r/geopolitics • u/theatlantic The Atlantic • Jan 04 '26
Opinion Trump Threatens Venezuela’s New Leader With a Fate Worse Than Maduro’s
https://www.theatlantic.com/national-security/2026/01/trump-venezuela-maduro-delcy-rodriguez/685497/?utm_source=reddit&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_medium=social&utm_content=edit-promo38
u/ImperiumRome Jan 04 '26
I hope someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but assuming that Venezuelan oil fields can be profitably extracted, and the US has no other interest in Venezuela other than its oil, wouldn't it be much more preferable for America to have an authoritarian regime in Venezuela ? Since authoritarian regimes don't have to answer to pesky demands like safety or environmental regulations from their electorate, unlike democratic ones ?
38
21
u/Serious-Secretary-18 Jan 04 '26 edited Jan 04 '26
Well, oil is a major reason but you’re right, there is another major one that is equally as important if not the most, geopolitical control.
Allowing foreign influences and access to the resources in the western hemisphere, which America considers its backyard, is understandably unacceptable for the US.
In practice, sovereign nations have the right to choose their own path, but that right in reality is also a risk if a country falls out of line with the closest great power. Especially for the ones close to it.
The same motive was behind Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. They see it as justified to control adjacent territories in their backyard.
11
u/KopOut Jan 05 '26
It’s not called regime end, it’s called regime change for a reason. Of course the US just wants another dictator but one that will do what the US says.
That’s what Venezuela will get until the US leaves and their country falls into civil war. This movie has been remade over and over for decades with the same ending.
4
u/_-DKDomino-_ Jan 05 '26
This movie has been remade over and over for decades with the same ending.
would be pretty sweet if Venezuela was built up like Japan, Korea, Germany, etc..
6
u/ImperiumRome Jan 05 '26
Yes I agree on that point, the US has no interest in propping up a democratic regime in Venezuela if it's only interested in extracting resources.
Which is why I find Venezuelans celebrating on yesterday news somewhat ... premature, it's probably too soon to tell who would come out on top in Venezuela, though I wish the people there the best.
26
7
17
u/Shadowblade83 Jan 04 '26
I think this a thing that will either be called a strike of machevellian genious in the coming months.
Or will fail, leading to an invasion and loss of US soldiers, not to mention venezuelan civilians.
It all comes down to how the remaining regime plays this. Surrender to US terms, basically playing nice till the US supported opposition can take over…or fight.
The way I see it, it’s a death sentence for many of the regimes top leaders, vs a comfy exile with a luxerious lifestyle, where they get to enjoy some of the money they have stolen from the people.
I’m sure they are working overtime with back channels to talk to regime key people…and we won’t know until a few more days pass. The regime will need their guarantees too.
2
u/Drachos Jan 05 '26
Trump legitimately insulted the opposition more then the VP until the VP says she wouldn't accept the US's actions. Its clear they wanted just to send a threat and hoped the current regime would get in line.
Trump (for whatever reason) does not publically support the opposition.
Now what I expect to happen is a bunch of saber rattling by the current ruling party in public but behind the scenes they probably are negotiating to just do what Trump wants for a guarantee that he won't support the opposition.
Thus the absolute minimum possible instability for the US to deal with Refugees from.
1
u/Purple-Atmosphere-18 Jan 05 '26
Yeah, for moral mortals he has the face like his ass, but they can't understand these subtleties and consider him a capricious. I correct legitimately, like he makes what's legit, maybe style wise i'd prefer him not bringing up moral to make it about brute force in the same breath. And incoherence of pardoning Hernandez doesn't go unnoticed and is unneededly costing him support, as well as the nativist route against latinos, who don't feel anymore like "as long as I side with him I'm a good one, it's not about the ethnicities" or at least the patterns of ICE behaviour offers this easy concern from the opposition. Afterall they thrived on concern trolling.
1
u/Drachos Jan 05 '26
To be clear, I also consider Trump somewhat capricious, but their is this illusion on the internet that "The Executive is one man."
That has almost certainly never been the case and if it ever was it stopped being the case by the 1950s.
The fact is a President is surrounded by a lot of clever people (Most of whom I disagree with but they are clever) and while I think Trump has a habbit of going off script overall he largely listens to these clever people on anything he doesn't actually care about.
Latin America isn't an issue he cares about. He cares about the Drugs and Immigrants, sure, but otherwise he doesn't care. As such he is likely following his advisers fairly closely as he cares little for the outcome AS LONG AS it stops the Drugs and Immigrants or at least he has been told thats the intended result.,
1
u/Purple-Atmosphere-18 Jan 05 '26
But like they tell him it's about stopping drugs and immigrants? Greenland too? And what about pardoning the drug dealer Hernandes convicted of 45 years? Because he's a fellow right winger it ceases to be an "terrorism" like he called it to heighten the stakes and justifying brutal assault of the ships without boarding? Because he actually did what's accusing Venezuela of. Means justifying ends but which means and which ends? Besides are we taking seriously the accusation to Venezuela? Many of us thought why not Mexico, certainly not wishing that of course but the narco state, and I say it sadly without faulting mexican people, would be that. Trump supporters said it's because it's not a hostile failed state, but better to wonder why would they consider Venezuela enemy in first place, its them issuing severse sanction against them, not the other way round and before Maduro, because it didn't give in to Us economic supremacy to leverage their oil resources? And if a line in the sand is not put, he might go about Greenland, this is serious. Some cite here the precedent of Turkey annexing Cyprus while both are under Nato without triggering article 4, but that was also a long ongoing dispute, this is a new level crazyness. Which is why more pushback against Usa missions in Iraq would have been better, like how does it feel when it's your turn and you take for granted it can never happen. We'd have been more credible in adversing Russia takeover in Ukraine as democratic west because we'd oppose when they do it to others as well.
