More Questions about Venezuela????

First I heard that Russia and the PRC have treaties with Venezuela, and that Maduro is largely continuing the policies of Chavez, so most Venezuelans plus Russia and the PRC will all stand with him against the US invading forces, and those US forces will be quickly destroyed. 

Then I heard that Maduro is corrupt, is stealing everything and most of the Venezuelan people are against him, that he has stolen $billions from the PRC and they want rid of him, that he has annoyed Russia and they want rid of him, and if Trump sends those 18,000 US troops into Venezuela, they'll have an easy victory.

Then I heard that many Venezuelans are volunteering for the militia to fight off any invasion.

There are so many contradictions on the various interviews of 'experts' (one-at-a-time interviews) on Venezuela who contradict each other (but they can't defend themselves against another interview of which they are not even aware), that it is very hard, without going to Venezuela and spending a year or two there, for me to have any idea what's really going on.

So I'm waiting for Trump or Rubio to order the all-out attack to see what happens.

One program I watched said that having the US Aircraft Carrier Battle Group off the coast of Venezuela is costing $1 billion a day, but the US$ is the World Key Currency, so the US can just keep printing 1 billion of those dollars every day, and the world have no choice to to accept them all, so not a problem.

Where is Venezuela?

First, I read about Venezuela under Chavez, who somehow got elected in 1998 when the US were not paying attention, then took office in 1999 and nationalised just about everything, and started giving all the money formerly taken by US corporations to the Venezuelan people.

The US would not stand for this, so the US military went into Venezuela in 2022 and arrested Chavez, but the Venezuelan people freed him two days later, and Chavez remained president of Venezuela until his death in 2013.

Then Maduro took over. And that's where the history gets very complicated.

One need not be a US puppet to be corrupt. The puppet governments of US neo-colonies let the US take everything, but the US pay them with money and weapons, so they live very well (and they even get visas so they can visit the US and buy stuff in expensive US shops). But some non-US puppets take all the money formerly going to US oligarchs and keep it all for themselves, so the US and the citizens of their own country join forces to e remove them from power. After which, the ordinary citizens would like a government like the Chavez government, but they get a US neo-colonial government that robs them of just about everything (but since the corrupt government was already robbing them, the ordinary citizens haven't really lost anything).

I have heard that Maduro kept things much like they were under Chavez, but I have also heard that Maduro is corrupt and most Venezuelans are now as impoverished as they would be under a US neo-colonial government, so if the US marches in and arrests Maduro, no one will free him from goal and return him to the presidency, but they will figure they'll be no worse off under the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Maria Corina Machado than under Maduro. I also heard that the PRC have found Maduro corrupt, and that he stole the money they gave him. So, unlike Chavez, Maduro has no support from the Venezuelan people, and also no support from the PRC, so he'll be a very easy target for removal.

I have also heard that Maduro has given the US everything they asked for, that he returned all the Venezuelan oil to the US oil companies that are the rightful owners of all the oil on earth, so why remove him? But I understand that the US are still determined to remove him because he was 'friends with Chavez' and they'd prefer the Nobel Laureate Machado, so just giving back all the oil to American oil companies wasn't enough for Maduro to remain in power.

Net: I thought I had a pretty good idea of what is happening in Venezuela, and what was likely to happen, but now I have absolutely no idea.

Where in the heck is Monroe and his Doctrine????

Starting in 1823, the US tried to claim all the Western Hemisphere as a US neo-colony. Of course, in 1823, the US was too weak to challenge the UK outside the US, and had barely managed to get the UK to stop conscripting US citizens as sailors for the UK fleet in 1814. But, thanks to high tariffs, which the US called 'fair trade' as opposed to letting the UK flood US markets for manufactured products with what the UK called 'free trade', US industry was growing, slowly but steadily. So the US Navy was also growing, and by 1900, was at parity with the UK Navy.

