> When pressed by Trump, Woods said Exxon would send a technical team to Venezuela within weeks to assess conditions. He also said he was “confident” that the changes needed for investment “can be put in place”.
Regardless of weather it's true or not, they have a huge interest in saying so.
What's really crazy (even by today's US standards) is how Trump and his clique speak as if he annexed Venezuela and he can do whatever he wants.
It was discussed 100 times here already, but the damage to the myth of US as the 'good guy' that is immense. I personally see the US now, as the same that say China or Russia and have no intention of going there again, unless absolutely necessary. If you told me that some years ago, I would think you're crazy.
Large states (including the US) have been intervening in nearby countries since the beginning of time. Even for Latin America, this is a "typical" intervention for the US: Cuba, Panama, Grenada, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Haiti, Guatemala, on and on, all happened in the 20th century.
What's different this time is the total lack of effort (or ability to?) to construct a narrative justifying it.
20th century means that we’re talking at least 2.5 decades ago. That’s a long time. And for the most part, US foreign policy regarded much of those actions as folly even if they will never say that publicly.
You’re absolutely right with
your assessment but beyond that this is also a rolling back of the clock to thinking from decades ago.
Yep, but folks love their veneer. The morals of the American people and that of the state department / industrial complex aren't the same.
Oddly in this case the US government seemed to do something that many Venezuelan expats support. We'll see if it helps the lives of regular Venezuelans at all.
Also a number of sci-fi from the last decade or two predicted or imagined the US in a war in Venezuela in the 2030's. It makes more sense to view it not for oil but more to keep Chinese and Russian influence out of the US's "backyard". Apparently both had been getting close to Maduro.
We also have to recognize that these particular narratives actually created some objectively positive accomplishments as well. That's what made the postwar US different than the postwar USSR. We can plainly see the results in some pretty well set up experiments (eg East Germany vs West Germany). It's very easy to criticize the failings of liberal American values and liberties looking from a vantage point where we get to take those values and liberties for granted.
... but now it seems as if people got bored of those lofty narratives, and the US can't even prevent its own domestic jihadis from overrunning the country with backwards fundamentalism. So now we're staring down their equivalent of Sharia law while they rally around regime-sponsored murderers ramping up sectarian violence.
> the damage to the myth of US as the 'good guy' that is immense.
People don't live under a rock. The US is an empire and has acted like it for at least 80 years if not more. The fantasy that the US is part of the good guys depends on how much you believe the propaganda.
The US has been annexing land almost since its foundation. Ask the original Native Americans. Or the people of Hawaii. Or Puerto Rico.
The US USP was essentially just its success as a consumer economy, with relative prosperity compared to Rest of World and nice things to buy.
And there used to be nominal free speech. You could criticise the government, and nothing would happen unless you became organised enough to start threatening capital, in which case you might well be murdered.
That's the good news. The bad news is that non-whites in the US have always had a much worse time of it, and the veneer of freedom has always been very thin for them.
Now the US has stopped pretending to be a creative economy and has decided not to hide its addiction to violent extraction.
I grew up in Eastern Europe. For 90% of people there at the time, US = paradise. Maybe it was propaganda, I don't know. Later in life I got travel a lot and meet a lot of Americans and for most, their moral and ethics are at the exact opposite of what the US is showing now.
I don’t understand why this has been downvoted, it’s true that the US has done many interventions in the past based on vague rationale or simply by misleading public opinion. And it has always been a part of its’ state propaganda to make it look like they are on the good side, doesn’t mean they are though every time. The difference this time is that they didn’t even try that much to shape a proper narrative.
The US is acting like Russia for sure, but China's modus operandi isn't really like that. China is much more interested in a rules-based world order than either country and will gladly fill the soft power vacuum the US is leaving
> What's really crazy (even by today's US standards) is how Trump and his clique speak as if he annexed Venezuela and he can do whatever he wants.
Setting aside what this does to the image of the US, this also just isn't grounded in reality. The US conducted a singular operation with a narrowly defined goal of extracting their president and his wife. They then declared that they were putting the Venuzuellan vice president in charge. I don't know what happened behind the scenes, but that looks a lot more like them getting behind a winner instead of dictating it.
