the US were able to easily walk into the palace and kidnap the president and his wife without a struggle.
Something fishy going on – either he knew he was going to be taken and will plea bargain or the military were in cahoots. Who knows …
The New Y0ork Times and Washington Post have both admitted they knew in advance.
The Penatgon leaked like a sieve on this one.
“It is already clear that the Trump regime in the US does not know what it is doing.”
Really? Have you not noticed that no one in the “Trump regime” ever knows what it is doing on from minute-to-minute let alone long term and this includes Trump himself?
“Something fishy going on”
With the “Trump regime”??? Can you actually smell it all the way across the pond in England? LOL! LOL!
Also “at stake is the freedom of Maduro and Flores, the integrity of the U. S criminal justice system, the independence of other Latin American states, the international rule of law (what’s left of it), the success or failure of American neo-liberalism, and the fate of U. S. capitalist democracy/”
https://www.counterpunch.org/2026/01/06/on-seeing-the-photo-of-nicolas-maduro-aboard-the-u-s-s-iwo-jima/
Keynesian military stimulus? Good for defence contractors perhaps.
Do I recall correctly that defence spending has a lower economic multiplier than almost anything else (possibly negative).
And once we have spent millions on tanks and missiles, the call will come to do something with the expansive kit.
We have an air force with hardly any operational aircraft, a navy with more admirals than ships, and an army with hardly any soldiers. And a new armoured personnel carrier that is more of a danger to its crew than the enemy.
That was already the case by Iraq, and most certainly in Afghanistan. My eldest son was a perimeter commander in Camp Bastion. While UK soldiers had limited ammo and strict governance (unless in special forces), the Americans had unlimited ammo that some used to shoot civilians in drive-bys, for ‘fun’.
As a completely non military person, I would observe that most of the modern military spending is rapidly becoming obsolete and pointless. Surely modern warfare, already upon us, is associated with cyber attacks, and drones etc, which could defeat and /or control much more rapidly and effectively than armoured tanks and big guns. Add to that small terrorist type assaults on infrastructure such as witnessed in Berlin a couple of days back , and small elite commando units, of assassins and kidnappers or whatever and boing boing what’s the point of an aircraft carrier or a huge standing cannon fodder army?
Aircraft carriers massage the egos of politicians and are floating military disasters in the making.
How strange that our politicians tell us that the UK’s “household budget” is so dire that we cannot afford to fill old potholes yet we do have the funds to create new bomb craters?
Indeed
not all the dangers are military.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/jan/06/us-exemption-oecd-global-tax-deal-multinational-companies
Minimum taxes rates not to apply to the US
and some are internal but of the same ilk How to fool the HMRC
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/jan/06/recruitment-firms-phoenixism-liquidation-avoid-taxes-analysis
Agreed
The US has gutted the OECD – but, let’s be clear, it would have gutted the UN too, and this is better than nothing.
The United Nation was supposed to protect the many but is now totally ineffectual.
How many UN resolution have China, Russia and America vetoed and even broke in pursuit of their self interest
If I was Secretary General I’d raise a motion with no option for Veto that states if any of the Veto countries break a UN resolution, they lose their right to Veto
They have clearly forgotten that with power comes responsibility, that responsibility is to act in the interest of ALL nations and not just themselves or their select few
In 1951 there was a “uniting for Peace resolution’ in the United nations, to by-pass any Soviet veto on intervening in Korea following the invasion by North Korea. Some 16 nations -as I recall-contributed troops to the UN forces which were mainly American but the UK had a sizeable force. This was before most of Africa became independent and the South Americans in those days voted with the US.
It is discussed again. The success of any modern resolution would depend on how forceful the General Assembly would be but it looks to me that their patience is running out in the wake of the genocide in Gaza.
All of the Permanent Members will wish to keep their powers but while the US and China, probably even Russia, might conclude they can face down the General Assembly, France and UK don’t have that autonomy. We depend on our links to Europe and trade with the developing world too much.
I think we can’t give up on the UN. Change will come.
On the hedge fund front, an obvious issue to me is the likelihood of “insider dealing” (in colloquial terms, if not per the definitions in legislation) with fund managers favoured by Trump tipped off in advance re timing. Without prior knowledge, investment in Venezuelan government debt was not an obvious strategy for “wealth creation”.
In general, foreign investment in infrastructure is not obviously a “bad thing” after years of non-investment by the incumbent regimes.
Re criticism of Starmer et al, this is obviously easy to make, and wholly justified. But politics is a messy business and a much harder question to answer is “What would you do as PM of the UK, with all the responsibilities that go with that?”
Coming in at a tangent if billions are being spent on AI to make us a wiser species and clearly wisdom can be promoted by “nurturing” the construction of AI questions to provide determinate as opposed to indeterminate answers is it not ironic AI is not being used in regard to the Rule of Law? For example ask AI the following:-
“Is the Rule of Law definitive?”
Get the following sort of indeterminate answer:-
“No, the Rule of Law isn’t definitively fixed; it’s a foundational principle with core concepts (equality, transparency, rights protection, judicial independence) but lacks a single, universal definition, evolving with political and legal cultures, leading to debates between formal (process-focused) and substantive (rights-focused) interpretations, and requiring continuous effort to uphold against threats like autocracy or ineffective justice systems.”
“The world has changed, and not for the better, ”
It certainly feels like it, but the kidnap maybe the high point – the easy bit – of Trump’s Venezuela adventure – it could all result in chaos – as he tries to control the regime without US boots on the ground – . But the US has instigated many regime -changes in South America – so in that sense its business as usual.
