| Venezuela under attack (n/t) 06:40 - Jan 3 with 15626 views | Perublue |
|  |
| |  |
| Venezuela under attack (n/t) on 23:43 - Jan 4 with 1199 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Venezuela under attack (n/t) on 21:39 - Jan 4 by GlasgowBlue |
He shouldn't be allowed to take Greenland by force but he is spot on when he says that it is surrounded by Russian and Chinese ships, Greenland is strategically very important to the security of the USA so a deal is going to have to be made in one form or another. |
It's interesting to see how as Trump moves the goal posts some become more comfortable to follow his narrative! |  |
| |
| Venezuela under attack (n/t) on 00:14 - Jan 5 with 1154 views | J2BLUE |
| Venezuela under attack (n/t) on 21:39 - Jan 4 by GlasgowBlue |
He shouldn't be allowed to take Greenland by force but he is spot on when he says that it is surrounded by Russian and Chinese ships, Greenland is strategically very important to the security of the USA so a deal is going to have to be made in one form or another. |
Does that mean we have to do a deal with Argentina over the Falklands? |  |
| |
| Venezuela under attack (n/t) on 00:42 - Jan 5 with 1134 views | Xatticus |
| Venezuela under attack (n/t) on 13:11 - Jan 4 by Dubtractor |
The thing that gives me hope, is that regime change has been really successful on all the other occasions it has happened in the last 30 years or so..... |
I appreciate the joke, but those situations weren't managed by the founder of Trump University. |  | | |
| Fair point of pontification and Venezuelan POV…. BUT on 06:41 - Jan 5 with 1056 views | ElderGrizzly |
| Fair point of pontification and Venezuelan POV…. BUT on 17:44 - Jan 4 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
The Economist reaffirms my position that the US leadership’s view of the economics of Venezuela’s oil is dubious. They estimate $110bn investment is needed to return Venezuelan production to to any significant amount (it’s currently just 1pc of global output). That’s twice the amount of capital US E&P firms invest globally in a year. The oil majors will likely shy away from that given current oil prices. It might mean the ironically the US government has to subsidise investment.
“ So far American majors have remained silent on the president’s call to arms. Nor are global commodity traders “in the starting blocks”, says Jean-François Lambert, a consultant. Banks and insurers, which would be needed to finance and secure shipments, would be even slower to return.”
“ Many analysts expect surpluses to lower global oil prices towards $50 a barrel, and possibly below, this year and next—under the breakeven price for most existing Venezuelan fields with decent reserves. New projects are often even less competitive.” |
Trump confirms again, the whole thing was about Oil.
And he informed his oil company donors about it, before Congress. The US armed forces being used for effectively private purposes.
|  | | |
| Venezuela under attack (n/t) on 06:45 - Jan 5 with 1051 views | ElderGrizzly |
| Venezuela under attack (n/t) on 23:43 - Jan 4 by BanksterDebtSlave |
It's interesting to see how as Trump moves the goal posts some become more comfortable to follow his narrative! |
Also confirmed by NATO that this flotilla of ships is simply not there
| | | |
| Venezuela under attack (n/t) on 06:49 - Jan 5 with 1046 views | ElderGrizzly |
| Venezuela under attack (n/t) on 23:03 - Jan 4 by giant_stow |
Maybe Trump will do the same move twice, minus the kidnapping a president bit? Ie, just tell Greenland, the USA runs tings now. |
Cuba might get ‘Trumped’ before Greenland at this rate.
How is any of this normal or legal (narrator: it isn’t)
| | | |
| Venezuela under attack (n/t) on 08:10 - Jan 5 with 962 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Venezuela under attack (n/t) on 22:47 - Jan 4 by StokieBlue |
They already have a base there, he just wants the resources.
There is no threat to the the US from anyone.
I'm very surprised you're going with this line.
SB [Post edited 4 Jan 22:50]
|
Just to reiterate, I’m not supporting Trump in any way with his aggressive rhetoric with regards to Greenland. And I don’t doubt that he would live to rape Greenland of its resources.
But take Trump out of the equation, the US has long seen Greenland as a strategic weak spot in its security. As early as 1867 the U.S. first seriously considered buying Greenland from Denmark because of its strategic importance. And again in 1946 as the Cold War started. And whilst it’s true that the US does have military bases there, if Greenland pushes for full independence, which of course it has every right to do so, then China will aggressively pump billions into having a presence on America’s doorstep.
