It has been a week since Maduro was apprehended and taken to the U. S. for trial. President Trump said the U. S. would “run Venezuela”.
Who’s running Venezuela? It appears to be the same regime that did a week ago with all of the same problems and failures.
I have seen some reports that some political prisoners have been released.
Everything seems to be proceeding much as I predicted.
Almost certainly, the Venezuelan VP and other high ranking officials cut a deal with Trump behind Maduro’s back. We’ll have to wait to see how the deal turns out. However, there will be a lot of noise out of Caracas diverting attention from the actions of the comprador regime.
Seems with Machado visiting the White House tomorrow; Trump is running something akin to “The Apprentice, Venezuela edition”.
There is some modest optimism possible; given the two women leading on opposing sides, the chance they can sort out an acceptable arrangement for both sides is a tiny simidgen higher then it would be otherwise.
I will take this opportunity to lay out what I think is happening and will happen, but I am not endorsing or encouraging it. (It may be long.)
The Iranian and Venezuelan military actions are not separate and isolated incidents. They are meant to demonstrate to the world the US military capability, especially those countries deemed unfit by the US. Contrary to the starry-eyed Russia and China cheerleaders, the US military has capabilities well beyond anybody else in the world.
At present, the threats to Iran to defend the protesters is based upon the two demonstrated military capabilities, and possibly more to come. The US military can strike the interior of large countries with impunity and at will. No structure is safe. The US can conduct small unit operations with extremely leveraged results.
The present and future targets are authoritarian countries. The small unit operations are not possible due to the nature of their necessary independent leadership. To briefly sum up, effective independent leaders are a threat to the government in the form of coups and insurrections.
(Some of the US’s junior NCOs and officers will return to become political opponents of whatever party is in control, and they will lead political threats to the existing party. To date, power transfer may be highly contested, but it is political not physical. I am not here to debate the government, Jan. 6, or any of the present protests.)
The era of the US trading goods for debt is quickly approaching an end. Trading services for goods is not a substitute. Like manufacturing, they are easily replicated by other countries. In an open, free, and global economy, goods, services, and debt are not exclusive to any one country.
By refusing to produce essential consumer and military goods, the US will require secure trading partners. Most of our treaty allies also refuse to produce goods, and soon, our adversaries will refuse to trade. Resource and manufacturing will need to be located somewhere that can be controlled by the US.
Greenland, Central America, and South America (plus some not presently “on the dance card”) will fill this need. Beginning with Greenland, resource rich countries will come under US control, and to provide the labors, facilities, and some resources needed, Central and South America will be controlled.
(Greenland is the ‘tell’. Militarily, it would be protected under NATO. Tradewise, the EU is an actual ally. If military protection were required, the EU and the US could provide it, via NATO. Contrary to ‘conventional wisdom’, neither Russia nor China possess to ability to control Greenland, Iceland, Canada, Mexico, or any other large country.)
Today, the US is not an empire, and there is no desire to become an empire. Unfortunately, countries require their economy to expand, and when the domestic economy is constrained, the expansion must be external. China has been somewhat conquered, but they are in the process of throwing off that economic yoke (US debt).
These things take more time than most people imagine, and it may be quite a while before China is free, and it is replaced by others. The US must become a de facto or de jure empire. Furthermore, it will be defended as being for the good of the countries and their citizens, and both parties will participate.
(The AI revolution will play a part, positively and negatively. It could be mostly positive, but my guess is it will be mostly negative. Replacing workers with automation increases the available workers and machinery options. These, in turn, make innovative products and services possible.)
Universal Basic Income (UBI) schemes to use the profits of AI producers as a revenue source cannot work because UBI would need to extract the profit plus cost of the goods for the recipients to purchase those goods. The alternative is hyperinflation.
Those who support UBI will require an external source of manufacturing and resources as a revenue source. Those who support globalism already support extracting value from weaker and poorer countries. Those who support US leadership will support the US invading the world to promote peace.
In the end, few will be in opposition.
So we are going to promote peace by invading everyone and taking over the Western hemisphere? I agree that our military is uniquely able to attack with little risk of retaliation many more countries than anyone else can. However, we kind of suck at occupation and figuring out what to do after we attack someone. To be honest I am not sure our decisions on whom to attack and when have always been that great. I dont really want any administration deciding who to voluntarily attack because they think they are going to create peace and prosperity.
Steve
Steve:
I presume your question is addressed to TastyBits.
@steve
The US has been invading the Eastern Hemisphere to promote peace, for as long as I can remember. Previously, the US has invaded the Western Hemisphere to promote business, but in the future, it will be called prosperity.
In the future, the US will invade Central and South America to “promote peace” and/or “promote prosperity” in whatever region the US is engaging. This will not be limited to one party, but each will claim that unlike the other party they are doing it for the good of mankind, or some other pabulum.
Again, I am not endorsing or encouraging it.
@tastybits
I have a friend who was very adamant that the bombing if Iranian nuclear facilities was not about Iran. His contention is that it was to show the world that Chinese defense systems are a waste of money. Iran had spent billions on Chinese defense equipment that ended up worthless. The Venezuela action reinforces that view.
If you are a country like India or Indonesia, would you want to invest money in Chinese made defense systems after what you have seen in the past year? Who do you want as your ally?
I cant find any evidence that Iran had purchased any Chinese air defense stuff prior to the bombing. I can find lots of articles about them buying Chinese stuff since the bombing. Looks like they mostly had Russian stuff. S-300 for sure and probably S-400 though that’s not clear.
Steve