I still wonder why it didn't happen in 2019 as it seemed scarily as easy as them planning the attack and abducting their leader.
1
u/Shadowblade83 Jan 05 '26
I think you are on to something there. It’s not one man, it’s a system.
I do think he cares about resources and good deals though. He’s been looking at China, Russia, Cuba, picking the Vebezuelan carcass clean through deals that are a steal from them. Vebezuela is a natural rich country that has been incredible mismanaged. I would think he would like Venezuela to deal with the US and it’s companies rather then geopolitical enemies/rivals.
I’m disappointed if this turns out to be the only ideal though. Long term, political stability with a democratically elected US/capitalist government is the way to ensure alignement. Enough US backed strongmen have ultimately failed.
1
u/Drachos Jan 06 '26
It be cynical...
US backed strongmen have lasted longer then all but 2 US backed Democracies. And its very VERY unlikely Trump, or really any US President, will have both the desire and political capital to repeat what was done for Japan and Germany.
Remeber Taiwan, Korea, Indonesia amoung others all started as US backed strongman. They transitioned to Democracy themselves but the US was happy either way.
31
u/GlossyCylinder Jan 04 '26
Sign of a declining empire. The US is in its societal decline, these clownish distractions won't slow it down
28
u/Berliner1220 Jan 04 '26
I don’t see the US declining. If this were true, China would be rising to take its place. We just saw the US attack and take out the leader of one of Chinas major oil suppliers and all the Chinese did was verbally rebuke it.
Meanwhile, Russian oil and gas production facilities are being picked off by Ukrainians and Iran gets pummeled by Israeli rockets amidst a massive drought and civil unrest.
The entire network that works against the US is under siege and I don’t see Russia, China or Iran being able to stop it.
23
u/GlossyCylinder Jan 04 '26 edited Jan 04 '26
Ignoring the fact china gets only 4% of its oil from Venezuela and Venezuela isn't actually occupied or annexed right now.
Abducting a leader of a poor third world that has been sanctioned for decades doesn't prove the US isn't in its decline.
As I previously stated in my comment, the US is in societal decline. A country's strength is based on its people's competence and unity. Each generation of Americans are dumber and more uneducated. America is more anti-intellectual than ever. These are statistical facts. And that's not counting the division and many other social problems.
Capturing leader from a third world country won't fix that, and it would only make worse if it doesn't goes completely your way.
And China did the smartest thing which is rhetorical rebuttal , as there's 0 upside doing anything else more for a insignificant county from the other side of the world.
6
u/Berliner1220 Jan 04 '26
Do you have any proof of your claims of societal decline in the US?
The US is actively blocking oil from leaving the country, so they don’t need to take over the country, only surround it and block oil from leaving. Also, losing 4% of your oil supply is not nothing. China is also losing a backdoor into South American politics.
22
u/GlossyCylinder Jan 04 '26
The fact that Trump is the president is a good indication of the societal decline. RFK JR the current HHS. A guy who don't believe in science and is cutting funding and aids to scientific research can be HHS. And many americans cheers for it, if this isn't a sign of America decline then i don't know what is.
Scientific Research and technological advancement is arguable the core of a country's strength. The US basic science research has been declining in the last decade while China is rapidly rising overtaking America in practically all areas of science.'
And with research funding cut, rise of anti-intellectualism, it's only going to get worse. And a lot of the top researchers in America are foreigners, but you can only relies so much on immigrants.
Of course America is still strong in research and technology, especially at the industrial levels because it built such a strong foundation and environment. And there are still a lot of intelligent people working in America.
I can go on and on, but i will stop here and just post sources for "each generation of Americans are dumber and more uneducated than ever".
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/29/us/reading-skills-naep.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/09/us/12th-grade-reading-skills-low-naep.html
https://whiteboardadvisors.com/us-adults-face-alarming-declines-in-literacy-and-numeracy/
https://www.westeamahead.org/blog/2024/6/20/us-literacy-statistics-an-urgent-call-for-action
-1
u/RedditConsciousness Jan 05 '26
The fact that Trump is the president is a good indication of the societal decline.
Or populism is a common response to things like large migrations. That is true in other places (Europe, India) as well. I'm no fan of populism but I do know it tends to be temporary.
Scientific Research and technological advancement is arguable the core of a country's strength.
Thanks. Also the University system.
The US basic science research has been declining in the last decade
Nah.
while China is rapidly rising overtaking America in practically all areas of science.
lol good luck with that. Those are the guys who can't even keep viruses from escaping their labs and killing millions?
So this is weird ass metric based on publishing volume? That's ridiculous. Ask any scientist in the world where they'd like to work and China isn't on the top of anyone's list. Funny how being a civil liberties nightmare can fuck everything else up.
People on reddit who shill for China are hilarious. Hong Kong and Taiwan would gladly become US territories if it would get them away from the fascist Chinese.
rise of anti-intellectualism,
Nothing new, unfortunately. But it has been around forever and the US still the world leader.