This is well worth a read. And yes I accept it’s a US state sponsored media outlet. But it sets out Greenland’s strategic importance to the USA, China and Russia.
https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-china-arctic-greenland-trump/33273910.html
Regarding your statement “ There is no threat to the US from anyone”; can we list geopolitics and international defence to your area of expertise? Because if so that is an incredibly naive statement.
And for your last sentence; understanding Greenland’s importance to America’s security does not mean support for Trump’s ambitions or aggressive rhetoric. |  |
| |
| Fair point of pontification and Venezuelan POV…. BUT on 08:12 - Jan 5 with 965 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Fair point of pontification and Venezuelan POV…. BUT on 06:41 - Jan 5 by ElderGrizzly |
Trump confirms again, the whole thing was about Oil.
And he informed his oil company donors about it, before Congress. The US armed forces being used for effectively private purposes.
|
Everything he does seems to be about enriching himself, his faithful inner circle and donors. All he does is take. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Venezuela under attack (n/t) on 08:18 - Jan 5 with 949 views | StokieBlue |
| Venezuela under attack (n/t) on 08:10 - Jan 5 by GlasgowBlue |
Just to reiterate, I’m not supporting Trump in any way with his aggressive rhetoric with regards to Greenland. And I don’t doubt that he would live to rape Greenland of its resources.
But take Trump out of the equation, the US has long seen Greenland as a strategic weak spot in its security. As early as 1867 the U.S. first seriously considered buying Greenland from Denmark because of its strategic importance. And again in 1946 as the Cold War started. And whilst it’s true that the US does have military bases there, if Greenland pushes for full independence, which of course it has every right to do so, then China will aggressively pump billions into having a presence on America’s doorstep.
This is well worth a read. And yes I accept it’s a US state sponsored media outlet. But it sets out Greenland’s strategic importance to the USA, China and Russia.
https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-china-arctic-greenland-trump/33273910.html
Regarding your statement “ There is no threat to the US from anyone”; can we list geopolitics and international defence to your area of expertise? Because if so that is an incredibly naive statement.
And for your last sentence; understanding Greenland’s importance to America’s security does not mean support for Trump’s ambitions or aggressive rhetoric. |
"Regarding your statement “ There is no threat to the US from anyone”; can we list geopolitics and international defence to your area of expertise? Because if so that is an incredibly naive statement."
Not sure there is any need to call people naïve given the evidence available on this subject.
You made the assertion there was a threat, I'm not sure the resource you've provided is a fair and balanced representation of the reality. I can see how certain narratives can be formed though using those resources.
The zero Chinese warships in the area don't seem much of a threat and in reality you know as well as everyone else that no country is going to attack the US. There actually seems to be more Chinese and Russian ships near Alaska but that doesn't seem to be a concern.
Both of the dates you've listed were before NATO existed. There is already an alliance protecting Greenland and the US already has a base which I'm sure they would be allowed to expand. It's seems clear that security isn't the real reason behind this Greenland narrative.
Guess we just disagree on this one.
SB [Post edited 5 Jan 8:40]
|  | | |
| Venezuela under attack (n/t) on 08:25 - Jan 5 with 918 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Venezuela under attack (n/t) on 23:03 - Jan 4 by giant_stow |
Maybe Trump will do the same move twice, minus the kidnapping a president bit? Ie, just tell Greenland, the USA runs tings now. |
I suspect it’s unlikely militarily. I can’t see him sending forces uninvited into NATO territory, but who knows with Trump and his lot. It would be wise to at least entertain the idea he would and have some plans in place.
They’re more likely to try to extort what they want using tariffs I’d have thought. Although I’d be nervous if I was in Cuba! | |
| |
| Fair point of pontification and Venezuelan POV…. BUT on 08:54 - Jan 5 with 873 views | NthQldITFC |
| Fair point of pontification and Venezuelan POV…. BUT on 08:12 - Jan 5 by Swansea_Blue |
Everything he does seems to be about enriching himself, his faithful inner circle and donors. All he does is take. |
It's curious though that there seems to be the angle that Venezuelan oil might not be the big earner we might have assumed it was. Shirley, if that's the case, his minions would have known. And probably told him? Or not?
