Venezuela 2025

[Bootstrap]

To me, Venezuela is a blatant example of military bullying, and we still do not have an official explanation of why we are there or what our goals are, congressional authorization, or pretty much anything to justify what is going on.

We do have official explanation, you object to it.

I do to but for different reasons.

Is there a formal statement of our objectives? Something with legal or constitutional grounding? Something that the State Department, DOD, and White House agree on? A statement that can be debated, challenged, amended, or withdrawn?

If so, where can I find it?

I see a lot of rhetoric and ad hoc claims that keep changing. Accusations made without proof.

[ken_sylvania]

To explain it as simply as I can. Russia and China are investing in territory around us. The US government has been quietly countering this as we do the same thing to them too. Pres Trump comes along and does the same thing openly.
The logic is the same logic that caused the Cuban missile crisis.
Do you understand my point now? Don't bother trying to fit me into a side, I'm explaining military/political strategic thought, not taking a side.

Thank-you, that's clear.

Here's where I disagree: I think the United States had been winning in the global economy. Our allies believed we were making them a much better deal than China and Russia do. The dollar was at the heart of the global economy, and so were the systems we set up.

We are throwing that all away now by adopting Russia's playbook, threatening and bullying our neighbors will military force ... and without a clear strategy. I mean, what's the best possible outcome with Venezuela? What military goal do we have in mind? What does this mean for our relationships with the rest of Latin America and Europe?

If our goal is to convince the rest of the world that we are just as bad as Russia, I think we are doing the right thing. But that goal doesn't feel like three dimensional chess to me.

I think whether or not the US was "winning" in the global economy depends on what metrics are used for a scorecard. If the hollowing out of a nations production capability and increased reliance on supply chains that have critical points controlled by a nations rivals constitutes "winning," then I guess a person could say the US was winning. My own opinion is that increased debt levels and vulnerable supply chains are signs that company or a country is not winning.

I think your post here seems to suggest that for the US to be threatening and bullying its neighbors with military force is a new thing. Is that what you're saying? Because if so, I would disagree. The US has a long history of intervening in South/Central American issues - sometimes overtly such as when Panama seceded from Columbia, sometimes covertly such as in Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Haiti, Mexico, and of course Venezuela (names involved in the Venezuela effort include Bolton, Pompeo, Pence, and others).

My sense is that the current administration's policy is more disjointed than that of most previous administrations, but I'm not sure how much of that sense is simply because disagreements that would have previously been handled in the background are happening in public for anyone to see. I suspect that might be more the case than what we realize, combined with a news cycle that amplifies certain things and feeds on its own outrage. For instance - I would not have realized, from news reports, that the Biden administration was who tightened the sanctions screws on Venezuela last year. I'm not saying it wasn't reported - just that for whatever reason I didn't see it.

Is the seizure of tankers that are being used to fund Iran and Hezbollah really going to affect relationships with other Central American countries more than sanctions expressly designed to cripple the Venezuelan oil industry and deprive the Venezuelan government of funding? I suppose it could, but I have my doubts.

Now back to "winning" - if a country demonstrates "winning" by convincing its neighbors to choose US as a trade partner instead of China, I offer as an exhibit the United States and its relationship with its southern neighbor. Over the course of 2025, Mexico has demonstrated quite clearly that it believes the US is offering it a better deal than China is, expanding cooperation with the US on various fronts while recently passing a law mandating tariffs as high as 50% on imports from China.

I'm not arguing for or against the rightness of US policy - simply explaining why I'm not convinced that the substance of how the US is operating now has really changed all that significantly.

[ken_sylvania]

Is there a formal statement of our objectives? Something with legal or constitutional grounding? Something that the State Department, DOD, and White House agree on? A statement that can be debated, challenged, amended, or withdrawn?

If so, where can I find it?

I see a lot of rhetoric and ad hoc claims that keep changing. Accusations made without proof.

Not sure if I quite understand what you're looking for. Could you maybe provide an example from the Biden era of what you're referring to? A formal statement of objectives regarding Venezuela, including an explanation of the legal and constitutional grounding, and evidence that the State Department, DOD and White House agreed on it?

[Bootstrap]

Is there a formal statement of our objectives? Something with legal or constitutional grounding? Something that the State Department, DOD, and White House agree on? A statement that can be debated, challenged, amended, or withdrawn?

If so, where can I find it?

I see a lot of rhetoric and ad hoc claims that keep changing. Accusations made without proof.

Not sure if I quite understand what you're looking for.

This is a military engagement. What is the justification for it? Even the legal basis for it is classified, not even most members of Congress are allowed to see it. I think that context was clear in the post you are quoting from.

Could you maybe provide an example from the Biden era of what you're referring to? A formal statement of objectives regarding Venezuela, including an explanation of the legal and constitutional grounding, and evidence that the State Department, DOD and White House agreed on it?

I don’t think Biden deployed U.S. forces into a new military engagement with Venezuela in a way that would have required such a statement.

That’s actually the point I’m making. When the U.S. undertakes a military action, I would expect some formal justification, agreed to by the White House, State Department, and DoD, and visible to Congress and the public unless there is some overwhelming reason that it cannot be.

[JohnH]

This is a military engagement. What is the justification for it? Even the legal basis for it is classified, not even most members of Congress are allowed to see it. I think that context was clear in the post you are quoting from.

In case you haven't noticed, everything is "classified" these days.

That’s actually the point I’m making. When the U.S. undertakes a military action, I would expect some formal justification, agreed to by the White House, State Department, and DoD, and visible to Congress and the public unless there is some overwhelming reason that it cannot be.