Sure, the military operation was a tactical success; and will probably make Venuzuella more subservient in the near term. But I see no evidence we have done anything close to annexing them.
The US is literally dictating that certain things must happen as they prefer in Venezuela, or else. Venezuela has no agency as a sovereign nation as long as this is the case, ie. they've been annexed.
> Trump and his clique speak as if he annexed Venezuela and he can do whatever he wants.
He did and can though. Venezuela is now a US colony, with its resources available to whomever is ready to invest. Heck, that's exactly what the article is saying.
Consider how that will restrain the diplomatic and geopolitical options available to future US presidents, particularly those of the other party and it starts to seem quite strategic if not a major win for isolationism and Trump’s Monroe 2.0 agenda.
Of course their interest is to completely destroy all socialistic tendencies there, that's why Trump assured them to run the country from now on. They already invested in robbing their oil twice there, and where thrown out twice. Incredible stories, Chevron even had to change it's name then to get rid of the foul mouth press.
It's 2026 not 1956. Heavy crude oil is not a worthwhile investment for the future. This whole thing hasn't been thought through, it's based on retro vibes.
I'm aware of that. Nevertheless, this is not a growth industry, and expecting riches from it in 10 years time or more is thinking mired in past. It's not serious.
Readit News
What's really crazy (even by today's US standards) is how Trump and his clique speak as if he annexed Venezuela and he can do whatever he wants.
It was discussed 100 times here already, but the damage to the myth of US as the 'good guy' that is immense. I personally see the US now, as the same that say China or Russia and have no intention of going there again, unless absolutely necessary. If you told me that some years ago, I would think you're crazy.
What's different this time is the total lack of effort (or ability to?) to construct a narrative justifying it.
You’re absolutely right with your assessment but beyond that this is also a rolling back of the clock to thinking from decades ago.
Oddly in this case the US government seemed to do something that many Venezuelan expats support. We'll see if it helps the lives of regular Venezuelans at all.
Also a number of sci-fi from the last decade or two predicted or imagined the US in a war in Venezuela in the 2030's. It makes more sense to view it not for oil but more to keep Chinese and Russian influence out of the US's "backyard". Apparently both had been getting close to Maduro.
... but now it seems as if people got bored of those lofty narratives, and the US can't even prevent its own domestic jihadis from overrunning the country with backwards fundamentalism. So now we're staring down their equivalent of Sharia law while they rally around regime-sponsored murderers ramping up sectarian violence.
People don't live under a rock. The US is an empire and has acted like it for at least 80 years if not more. The fantasy that the US is part of the good guys depends on how much you believe the propaganda.
The US USP was essentially just its success as a consumer economy, with relative prosperity compared to Rest of World and nice things to buy.
And there used to be nominal free speech. You could criticise the government, and nothing would happen unless you became organised enough to start threatening capital, in which case you might well be murdered.
That's the good news. The bad news is that non-whites in the US have always had a much worse time of it, and the veneer of freedom has always been very thin for them.
Now the US has stopped pretending to be a creative economy and has decided not to hide its addiction to violent extraction.
So we'll see how that works out for everyone.
Setting aside what this does to the image of the US, this also just isn't grounded in reality. The US conducted a singular operation with a narrowly defined goal of extracting their president and his wife. They then declared that they were putting the Venuzuellan vice president in charge. I don't know what happened behind the scenes, but that looks a lot more like them getting behind a winner instead of dictating it.
Sure, the military operation was a tactical success; and will probably make Venuzuella more subservient in the near term. But I see no evidence we have done anything close to annexing them.
He did and can though. Venezuela is now a US colony, with its resources available to whomever is ready to invest. Heck, that's exactly what the article is saying.
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
I'm aware of that. Nevertheless, this is not a growth industry, and expecting riches from it in 10 years time or more is thinking mired in past. It's not serious.
More serious commentary on that:
https://www.politico.eu/article/the-problem-with-donald-trum...
https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/08/climate/china-venezuela-o...
https://electrek.co/2026/01/03/electric-vehicles-will-end-oi...
He still hasn't got over that Mexico-will-pay-for-our-wall thing has he?