By the 20th century, much of Latin America were US neo-colonies, with the US giving a small group lots of weapons and enough money they were happy to take over the government of their own country and then do whatever the US asked them to do, the most famous of which was providing the US with lots of very, very cheap bananas that were sold as cheap bananas in the US and still made the neo-Imperialist American banana importers rich. If one reads Ayn Rand, she also talks about the US getting lots of Latin American copper very cheaply, at great profit to the American companies that mined the copper, paying the Latin American labourers minimal wages (but decent payments to the citizens of the country who were running the country as a good US neo-colony).

But then came WWI and WWII, after which the European powers were all destroyed and weak, and the US became the Western Hegemon, with only the USSR, the Eastern Hegemon, as a serious military rival.

So the US made all the NATO nations into neo-colonies. The USSR suggested that Germany be re-unified like Austria, as a neutral, demilitarised nation, but the US said, 'NO! West Germany will be part of NATO, heavily armed to defend against Soviet aggression,' so the USSR made East Germany a member of the Warsaw Pact (formed as a reaction to NATO, but described in my history and geography books as preceding NATO and forcing the US to create NATO to stop the Warsaw Pact from annexing all the rest of Europe plus the UK).

And then the USSR collapsed, and the US became World Hegemon. Most of the Warsaw Pact were absorbed into NATO, including the Baltics, formerly unwilling parts of the USSR, forced into the USSR by Stalin during WWII.

So the US, as World Hegemon, started attacking countries for reasons not altogether clear. The nations attacked did not seem like serious threats to the US. Noriega said he did everything the US told him to do, but the US still invaded Panamá, killed a lot of Panamanians, and sentenced Noriega to Life in Solitary Confinement in the worst cell in the gaol, for reasons no one knows.

Meanwhile, the PRC had a falling out with the USSR. Britain and France had drawn all the International Boundaries in Eurasia and Africa, and the USSR figured the UK/French-drawn boundary between the USSR and the PRC was too far to the north, while the PRC figured the UK/French boundary was too far to the south.

So the PRC ping-pong team, at a tournament in Japan, invited the US team to come to the PRC. The US team asked, were told they could and should go, so they went.

And then Nixon went to the PRC and made a deal with Mao: the US would start moving factories to the PRC where the labour would be much cheaper than in the US, and the PRC would see how much better Capitalism works than Communism.

So now the nominal PRC economy is about half the nominal American economy, but at PPP, the PRC economy is about 25% larger. And the PRC is the world's biggest exporter, exporting about 25% of all the world's exports at PPP (much less in nominal terms), and rising rapidly (from about 0% when the ping-pong team and then Nixon went to the PRC).

So the PRC now exports a lot to Latin America and imports a lot from Latin America. Venezuela is a significant source of PRC energy imports. And the PRC does not want the US to make Venezuela into a US neo-colony under a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who has promised to return Venezuela to a pure, unadulterated US neo-colony, with the locals getting paid nothing or next to nothing to do all the work to produce and send cheap oil and minerals (and bananas?) to the US.

And Russia, for reasons probably related to the Cuban Missile Crisis, have also sent lots of weapons to Venezuela.

So what happens now? WWIII anyone???

Are the Times a'Changin'?

 It was in the 11th century that the Normans started using sailing ships.

Before that, ships were galleys, with lots of oarsmen. The ships had sails, but the sails could only be used when the ship was sailing in the same direction that the wind was blowing. With an East wind, the ship could sail West. If the ship wanted to sail west and the wind was not an East wind, they used the oarsmen.

But the Norman ships were full of knights, with all their armour, and their horses, and no room for oarsmen (who have to be fed and given potable water, which takes a lot of space). So, in 1066, the Normans had to wait until they had an East wind and could sail West to England. While they were waiting, the English Army ran out of food, so a lot of the soldiers went back to their farms to tend their crops and livestock and replenish the English munitions. And then the winds shifted, and the Normans sailed across the channel and defeated the English.

Of course, when Richard Coeur de Lion sailed to Palestine to fight the Saracens, he eventually ran out of munitions and tried to sail back, but the winds were unfavourable, and he never made it (except in some Disney movies where he got back just in time to save Robin Hood from the Sheriff of Nottingham).