I don't think it's ideological either, don't think he has any externally relevant ideology.
I can only assume it's woolliness in the head and megalomania and the need for maximum publicity to feed the fattest, softest, most massive, pissy little ego the world has ever seen. Manipulated, of course by the cold circle of hyenas who hang around his bloated, vaguely animated carcass. |  |
| |
| Venezuela under attack (n/t) on 09:05 - Jan 5 with 852 views | NthQldITFC |
| Venezuela under attack (n/t) on 08:10 - Jan 5 by GlasgowBlue |
Just to reiterate, I’m not supporting Trump in any way with his aggressive rhetoric with regards to Greenland. And I don’t doubt that he would live to rape Greenland of its resources.
But take Trump out of the equation, the US has long seen Greenland as a strategic weak spot in its security. As early as 1867 the U.S. first seriously considered buying Greenland from Denmark because of its strategic importance. And again in 1946 as the Cold War started. And whilst it’s true that the US does have military bases there, if Greenland pushes for full independence, which of course it has every right to do so, then China will aggressively pump billions into having a presence on America’s doorstep.
This is well worth a read. And yes I accept it’s a US state sponsored media outlet. But it sets out Greenland’s strategic importance to the USA, China and Russia.
https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-china-arctic-greenland-trump/33273910.html
Regarding your statement “ There is no threat to the US from anyone”; can we list geopolitics and international defence to your area of expertise? Because if so that is an incredibly naive statement.
And for your last sentence; understanding Greenland’s importance to America’s security does not mean support for Trump’s ambitions or aggressive rhetoric. |
Every sovereign state in the world could arguably improve its security or enrich itself by buying or stealing land from its neighbours. The UK could improve its defences against a possible future threat from across the Atlantic by taking the Republic of Ireland.
The US has the strongest defensive capability of any country the world has ever seen.
Why would your chosen angle be to emphasise the reasons for the biggest bully in the playground picking on a weakling, rather than standing up for the idea of a just and stable world? | |
| |
| Fair point of pontification and Venezuelan POV…. BUT on 09:21 - Jan 5 with 818 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Fair point of pontification and Venezuelan POV…. BUT on 08:54 - Jan 5 by NthQldITFC |
It's curious though that there seems to be the angle that Venezuelan oil might not be the big earner we might have assumed it was. Shirley, if that's the case, his minions would have known. And probably told him? Or not?
I don't think it's ideological either, don't think he has any externally relevant ideology.
I can only assume it's woolliness in the head and megalomania and the need for maximum publicity to feed the fattest, softest, most massive, pissy little ego the world has ever seen. Manipulated, of course by the cold circle of hyenas who hang around his bloated, vaguely animated carcass. |
You need to look further. Not sure the US has spare capacity to refine Venezuelan Oil.
Instead it will replace oil currently imported from Canada. It costs oil companies a lot more money to transport oil from Alberta to Texas than it will to ship it from Venezuela.
All part of the grand plans of those hidden behind Trump. |  |
| |
| Fair point of pontification and Venezuelan POV…. BUT on 09:36 - Jan 5 with 780 views | NthQldITFC |
| Fair point of pontification and Venezuelan POV…. BUT on 09:21 - Jan 5 by Pinewoodblue |
You need to look further. Not sure the US has spare capacity to refine Venezuelan Oil.
Instead it will replace oil currently imported from Canada. It costs oil companies a lot more money to transport oil from Alberta to Texas than it will to ship it from Venezuela.
All part of the grand plans of those hidden behind Trump. |
But from some things I read somewhere (weak, I know), it might not be economically viable to extract and refine Venezuelan oil given a predicted lowering of oil prices. US companies were said not to be exactly clamouring for the opportunity. | |
| |
| Fair point of pontification and Venezuelan POV…. BUT on 09:44 - Jan 5 with 755 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Fair point of pontification and Venezuelan POV…. BUT on 08:54 - Jan 5 by NthQldITFC |
It's curious though that there seems to be the angle that Venezuelan oil might not be the big earner we might have assumed it was. Shirley, if that's the case, his minions would have known. And probably told him? Or not?
I don't think it's ideological either, don't think he has any externally relevant ideology.