None of those people (nor Congress) care what you want.

[ohio jones]

In case you haven't noticed, everything is "classified" these days.

This abundance may explain why so many classified documents are found in unsecured locations.

[Bootstrap]

To explain it as simply as I can. Russia and China are investing in territory around us. The US government has been quietly countering this as we do the same thing to them too. Pres Trump comes along and does the same thing openly.
The logic is the same logic that caused the Cuban missile crisis.
Do you understand my point now? Don't bother trying to fit me into a side, I'm explaining military/political strategic thought, not taking a side.

Thank-you, that's clear.

Here's where I disagree: I think the United States had been winning in the global economy. Our allies believed we were making them a much better deal than China and Russia do. The dollar was at the heart of the global economy, and so were the systems we set up.

We are throwing that all away now by adopting Russia's playbook, threatening and bullying our neighbors will military force ... and without a clear strategy. I mean, what's the best possible outcome with Venezuela? What military goal do we have in mind? What does this mean for our relationships with the rest of Latin America and Europe?

If our goal is to convince the rest of the world that we are just as bad as Russia, I think we are doing the right thing. But that goal doesn't feel like three dimensional chess to me.

I think whether or not the US was "winning" in the global economy depends on what metrics are used for a scorecard.

I gave the kind of metrics I was thinking of - much of the world revolves around the US economy, we have the largest consumer economy in the world, and that gives us enormous bargaining power. I really was thinking in terms of diplomatic power, alliances, and power in economic markets.

We give a lot of that power up when we bully our neighbors like this. Our closest allies are speaking out against. We lose the respect of the world. And that is costly - much more costly than anything we are gaining in this conflict.

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2025 ... -in-trump/

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/2 ... l-00702908

If the hollowing out of a nations production capability and increased reliance on supply chains that have critical points controlled by a nations rivals constitutes "winning," then I guess a person could say the US was winning. My own opinion is that increased debt levels and vulnerable supply chains are signs that company or a country is not winning.

That's about domestic industrial policy. I don't think what we are doing in Venezuela does anything to fix these problems.

Spending is going up, tax revenue is going down, and I don't see a coherent plan for improving our domestic production capability. I don't even see a discussion with Congress about the subject. It might be interesting to have a separate thread on this question.

I think your post here seems to suggest that for the US to be threatening and bullying its neighbors with military force is a new thing. Is that what you're saying? Because if so, I would disagree.

I'm saying that it is wrong. I don't think I have to compare it to every past action we took to say that this is blatantly, morally wrong, that we have been lied to repeatedly, and that there really should be some clear, public justification for this kind of action, agreed to by Congress, the White House, the State Department ...

I'm not arguing for or against the rightness of US policy - simply explaining why I'm not convinced that the substance of how the US is operating now has really changed all that significantly.

Even if the United States has acted this way before, that doesn’t answer whether it is right, legal, or wise now.

But I think there are big differences here. I am trying to escape changing the subject to "anything but Venezuela, but here are some differences I see. There are secret "grey wars" like Somalia that hide most of what is going on from the American people, they do not tell us what force is being used, everything is highly classified, even the existence of the war is a secret, and there are no official military objectives. That is the way they are operating here, except that they are showing all the action, bragging about it, making it part of their brand.

Normally, if the public knows about a war, we see a public authorization, a stated objective, identifiable rules of engagement, and a framework that Congress and the public could argue about.

Killing people without accountability, clear objectives, or public justification is not “business as usual.” And even if similar things have happened before, that does not make it acceptable now.

[JohnH]

I gave the kind of metrics I was thinking of - much of the world revolves around the US economy, we have the largest consumer economy in the world, and that gives us enormous bargaining power. I really was thinking in terms of diplomatic power, alliances, and power in economic markets.

We give a lot of that power up when we bully our neighbors like this. Our closest allies are speaking out against. We lose the respect of the world. And that is costly - much more costly than anything we are gaining in this conflict.

Do you think America should try to amass lots of power?

Killing people without accountability, clear objectives, or public justification is not “business as usual.” And even if similar things have happened before, that does not make it acceptable now.

Can you describe what killing people with accountability looks like? Is it somehow better in your mind?

[Bootstrap]

I gave the kind of metrics I was thinking of - much of the world revolves around the US economy, we have the largest consumer economy in the world, and that gives us enormous bargaining power. I really was thinking in terms of diplomatic power, alliances, and power in economic markets.

We give a lot of that power up when we bully our neighbors like this. Our closest allies are speaking out against. We lose the respect of the world. And that is costly - much more costly than anything we are gaining in this conflict.

Do you think America should try to amass lots of power?

When people talk about “amassing power,” they usually mean hard power: military force, the ability to threaten. That's the opposite of what I am talking about.

The U.S. has a more important kind of power: being at the center of the global economy, offering allies a better deal than what China or Russia could offer, and building systems where cooperation was a win-win.

That's a good kind of power to build. And that kind of power is shared with others. This is probably worth a thread on its own - hard power versus soft power.

[Bootstrap]

Killing people without accountability, clear objectives, or public justification is not “business as usual.” And even if similar things have happened before, that does not make it acceptable now.

Can you describe what killing people with accountability looks like? Is it somehow better in your mind?

Just read my posts in this thread, and it's pretty clear that I am saying that even if they were clearly guilty, they should have been apprehended and tried. Without any such evidence, without a legal justification, it's even worse.

But we're just shooting them out of the water without any evidence or accountability at all. With a special OLC memo that acts as a "get out of jail free" card even for war crimes.

Hard to imagine how that can be remotely OK.