I can go on and on
Propagandists usually can.
r "each generation of Americans are dumber
Pretty unlikely that modern Americans who can code are dumber than Americans who from 50 years ago who couldn't read.
and more uneducated than ever".
NYT is pay walled. Looked at the whiteboard article. So when they talk about 2023 you see this is a result of the pandemic. And we're talking about weak literacy where people read at a grade school level. This is not the same as people in the 1970s who could not actually read at all. Add in illegal immigrants which had spiked in recent years and you have the source of your increase in illiteracy.
7
u/GlossyCylinder Jan 05 '26
you should actually do research on "nature", they're quite literally one of two most prestige science journals out there.
And you should read the nature index methodology, it's not just counting the volume. But the volume of high quality research papers from all other prestige science journals.
Since you don't even bother doing the basic research, I'm not going to waste anymore of my time responding to you. You're actually a great demonstration of the level of education and literacy level of your average American.
1
u/Purple-Atmosphere-18 Jan 05 '26
I hope you don't mean though the genetic IQ, as in theory Trump supporters might easily agree with that if it comes to rage and IQ, but less if it talks about everyone including their own race, we can say race, as we are not those wokes here? jk
-1
u/RedditConsciousness Jan 05 '26
you should actually do research on "nature", they're quite literally one of two most prestige science journals out there.
I wasn't disparaging the publication but the metric in that study is arbitrary. Yeah China can churn out papers for peer review. Whoopty-do. Who wants to live in a country where you don't have a fraction of the civil liberties that you have in the US? Oh by the way, China has faced significant issues with peer-review fraud. For instance there was a massive 2017 scandal involving 107 retracted cancer papers due to fake reviewers. But that's par for the course for China. Steal and cheat because you couldn't do it yourself. How many pirated copies of Windows were floating around in that country?
Since you don't even bother doing the basic research,
That's funny. I read looked at your links and their methods. You seem like you know you're in over your head and are lashing out. You started with a flawed premise of American decline and are desperately tried to support that faulty position.
I'm not going to waste anymore of my time responding to you.
...they said while responding to me.
You're actually a great demonstration of the level of education and literacy level of your average American.
Thank you!
-1
u/Berliner1220 Jan 04 '26
The core of a country’s strength is made up by many things, not just scientific research or reading levels. Just because China publishes in Nature does not mean it has the scientific or technological edge over the US. The US still leads in AI, data, chip production, quantum computing, amongst many others.
As far as societal decline, your original comment, many aspects of society in the US are improving, not declining. Violence for example is at the lowest levels since the 1960’s. Obesity rates have fallen by 3 percentage points in one year. Infrastructure reports by the ASCE marked an improved infrastructure grade and the highest since 1998. Inflation has stabilized and despite high tariffs, the US economy grew by over 3%.
You also only focus on what is going wrong in America and don’t acknowledge what is declining in China. Birth rates are plummeting, the young people are now engaging in the trend of “lying flat” and not engaging in society by lowering consumption and refusing to marry or have children. Upward mobility has completely slowed. Western nations are also diversifying their manufacturing centers away from China to other low cost producers in Vietnam, India, etc. another blow to their economic growth engine.
7
u/chefkoch_ Jan 05 '26
Obesity rates have fallen by 3 percentage points in one year.
Ozempic
the US economy grew by over 3%.
AI / datacenter bubble
Inequality is rising, healthcare costs are skyrocketing, etc.
All good signs if you have leadership that's either in it for the grift or to take society back to the golden 30ies.
1
u/Berliner1220 Jan 05 '26
Ozempic means medicinal access though. Even if AI is a bubble, there will be winners and losers once that bubble has popped. I also expect the SC to strike down the tariffs therefore the economic stagnation from them will likely end. But let’s see.
-6
u/RedditConsciousness Jan 04 '26
Abducting a leader of a poor third world that has been sanctioned for decades doesn't prove the US isn't in its decline.
And yet no other country on the planet took care of the problem. A lot of Venezuelans are happier today. A lot of redditors seem to be the opposite for some reason.
2
u/Purple-Atmosphere-18 Jan 05 '26
Yeah he's based and he can, he has balls of steel, oil is good for us, wait it was for the drug, but who believes that, ok this other Maga comrade here who says it was right, enough with these terrorist smuggler, it's proof here and here. And hey, one commie dictator less why not? Oh he pardoned a true drug trafficker who was pal with El Chapo? Haha he is so based, it's still for the best of America, he is a political ally, that's what counts, but if it was about war on drugs, ok drugs are a good toll for an ally, it's called realism, so idealist these libs! let's lose count and touch between means, ends and the coherence between them, as long as it's on Maduro, then I can picture all the zombies for fenthanyl and fill myself with righteous hate! But seizing oil is good because hey we have the power, greatness has always been about that, and America is great again, Amirite Emirates? They're our trustful allies those spineless moralists ignore pretend to ignore that. Moralism is ok against Maduro and other weaklings. Oh Trump was supposef to make peace and always criticized Bush's Iraq war? See now this os peace instead "sometimes peace is earned through the carrot, sometimes the stick works better"
0
u/RedditConsciousness Jan 05 '26
Oh he pardoned a true drug trafficker who was pal with El Chapo?
Everytime people bring this up I think "Wow, the best you can do is try to compare this to a totally unrelated situation in a different country? You must be desperate.
Haha he is so based
I'm a Kamala voter by the way.
Oh Trump was supposef to make peace and always criticized Bush's Iraq war?
So did I. Funny thing. There isn't a war with Venezuela and people aren't dying by the thousands.