I can only assume it's woolliness in the head and megalomania and the need for maximum publicity to feed the fattest, softest, most massive, pissy little ego the world has ever seen. Manipulated, of course by the cold circle of hyenas who hang around his bloated, vaguely animated carcass. |
“It's curious though that there seems to be the angle that Venezuelan oil might not be the big earner we might have assumed it was.”
See my previous posts on the shaky economics of it, a view aligned by The Economist and others from the industry, and I questioned from the start whether it’s about oil given the questionable viability of profiting from Venezuela’s oil (to the disagreement of many posters). Now the less emotive journalism is also questioning this.
The problem for authoritarians who have a history of actions against those that disagree with them, is you end up with a load of ‘yes men’ as Putin found out with his miscalculation on invading Ukraine.
That extends to Corporations too, whose Leaders won’t want to risk upsetting said leaders for fear of negative consequences. None have so far been forthcoming because it’s going to be very difficult to not lose money. [Post edited 5 Jan 13:14]
| | | |
| Fair point of pontification and Venezuelan POV…. BUT on 10:14 - Jan 5 with 706 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Fair point of pontification and Venezuelan POV…. BUT on 09:36 - Jan 5 by NthQldITFC |
But from some things I read somewhere (weak, I know), it might not be economically viable to extract and refine Venezuelan oil given a predicted lowering of oil prices. US companies were said not to be exactly clamouring for the opportunity. |
There is around $10 a barrel difference between oil from Alberta and similar grade oil from Texas. Seen suggestions transport costs of getting oil from Venezuela to Texas is no more than $2.
It is going to take years to sort out the neglect in Venezuela so Canada has time to find a new market, presumably China , time to build a pipeline to Pacific coast. A lot of Venezuelan oil ends up in China, transportation costs must be high. Venezuela uses oil to pay back loans from China.
We need to look beyond Trump’s presidency to understand the consequences. | |
| |
| Fair point of pontification and Venezuelan POV…. BUT on 10:22 - Jan 5 with 691 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Fair point of pontification and Venezuelan POV…. BUT on 10:14 - Jan 5 by Pinewoodblue |
There is around $10 a barrel difference between oil from Alberta and similar grade oil from Texas. Seen suggestions transport costs of getting oil from Venezuela to Texas is no more than $2.
It is going to take years to sort out the neglect in Venezuela so Canada has time to find a new market, presumably China , time to build a pipeline to Pacific coast. A lot of Venezuelan oil ends up in China, transportation costs must be high. Venezuela uses oil to pay back loans from China.
We need to look beyond Trump’s presidency to understand the consequences. |
Transport costs are irrelevant. Currently Venezuelan production is state run - PDVSA are not profitable, and heaped in so much debt that were they a private company they’d have folded many times over. Estimates of their total debt obligations are $150bn plus.
So how do you propose getting US firms to come in if the state currently has to subsidise production costs (as well as assuming the debt and providing the investment capital). I suggest you read some of the financial analysis provided in the thread and elsewhere. | | | |
| Venezuela under attack (n/t) on 11:20 - Jan 5 with 616 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Venezuela under attack (n/t) on 00:14 - Jan 5 by J2BLUE |
Does that mean we have to do a deal with Argentina over the Falklands? |
That's a poor analogy mate. The dispute over the Falklands is one of sovereignty. The waters around the Falklands are not being used by Russia or China posing a security threat to Argentina and the very fact that there is a British rense on the Falklands insures that is the case. | |
| |
| Venezuela under attack (n/t) on 11:25 - Jan 5 with 608 views | DJR |
I can't vouch for its truth, but I did wonder if something like this was behind the Trump rebuff.
Citing two unnamed individuals close to the White House, the Washington Post reported that Donald Trump was miffed with Maria Machado accepting the Nobel Peace Prize.