The experts suggest it will take several years – and $billions before the promised oil extraction boost can be achieved, and oil giants may be reluctant to operate in such an unstable environment .
As Richard and commentators here suggest – our ‘small boat UK’ politicians only response is more £bns on useless armoured vehicles, unusable aircraft carriers, nuclear subs and nuclear weapons on airstrip one. Rolls Royce, BAE, Babcock loving it.
Trumps Gaza peace is turning into the ethnically – cleansed Greater Israel, his Ukraine peace is not happening, and his Caribbean/ South America ‘peace’ is becoming US hegemony.
Indeed Richard – it must be challenged and changed, but ………
I thought there are five permanent members of the security council: UK, France, USA, Russia, China.
Old habits die hard. You are right.
It appears that it is time to consider the need to move the UN to London or Paris or some rural location and leave the US behind. It seems that it is time for Europe and the rest of the world to begin to work together, including China and Russia, to build an integrated global society of independent nations that are motivated by the need to be cooperative rather than criminal. A global society of this nature will not evolve organically. It must be created by people. It cannot be done while the world is dominated by a criminal gang in the US. It will be up to we Americans to free ourselves from the criminal gang that has taken over our government. We need the rest of the world to continue to build a caring civilization. We need the rest of the world to not aid and abet the criminal gang in the US.
Much to agree with
From DtM; “Kidnap the president and his wife without a struggle”?
Maduro’s personal security, all Cuban, numbering 32, all killed in the operation.
Richard, what your post captures so clearly is how quickly the international order can unravel when a handful of actors decide that rules are optional. The UK’s position is especially revealing. Starmer must surely understand the “small fish in a very large pond” reality — that a mid‑sized state with limited leverage is trying to navigate a world where the dominant power is acting unpredictably. But instead of acknowledging that constraint honestly, the government seems to be defaulting to deference, even when it runs directly against international law. That doesn’t project strength; it exposes weakness.
The hedge fund angle is equally troubling. When the value of Venezuelan debt jumps by 30% within hours, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that some investors positioned themselves in advance. Public reporting already shows that elements of the US system knew what was coming. In any environment where political decisions can move markets by billions, the question of who knew what, and when, becomes unavoidable. Even the perception of privileged access corrodes trust in democratic institutions.
And then there is the UN — or what remains of it. The Security Council was designed for a world where the major powers accepted at least some shared constraints. That world has gone. When three of the five permanent members disregard international law, the veto becomes a tool for impunity rather than stability. The UN still matters symbolically, but its ability to restrain great‑power adventurism has been hollowed out. The result is a vacuum where might, not law, sets the terms.
Taken together, these dynamics explain why the world feels more dangerous and more unstable. A UK government unsure of its own agency, financial actors profiting from geopolitical shocks, and an international system unable to enforce its own rules — it’s a perfect storm. And as you say, the casualties are not abstract. They are the people of Venezuela, the credibility of international law, and the basic idea that power should be accountable to anything beyond itself.
Thanks, Paul.
Trump’s interest in Greenland is not about shipping, defence, or the wishes of its people. It is about power, resources, and control, treated like property rather than respecting sovereignty.
Greenland is technically part of North America, but Canada’s nearest land is largely unpopulated Arctic territory. In practical terms, the closest population centres are Iceland and Scotland. Greenland has been linked to Scandinavia for over a thousand years and remains part of the Danish realm, with deep Nordic cultural, historical, and political ties. Trade, governance, and diplomacy all run eastwards, not westwards.
The US already has military presence in Greenland, including Thule Space Base for missile warning and Arctic surveillance. Annexation talk changes nothing about defence but undermines alliances, international law, and stability. It also risks escalating tensions with Russia and China.
Greenland is rich in rare earths, uranium, iron ore, and potentially hydrocarbons. Climate change makes extraction easier, and Trump exploits this without regard for responsibility, treating resources and territory as transactional assets.
This mirrors patterns elsewhere. In Venezuela, the rule of law was ignored, hedge funds profited, and European democracies showed deference rather than leadership. The UN has been hollowed out. Might increasingly replaces law.
Europe faces a choice. Unite to defend democracy, law, and sovereignty, or remain fragmented and vulnerable to plutocratic and militarised power. Greenland is a test of whether the rules of international conduct still matter.
Sovereignty, law, and rights cannot be optional. This narrative must be challenged and changed.
One aspect that hasn’t really been discussed yet is the question of legacy. Throughout history, powerful states — and the leaders who direct them — have often sought to secure their place in the record by expanding influence, redrawing spheres of control, or attaching new territories to their orbit. The symbolism of adding a “51st state”, formally or informally, has always carried enormous weight in the politics of power. Trump is absorbed by legacy, to him legacy is of paramount importance.
Seen through that lens, Venezuela becomes more than a geopolitical intervention. It becomes a stage on which a lasting imprint can be made. The pursuit of legacy through territorial reach or strategic dominance is a familiar pattern, and it helps explain why actions that undermine international law can be so tempting for those who see history as the ultimate judge of their success.
This is precisely why the stakes are so high. Once external control becomes a precedent, it invites repetition — not just for material gain, but for the symbolic value of demonstrating that rules can be bent at will. And that reinforces your central point: if this stands, nothing else is off limits. Sovereignty becomes conditional, and the global order becomes a canvas for those seeking permanence through power rather than legitimacy.
I get your point – but I am not sure Venezuela is about legacy. Greenland might be. So might Canada be.
The interesting question then is, would Greenland become a US State? If so, it might force reconsideration of the absurd rules about Senate representation.
I stress, I am not wishng for this: I am just asking a hypioethical, as politicians would describe it.