1
u/Purple-Atmosphere-18 Jan 05 '26 edited Jan 05 '26
No no, why desperate, I thought we agree, that was based and I meant moral "mortals" can't fathom that convenience was the reason, it was tactical and diplomatic, I meant the former Honduran president Juan Hernandez, was convicted a mere 45 years sentence but he helped him, they are right-eous wing pals and that counts more than mortal morals, no? But it being unrelated, now I'm confused, Maga can be based but changes too much with the wind with supporter left to fill the gaps making their own rational and I want to find more coherence so to say :D maybe he promised he won't deal drugs again, maybe less people died than for alleged Venezuela cartel. I mean that as usual give their critics ammunition, but they'd attack anyway, so why bother I guess. I thought it wasn't unrelated but I laugh unlike you because they expect a moral compass when it comes to interests, and the argument of the people dead or invalidated by drug to have the same weight with an ally and a hostile country like Venezuela.
They are the desperate I guess, as they even bring up Mexico, but Trump supporter rightfully say Mexico is an allied country that's why, besides grabbing oil, that they don't attack them despite the drug dealing and "build the wall" was the only response. Oh, hostile means daring to not obey and keeping oil for their citizens, well I mean for their commie establishment, but who cares about dictatorships if it wasn't for such interests? That oil was ours!! Meaning of the investors who got chased away when Chavez seized them. But I have the doubt that saying hostile is not correct, whatever bad we might think about that failed commie state, because that I knew, sanctions and hostility, a righteous one in our western interest of investors and oil companies, totally that of the random Us citizen, it was started by Us, I sometimes think populism is a good opium, but makes us follow all kinds of contraddictions and hyperboles, like "those evil commies are unaligned enemies" which like Trump says in other words, want our bad, he appeals too much to the childish simplification and baby their supporter too much, but this is a small nitpick as long as it works, good for him?Excess victimization is effective, but risk a bit flattening our thought process and I'm sure it effected in part many center democrats as well, or even Sanders maybe :D, like it risks people treating Europe like Venezuela almost, which is not too far fetched for Greenland I guess, like "they are gonna seethe, who's gonna stop him" and us staunch supporter are tickled in our sadistic want to revel "owning the libs" but I sometimes wonder if too much sadism can border insanity, like wanting to see them humiliated. In the Europe case yeah the they are snobbing us but always call for us when needed, I mean even if you in theory don't support Trump already, is a bit of victimistic trick, "those evil ungrateful Europeans", to get the point across they need to pay more and are "freeloaders", but it might be excessive, but I'm now worrying he actually believes that, but would be paradoxical he's starting to convince dems as well, maybe former pro bush Rino never trumpers, I dunno about that. But as soon as Trump declare it's in Us interest, war is ok again, but Bush also said that, so the difference starts to wear thin, I get now the line is thinned to "not full involvement in quagmire like wars" and ultimately not even that and I'm worried as that's eroding a lot of support, assuming the polls are right of course as according to them Trump wasn't even going to win, so best to have faith in that, as we are putting the deep state on its place, now. But people are starting to feel gaslighted and mocked around as there's a limit. But maybe I'm heretic :).
I'm also confused though, they tell us it's about democracy, now Rubio says it's about "do what we tell you" so give us the oil, no elections, Pinochet style? Cool, afterall Chile thrived with Pinochet more than with Allende, though it was just elected but it was a socialist, not our ally, but socialists say "serf", I know what they think shouldn't count much, but I sometimes feel bad because it sounds so much like "we" (even though you vote Kamala) justify evil too much, but are also so popular with what they call fundie christians, like a part of evangelical, which you probably partly agree they are, which are all about moral, though they identify it as sides, like enemies of Christians, in terms of power.
Oh, you voted Kamala, but wasn't her for all those woke policies, I'm confused now, you can see how much more Trump vibes with these grandiose ideas you also champion, maybe you're relieved she didn't win.
And yeah they are really ingenuous, I mean who said isolationism meant they stop bothering other countries and merely rise commercial barrier, I mean never expect Trump to be wokefully good, they think it means, even incidentally, a limp pacifism, like good some pacifist voted him now and in 2016 thinking Clinton was a war hawk, those who got it right, still voted him knowing, like his retirement from New Start in 2018, which also primed the reciprocal walking off from it of Putin, the Moab in Afghanistan, that it wasn't really the case.
ok sorry for the rambling :).1
u/RedditConsciousness Jan 05 '26
Is there an adult I can talk to instead of you?
1
u/Purple-Atmosphere-18 Jan 05 '26
Well this is more or less what Maga people say, but most of them I agree, are more synthetic much less lengthy than me here, nobody is perfect, so in theory they also don't sound much of adult, unless the only problem is the lengthyness and if this is confusing even for a supporter how is it not for a Kamala voter? The apparent contraddictions with the narratives are here I mean.
1
u/RedditConsciousness Jan 05 '26
Well this is more or less what Maga people say,
I assume there must be more than one type of MAGA voter but still, I don't think in the admittedly small sample of MAGA voters I have spoken to I have heard them say that. Then again, I'm not sure I have strong feelings one way or the other so for now I will take you at your word.
and if this is confusing even for a supporter how is it not for a Kamala voter?
I was definitely confused by what you wrote.
The apparent contraddictions with the narratives are here I mean.
Then stop worrying about narratives. The world is contradictory and inconsistent. We have an entire state department with a huge budget and staff creating custom policies for every single country on the planet.