But then, in the 15th century, the Italians figured out how to make the first sailing ships that could sail into the wind. One cannot sail due East into an East wind, but one can sail northeast by north or southeast by south and tack to make it to one's destination. No need for oarsmen, so lots of room for passengers and cargo.

So Europe managed to conquer just about the entire world and became the richest, most advanced continent (since they managed to destroy the civilisations that had been doing OK before the Europeans arrived with their ships and marines and armies and canons, and generally defeated most of Asia, Africa, the Antipodes, and the Americas).

But then in 1914, a Serb shot an Archduke, and the only thing the Europeans could think of was to have a massive War of Attrition. The US knew England and France, and not much more about Europe, so they loaned Britain and France a lot of money to pursue the war. Britain and France were losing, and the US banks were faced with bankruptcy, so the US declared war on the side of Britain and France, and they managed to win and take every gram of gold from Germany, and also a lot from the Austrian-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire.

Britain and France didn't really recover from the war, and Russia had become the Soviet Union. Britain and France didn't care much about Russia, but the Soviet Union was terrifying, so they let Germany re-arm to help them stop the USSR. Only, after 5 years, Germany looked too strong, so France and Britain decided to destroy Germany, which had allied with the Soviet Union.

The war pretty much finished off all the European countries, and the US forced them to decolonise, so almost all the world's colonies were gradually freed and some became neo-colonies of their former Imperial powers, while others became neo-colonies of the US.

Only now, a lot of those neo-colonies are revolting against neo-colonialism. And the US intend to put a stop to this: the US intend for the world to remain a bunch of US neo-colonies, only that might be a teeny bit more difficult than it was just a few years ago.

Back to Monroe????

It was US President Monroe who said, in 1823, that the US would control the Western Hemisphere.

Back in 1823, the US were too weak to control the entire Western Hemisphere, but by 1898, the US could and did neo-colonise most of  Latin America.

But things change. Logistics meant the US armed forces had a huge logistical advantage over European armed forces if the US were fighting the Europeans in the Western Hemisphere, an advantage the US used to make most of Latin America into a US neo-colony.

But now, the PRC have the power, but not the interest, to engage in a long war with the US.

The US press say that Xi intends to re-take all of Taiwan before the end of 2027, just about two years away. Not clear what, exactly, Xi actually said or intends, but the Western media want to US to go to war with the PRC, since that will sell lots of newspapers and TV news and get the people who don't trust the mainstream media to pay for podcast news.

The main thing is that the PRC have started buying Venezuelan oil, some of the most sour oil in the world, oil that, before, only the US had the technology to refine, but now the PRC also have the technology to refine, and have built several of the specialised refineries that can refine Venezuelan oil.

So will Xi abide by the requirements of the Monroe doctrine, or will he say the PRC have invested a lot in Venezuelan oil, and intend to have all that they have paid for?

Trump Contradicts Himself. Frequently.

Most US presidents say one thing when they are running, something that they hope will get them elected, no matter how much they hate the idea of America actually doing what they promise the voters, then say something else after the election (let's face it, the US President doesn't do anything, he just gives the orders, like any other CEO, so voters foolishly assume that the US President will give the same orders he promised to give as a candidate, and are then sorely disappointed when he gives the opposite orders).

Trump ran on an America First/Make America Great Again platform, but then he was told, 'You must read the Teleprompter,' and the Teleprompter said, 'I order the US military to go into Syria and transform the evil dictatorship into a Democracy with Freedom and Justice for All.'

So Trump ordered all the US troops out of Syria. Twice.

Then someone had a little chat with Trump, so the third time the Teleprompter said, 'I order US troops into Syria to bring Freedom and Democracy,' Trump said, 'I order US troops into Syria to steal all the oil, so this won't cost US taxpayers 1¢, the US will make a big profit from this.'

So Trump managed to make it through his first term, only to lose his first bid for re-election.