The report cited two unnamed individuals close to the White House. While one of them called Machado's acceptance of the coveted prize the “ultimate sin”, another said the leader lost a shot at being Venezuela's president because she accepted it. “If she (Machado) had turned it down and said, ‘I can’t accept it because it’s Donald Trump’s,’ she’d be the president of Venezuela today,” one of the persons close to the White House was quoted as saying by WaPo. [Post edited 5 Jan 11:25]
|  | | |
| Venezuela under attack (n/t) on 11:26 - Jan 5 with 602 views | WeWereZombies |
| Venezuela under attack (n/t) on 11:20 - Jan 5 by GlasgowBlue |
That's a poor analogy mate. The dispute over the Falklands is one of sovereignty. The waters around the Falklands are not being used by Russia or China posing a security threat to Argentina and the very fact that there is a British rense on the Falklands insures that is the case. |
I think J2 was referring to the Argentine naval bases on their east coast and the operations in the South Atlantic in the Nineteen Eighties (which continue to this day) and not to Russian and Chinese fleets at that time. In fact I think it was quite obvious... |  |
| |
| Venezuela under attack (n/t) on 14:10 - Jan 5 with 494 views | soupytwist |
| Venezuela under attack (n/t) on 06:49 - Jan 5 by ElderGrizzly |
Cuba might get ‘Trumped’ before Greenland at this rate.
How is any of this normal or legal (narrator: it isn’t)
|
Pleased to see that he managed to get in a reference to the killing of Christians. Seems to be the new trigger subject. |  | | |
| Fair point of pontification and Venezuelan POV…. BUT on 15:36 - Jan 6 with 242 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Fair point of pontification and Venezuelan POV…. BUT on 10:22 - Jan 5 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Transport costs are irrelevant. Currently Venezuelan production is state run - PDVSA are not profitable, and heaped in so much debt that were they a private company they’d have folded many times over. Estimates of their total debt obligations are $150bn plus.
So how do you propose getting US firms to come in if the state currently has to subsidise production costs (as well as assuming the debt and providing the investment capital). I suggest you read some of the financial analysis provided in the thread and elsewhere. |
https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/05/business/venezuela-trump-oil-chevron?iid=cnn_
Here’s another article covering the lack of enthusiasm for investment in Venezuelan production. As I noted, current wells are largely running at break even or loss making. New ones will require CapEx and therefore be even less profitable. Fundamentally at $60bbl it’s going to cost more to get out of the ground than they can sell it for. Some analysts are predicting prices could fall even further. | | | |
| Fair point of pontification and Venezuelan POV…. BUT on 16:06 - Jan 6 with 197 views | DJR |
| Fair point of pontification and Venezuelan POV…. BUT on 15:36 - Jan 6 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/05/business/venezuela-trump-oil-chevron?iid=cnn_
Here’s another article covering the lack of enthusiasm for investment in Venezuelan production. As I noted, current wells are largely running at break even or loss making. New ones will require CapEx and therefore be even less profitable. Fundamentally at $60bbl it’s going to cost more to get out of the ground than they can sell it for. Some analysts are predicting prices could fall even further. |
With Trump, a lot of what he does is dressed up in language (generally bearing little relation to the truth) which is designed to support what he is doing and make it seem more impressive than it really is.
In the case of Venezuela it is "narco-terrorism" and "oil".
But this is not to say that he or his cronies won't gain financially by some of what he is up to in places like Ukraine, Gaza and Venezuela. [Post edited 6 Jan 16:08]
| | | |
| Fair point of pontification and Venezuelan POV…. BUT on 16:08 - Jan 6 with 186 views | lowhouseblue |
| Fair point of pontification and Venezuelan POV…. BUT on 16:06 - Jan 6 by DJR |
With Trump, a lot of what he does is dressed up in language (generally bearing little relation to the truth) which is designed to support what he is doing and make it seem more impressive than it really is.
In the case of Venezuela it is "narco-terrorism" and "oil".
But this is not to say that he or his cronies won't gain financially by some of what he is up to in places like Ukraine, Gaza and Venezuela. [Post edited 6 Jan 16:08]
|
a lot of what he says is entirely new to him as it comes out of his mouth. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Fair point of pontification and Venezuelan POV…. BUT on 16:20 - Jan 6 with 159 views | DJR |
| Fair point of pontification and Venezuelan POV…. BUT on 16:08 - Jan 6 by lowhouseblue |
a lot of what he says is entirely new to him as it comes out of his mouth. |
Personally, I think there is method to his madness.
He is obviously not a details man but he realises he can get away with saying or doing whatever he wants and then saying or doing something completely different.
It's his modus operandi and adds to his unpredictability which has turned out to be very difficult for others to deal with. [Post edited 6 Jan 16:20]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