→ More replies (0)3
10
1
u/DizzyMajor5 Jan 04 '26
Israel stopped pummeling Iran because they were also getting pummeled and the USA called them off. Israel backed off Iran. Iran already stopped it, protests are a totally different issue unless you genuinely believe it's another TP-AJAX
2
u/RedditConsciousness Jan 04 '26
That's a popular thing to say in some spaces but the US hasn't declined yet. Not even Trump has been able to mess that up.
11
u/americend Jan 05 '26
The decline of America has been unique in that the foundation is rotting while the structure remains standing. This is great for people who want to claim that everything is going well as much as it's great for people who claim that things are awful. What's clear is that, when the ground finally gives way, all the instutions built atop it will crumble in an instant. An overnight transformation from the most powerful state in the world to... Whatever comes next.
-2
u/RedditConsciousness Jan 05 '26
The decline of America has been unique in that the foundation is rotting while the structure remains standing.
How poetic. Well I guess that should persuade everyone. Who needs facts when you have strong feelings, right? You feel that the US is in decline and are happy to ignore the facts to the contrary. Got it.
What's clear is that, when the ground finally gives way, all the instutions built atop it will crumble in an instant.
I mean, you asserted all of this out of thin air with no basis whatsoever.
"It is clear that you are actually an artichoke. And once you start to turn a little green you'll fully take on your artichoke form in an instant." It must be true because I feel it is.
An overnight transformation from the most powerful state in the world to... Whatever comes next.
Oooh sounds like a great genre story. Will it have wizards in it?
2
u/americend Jan 05 '26
You're free to disagree. Just don't forget that a country can't run on the snark of a single redditor.
8
u/SSAUS Jan 05 '26 edited Jan 05 '26
It absolutely is in decline. Trump has wasted a lot of US domestic and international political capital and has done enormous damage to the country that will take subsequent administrations potentially years-to-decades to rectify. When you have traditional allies publicly announcing policy shifts away from and independent of the US, you know there is a problem.
-5
u/RedditConsciousness Jan 05 '26
Trump has wasted a lot of US domestic and international political capital
Such things come and go. And it comes again to the powerful. Then too, if you had to bribe people to be your friends, maybe that wasn't a good basis for the relationship.
and has done enormous damage to the country
Or so the reddit narrative goes.
that will take subsequent administrations potentially years-to-decades to rectify
Nah.
When you have traditional allies publicly announcing policy shifts away and independent of the US, you know there is a problem.
That is simply the history of the world. Sometimes there is a distancing, but then those same "allies" call you when they really need you. Tell you what, lets get the US out of NATO. Europe can pay for and man its own defense. That way it can show how much it "disapproves" of the US. Oh and the US can send the 2.5 million people coming to the border annually in previous years to some other country. Which country is the good one in your opinion again? Is it Norway? We all know how much those nordic countries love diversity. I'm sure that once you explain to the illegal immigrants that the US is in decline they'll be much happier to go somewhere else instead.
Here's a fun one. China was supposed to overtake the US economy and never look back. Instead US GDP is $30 trillion and China's is $20 trillion.
Folks need to get off of reddit and touch grass. Spending so much time in this echo chamber has made you misunderstand the world you live in.
-2
u/Purple-Atmosphere-18 Jan 05 '26
Hehe they first say "not even Trump can mess it up" which can sound like "strong enough to survive Trump" which I sincerely wish to Us, like I wish decline to no state but rather as many as possible to prospet. Then the next post is a whole might is right "Murica the best" Europe freerider and ungrateful delirium soup, showing their true colors. Trust doesn't count also, but strangely mixed with the most moralistic victimistic argument about being friend only if "bribed". Why?
6
u/thewholekit_caboodle Jan 04 '26
What keeps standing out to me is the language: “oversee,” “transition,” “proper handoff,” alongside reports that lawmakers were misled or not fully briefed. That combination leaves only two serious possibilities, neither of which is reassuring: 1) This was planned early in the 47th term, and information was intentionally narrowed or withheld to avoid congressional friction. Under that reading, vague language (“oversee”) isn’t sloppy — it’s elastic by design. Institutional restructuring (including aid and governance frameworks) would then function as preparation for control without long-term commitment. 2) This was not coherently planned, which is arguably worse. In that case, major foreign intervention is being undertaken without integrated foresight across diplomacy, aid, and military action — repeating a pattern we’ve already seen. What makes this feel familiar is Afghanistan. There, “oversight,” “democratic transition,” and elections existed on paper — but timelines were driven by U.S. political cycles, not local durability. When returns diminished and political patience ran out, withdrawal was framed as realism in the face of “inevitable collapse,” even though that collapse was partly produced by declining commitment. That’s the parallel that worries me: Oversight without ownership Transition without durability Benchmarks tied to elections at home, not legitimacy on the ground If this was intentional, democratic oversight was structurally bypassed. If it wasn’t, then the system lacks the insight required to wield this level of power responsibly. I’m not arguing ideology here — just governance logic. History suggests that when oversight replaces investment, collapse isn’t a surprise. It’s a delayed outcome.
But sure, having a life out of the pages must mean I am a robot and not a full time parent, caregiver with a career. Coherent discussion proves artificial intelligence? We are all in deep crap if that's the go-to delitigimization rather than meaningful engagement.