After which, it was President Biden who ordered all US troops out of Afghanistan, an order executed with US Afghan allies clinging to and falling from the US planes leaving Afghanistan that refused to let them board. US troops trying to guard the only airport were killed by a terrorist attack. The withdrawal did not go well, but the Democrat US media all said, 'Biden got the US out of Afghanistan, something every president tried and failed to do for 20 years!' The Republican media all said, 'Biden made a complete mess of the withdrawal from Afghanistan.'

Running for re-election, Trump promised to get the US out of the Ukraine, to stop spending all that money on foreign projects that should instead go to Making America Great Again. After winning, on 19 January 2025, Trump reiterated that the US had to get out of the Ukraine or the cost of the war would destroy the US economy.

But then on 21 January 2025, Trump said the US would make sure that Russia left the Ukraine or the US would destroy Russia.

What happened? Obviously, the men in dark suits, dark glasses, and carrying dark briefcases (and no telling what's in those briefcases) had another little talk with Trump, and explained that abandoning the Ukraine to Russia was not an option, unless Trump wanted to be the next JFK.

For most of my life, US Presidents have been far more consistent that Trump, consistently wrong for the most part, but at least consistent. 

But Trump keeps changing his course 180º on a rather regular basis.

The US: Mostly anti-Colonialist

In 1823, President Monroe said that the Americas, i.e., the Western Hemisphere, was all American, the European Imperialists had better stay out. The US were not very strong in 1823, but they got stronger and stronger. Spain and Portugal lost most of their Latin American colonies as the US provided Latin American countries with money and weapons to end their status as colonies and become US neo-colonies.

The European Imperialists marched into a country, defeated the military, killed off the rulers, and put a European governor or viceroy as resident Head of State, and with the European Imperialist Head of State as the ultimate Head of State. They also put in a government with all the top officials Europeans.

The US gave money and weapons to a small group so they could overthrow the European Imperialists and make one of themselves the Head of State, with members of the group holding all the senior government positions, and the country was, officially, a free, independent nation. But, if the government did not do everything the US wanted, that government would be overthrown and replaced with a government of Citizens of the country who would do what the US wanted. Meaning (mostly) the US got all the bananas for the cost of good pay for the group forming the government and not much for anyone else, so the overwhelming majority of the citizens of the country were very poor, but the small, select group the US put in to run the country,  all Citizens of the country they were running, got paid fairly well. This is neo-colonialism. No American was in the government, no American was named governor or viceroy or got a senior position in the government, the American agent just told them what they had to do if they wanted to remain as rulers of their own country and get paid very well, i.e., whatever the US told them to do.

The US raged against colonialism for 75 years, but then in 1898, someone told the US President McKinley that every Great Country must have colonies, so the US declared War on Spain and took all the Spanish Colonies and made them US Colonies. They killed off all the colonials who resisted colonialism, and killed, by mistake, people who were not even resisting, but at least no one could say the US was still a minor power because they had no colonies.

The US rapidly decided that it really didn't like Imperialism, and 'freed' the Philippines and Cuba, going back to having them as US neo-colonies, with the governments all native citizens of the Philippines and Cuba (for as long as those governments did whatever the US told them to do).

But then Castro took over Cuba, and got enough support from the USSR that the US did not overthrow the Cuban government, they just embargoed Cuban products. Cuba's economy was mostly selling sugar and cigars, and, since the US was closest, it was easiest to sell just about all the Cuban sugar and cigars to the US. With the US market cut off by Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy, Cuba had a hard time for a few months, but then the world discovered a cheap source of good sugar and great cigars, and started buying from Cuba until the US put up a blockade (many years later) and pretty much killed the Cuban economy.

(Plus the US uses a US military base in Cuba to imprison all the terror suspects that can't be legally tried in a US mainland court.)

For some reason, the US still has a few colonies, but the grimy details of exactly why they still have colonies when they say they don't want them isn't clear.

In any case, the fierce US antipathy toward Colonialism meant almost all of it ended after WWII, with only a few places still colonies (but lots of places are now neo-colonies, mostly US neo-colonies).