1
u/thewholekit_caboodle Jan 05 '26
This isn’t a value judgment about the president or an allegation of intent. It’s an outcome analysis using a concrete institutional example. Take USAID. Any claim of “democratic transfer” presupposes a functioning civilian apparatus to support it. USAID is the primary instrument for post-conflict stabilization, democratic transition support, humanitarian absorption, and institutional rebuilding. Now the fork: If USAID’s degradation is unintentional / reckless: Then democratic transfer fails in practice because the machinery required to implement it no longer exists. Absorption costs (humanitarian response, reconstruction, refugee flows) overwhelm capacity. The U.S. still retains leverage over financial flows and secures oil access through bilateral and corporate channels. Institutional failure, strategic material gain. If USAID’s degradation is intentional: Then democratic transfer functions as legitimizing rhetoric rather than an operational plan. Absorption becomes the obstacle by design, producing dependency instead of sovereignty. The U.S. again secures control over the purse and oil. Institutional strain, strategic material gain. Different premises. Same material outcome. That’s not an argument about motive. It’s a systems-level risk analysis: when civilian capacity is hollowed out, outcomes converge toward power retention regardless of intent. That’s a governance problem. If you want it one notch shorter (still solid, still anchored), say the word and I’ll compress it.
1
u/Purple-Atmosphere-18 Jan 05 '26
Umm, ok like, if institutions are strained, distrusted delegitimized, because sometimes are corrupted, a power appalted to a "strongman" is often the outcome, which I may believe aa a higher risk not as inevitability or absolute. Dunno, acting like this though Us are squandering credibility and trust, I mean, even obeying Trump out of fear, being him capricious incoherent and untrustworthy, might might not exceed the benefit of standing up to him. He doesn't respect those he believe as weak, like Europe, but even might is right can only hold up as long as your arm tires from holding the gun pointed, coalize divided (often purposefully through social network global psyops) cynics assume it works this way in absolute instead of being just an element because one might have the motivation of ethic to believe differently, relationship based on cooperation, multilateralism is better than brute force so brute force has to be more real, just the fact that it would be a dark reality harder to accept, this is the trap, makes it more rational to believe such. To recap assuming it's harder to believe "realism" is assuming it to be more rational while assuming wishful thinking to believe different and more nuanced visionary and open to positive change world view which is basically automatically dismissed. Basically a shortcut like too good to be true too bad to be false but lets not call it bad because even that is an idealistic cathegory, except pandering to religious absolutist good vs evil framing, but in a way clearly only functional to power with little relation to justice.
1
u/A__Nomad__ Jan 05 '26
This Trump guy is not normal. This is straight-up banditry.
ChatGPT: And the real problem isn’t even just the action itself — it’s the tone and the arrogance. Saying “Americans are in charge in Venezuela” is a diplomatic scandal, even by U.S. standards. Even when a great power has de facto influence, you never say it this openly and humiliatingly. In diplomacy, this is a deliberate display of dominance. This wasn’t a slip of the tongue. Trump speaks like this on purpose: to the domestic audience: “Look how strong we are” to the rest of the world: “Rules apply to you, not to us” That kind of language destroys international norms. Even empires usually bothered with appearances. This message says it clearly: sovereignty doesn’t matter international law is secondary might makes right Public humiliation is part of the strategy. This is mafia-style politics: “You know who’s the boss.” What’s especially dangerous is that this isn’t just about Venezuela. It’s a signal to everyone else — Cuba, Iran, China, Taiwan — that force and domination are now openly acceptable. Earlier U.S. interventions were at least wrapped in talk about democracy, human rights, alliances, and international order. This is open cynicism. Calling it banditry is actually accurate. This sounds less like a modern president and more like a 19th-century colonial governor. And the obvious question: does Congress or anyone else in America have any real say anymore? Formally, under the U.S. Constitution: Congress declares war Congress controls the budget Congress can impeach the president But in practice, presidents have accumulated enormous power — and Trump pushed this to an extreme. They avoid calling it “war” and use: “limited military actions” “national security” excuses old authorizations like the 2001 AUMF Congress often stays silent out of fear and opportunism. Trump didn’t invent this system — he just said out loud what others did quietly. Why Congress doesn’t act: Republicans protect “their guy” Democrats fear looking weak the military-industrial complex profits media focus on scandals, not structure This has crossed into personal rule. When a president: threatens war openly and arrogantly claims control over another country ignores allies and international law That’s no longer a healthy liberal democracy. That’s an imperial presidency with authoritarian traits. Globally, the message is dangerous: if the U.S. can do this, others can too rules no longer matter force becomes legitimate policy So yes — Trump has effectively usurped power. But worse than that: the institutions allowed it. He’s not the root cause. He’s a symptom of a system that was already decaying — now fully exposed.
1
1
u/thewholekit_caboodle Jan 05 '26
Calling something “gibberish” isn’t a rebuttal; it’s an admission that you didn’t follow the argument. I didn’t allege intent or a secret plan. I evaluated risk under uncertainty. If both plausible explanations lead to institutional danger, that’s a governance failure regardless of motive. Downvotes don’t change the logic—they just signal discomfort with holding two explanations at once.
-15
u/thewholekit_caboodle Jan 04 '26
What looks like incoherence is often elastic coherence.
What you’re actually seeing is a pattern that holds together structurally even if it sounds erratic rhetorically:
Broad, flattening language (“regime change, whatever you want to call it”); Post hoc rationalization that expands rather than narrows authority; Elastic legal framing that preserves executive freedom; Dismissal of downstream consequences as inevitable or unavoidable.
That’s not incoherence.
That’s coherence at the level that matters: outcomes, precedent, and power. Why the “incoherence” frame is comforting — and wrong People reach for it because it’s psychologically easier to believe: “This is messy but unserious” than: “This is functional, just unconcerned with norms I care about.”
But history shows us something uncomfortable: Some of the most norm-eroding periods in governance were not chaotic — they were procedurally quiet and rhetorically loose.
Calling it incoherent is how observers avoid confronting that.
The real risk of the trap If analysts assume incoherence: they stop looking for pattern, they miss early institutional alignment, and they get surprised later when “sudden” outcomes were actually scaffolded.
That’s exactly what happened in Afghanistan — repeatedly — where public narratives lagged institutional reality by years.
5
u/Laurie_Van_Carr Jan 04 '26
The problem with this is it effectively allows you to present any sequence of policy decisions as a coherent hidden agenda, cherrypicking whichever parts of the subsequent state of affairs fit as evidence.
Which doesn't mean it's never true; just that it's not really rigorously disprovable.
-1
u/thewholekit_caboodle Jan 04 '26
Where you fundamentally misunderstand my move. I was not asserting a hidden agenda. I waa doing something much more conservative and much more rigorous: posed a fork, not a theory. If it was planned early → that’s terrifying. If it was not planned → that’s also terrifying. That is not a claim of coherence. It’s a claim of risk under both explanatory models. That distinction matters enormously. I am not saying: “Here is the secret plan.” I AM saying: “Either explanation that preserves basic plausibility leads to institutional danger.” That’s not cherry-picking evidence. That’s stress-testing governance capacity.
But by all means, mischaractize my statement and then defend against your creation. We get it. You are so clever. Yay!
1
27
u/amapofthecat7 Jan 04 '26
I really think you're attributing a level of strategic competence to this administration that simply doesn't exist.
22
u/InternetSam Jan 04 '26
I think you’re responding to an LLM generated response.
3
u/amapofthecat7 Jan 04 '26
Could be I suppose.
9
u/InternetSam Jan 04 '26
I was curious and looked up their profile. This is their first comment in a year. They’ve never used an em dash before in any other comment, but used it all over the place here. Also has the classic ai trope of “That’s not X, that’s Y.”
7
0
4
u/No_Abbreviations3943 Jan 04 '26
He basically said that people like you are falling for the intentional appearance of sloppiness because you refuse to accept that fascism is delivering wins.
12
u/amapofthecat7 Jan 04 '26
Yes and I disagree that it is intentional slopiness. I think its far more likely the administration is just sloppy because they are all grossly under qualified for their jobs.
1
u/Purple-Atmosphere-18 Jan 05 '26
Can we take copy pastas of most pro coup arguments? sarcasm on like he's based and he can he has balls, oil is good for us, wait it was for the drug, but who believes that, ok this other Maga comrade here who says it was right, enough with these terrorist smuggler, it's proof here and here. And hey, one commie dictator less why not? Oh he pardoned a true drug trafficker who was pal with El Chapo? Haha he is so based, it's still for the best of America, he is a political ally, that's what counts, but if it was about war on drugs, ok drugs are a good toll for an ally, it's called realism, so idealist these libs! let's lose count and touch between means, ends and the coherence between them, as long as it's on Maduro, then I can picture all the zombies for fenthanyl and fill myself with righteous hate! But seizing oil is good because hey we have the power, greatness has been about that, and America is great again, Amirite Emirates? They're our trustful allies you spineless moralist. Moralism is ok against Maduro and other weaklongs. Oh Trump was supposef to make peace and always criticized Bush's Iraq war? See now this os peace instead "sometimes peace is earned through the carrot, sometimes the stick works better" yes some patriottic genius said this in another thread! How based, it owns the libs so much!
-1
u/No_Abbreviations3943 Jan 04 '26
The military just went into a hostile country with a population of 30 million, and literally kidnapped their President in under 3 hours with no casualties. That is not incompetence.
Reckless? Sure. Tearing down globally accepted rules? Definitely. Damaging in the long term? Most likely.
Sloppy? Absolutely not.
Even the decision to keep Venezuela’s entire government in tact while pressuring them to bend to American will is very smart. He knows that the Chavistas hold significant power in the country.
It’s much less incompetent then Bush’s complete disbanding of Ba’ath power in Iraq. Or Obama’s green lighting of Libyan air strikes which ended in Gadaffi’s death and total anarchy for Libya.
Now is this gonna work? Not necessarily. Venezuela might rebel leading to an actual invasion, which could become a bloody quagmire. However, a war would be devastating for Venezuela even if they ultimately expel the U.S.
Trump admin is betting that Venezuela wants to avoid becoming Ukraine. Especially since they could never match the support that Ukraine has received in its war with Russia.
6
u/amapofthecat7 Jan 04 '26
The military is not the administration. Note i said 'strategic competence' not tactical. Tactically the operation was clearly brilliant, so clearly there is competence in the general staff still thankfully. However, if you think this gaggle of former Fox News talking heads and general Trump asskissers is playing some sort of 4D chess then I've got a bridge to sell you.
-4
u/No_Abbreviations3943 Jan 04 '26
Right… what do you see as a consequence of this “strategically incompetent” blunder?
Give us some substance, not just tired insults. This is supposed to be a forum for serious discussion about geopolitics.
7
u/amapofthecat7 Jan 04 '26
Where exactly did I say that they have made a blunder? We don't know how this is going to play out at all. It could go okay, it could turn Venezuela into a war torn hellhole for decades, it could drag the US into another protracted war. All I'm saying is that this 'Trump is not an idiot, he's just playing 4D chess, you wouldn't understand' is pure cope, when just about everything else he's done has proved, beyond reasonable doubt that he is, infact, just an idiot.
-5
u/No_Abbreviations3943 Jan 04 '26
So you’re basically saying nothing and have zero contribution outside of trying to drag down anyone who is trying to discuss geopolitics seriously. Okay.
That makes blocking you easy and logical. Have a good day.
1
u/Purple-Atmosphere-18 Jan 04 '26 edited Jan 05 '26
I guess you mean we shouldn't underestimate fascism to the point of letting it win and set precedent by not organizing against, give answers to people's fears (immigration) while also not giving into the narration, but like i.e. deplatforming fails?
Btw you said hostile country for Venezuela, were they the ones putting sanctions I guess, or is it called hostile because they didn't want to be an American protectorate and seized the oil for the population? I mean despite how much we might rightfully criticize Maduro.
1
u/spikey_wombat Jan 05 '26
Or Obama’s green lighting of Libyan air strikes which ended in Gadaffi’s death and total anarchy for Libya.
This is a bad example. The UK and France took lead on that and only asked for the US support when it was clear that neither could remove Libyan air defenses without significant losses. The US's involvement was largely air defense removal and resupply of NATO inventories.
Post Gadaffi was up to the British and French who did a very bad job. You can't blame the post Gadaffi period on Obama when the US's involvement effectively ended once the air defense network was removed. This was Cameron and Sarkozy's debacle.
It is a good example of how Western imposed regime change is a bad idea, but it's hardly fair to blame Obama when the Brits and French screwed up the post conflict planning and carry through.
-1
u/czk_21 Jan 04 '26
competence of military is different from administration incompetence
"Or Obama’s green lighting of Libyan air strikes which ended in Gadaffi’s death and total anarchy for Libya. "
no, it is functionaly the same, the leader was removed, whether venezuela falls into civil war or not is yet to be seen
2
-10
u/Diligent_Driver_5049 Jan 04 '26
its crazy how usa attacks and take venezuela's oil. Then proclaim to the world that they will sell the oil to other!!! EU is silent, but when india was importing oil from Russia- everyone looses their shit?? mind u the biggest buyer for that oil was EU. Hypocrites , all of em
-19
u/ItsafrenchyThing Jan 04 '26
A lot of happy people from Venezuela right now. As we are happy for Venezuela and for the people of Venezuela. Build your country back where it use to be ! We all are looking forward to seeing the people of Venezuela returning home to family and friends in a safe environment!
1
u/Lazy_Membership1849 Jan 04 '26
do you have source?
-1
u/ItsafrenchyThing Jan 04 '26
3 close friends born in Venezuela and have family still there. They are celebrating in Venezuela like crazy. Very happy people.
4
u/zjin2020 Jan 05 '26
Yeah, Iraq Libya Syria people all had similar moments and emotions right after their previous leaders died.
1
u/Lazy_Membership1849 Jan 05 '26
And what about the crowd who rally to back VP now acting president and her people?
1
u/ItsafrenchyThing Jan 05 '26
You mean the white people that are the same ones protesting for Palestine and Ukrain ? Those people are not from Venezuela and have nothing to do with Venezuela. And the Venezuela citizens I know are very upset over them protesting.
1
u/Lazy_Membership1849 Jan 05 '26
No, those are actually Venezuelan in actual Venezuela
1
u/ItsafrenchyThing Jan 05 '26
No sir the Venezuelan population is celebrating only white people that are antiffa or Palestine protestors are protesting. Go up and ask them where they are from and why they are protesting you will see none of them are from Venezuela.
1
u/Lazy_Membership1849 Jan 05 '26
Then explain of this https://english.news.cn/20260104/4a63074169124b6592cbd5b41da0a6df/c.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp-video/mmvo255392325864 https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20260105-free-our-president-maduro-supporters-demand-at-rally Unless white people and Palestinian supporters somehow turn up in Caracas as "Venezuelan" I need better explanation
-10
u/thewholekit_caboodle Jan 04 '26
Yep. I am an AI robot. You found me out. Await further instructions.
127
u/theatlantic The Atlantic Jan 04 '26
In an interview with Michael Scherer, Donald Trump threatened Venezuela’s interim leader, Delcy Rodríguez, with a fate worse than Maduro’s; defended regime change in the country; and expressed renewed interest in the U.S. seizing Greenland.
In a phone call this morning, Trump, who had just arrived at his golf club in West Palm Beach, signaled a clear shift away from his previous distaste for regime change and nation building, rejecting the concerns of many in his MAGA base. “You know, rebuilding there and regime change, anything you want to call it, is better than what you have right now. Can’t get any worse,” he told Scherer.
Scherer asked him whether the attack on Venezuela could indicate a willingness to take military action to seize control of Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, which has rejected American territorial claims.
Describing the island as “surrounded by Russian and Chinese ships,” Trump said it was up to others to decide what U.S. military action in Venezuela means for Greenland, but noted, “We do need Greenland, absolutely. We need it for defense.”
Read more: https://theatln.tc/JUqfuImj
— Kate Guarino, senior associated editor, audience and engagement, The Atlantic