No. of Recommendations: 13
Oil companies like Chevron are up 7-8% and oil service companies such as Schlumberger and Haliburton are up 9-10% in pre-market trading.
Russia in 2019 reportedly floated a deal to the first-term Trump administration, offering US influence over Venezuela in exchange for Washington stepping away from Ukraine, according to testimony given to the US Congress at the time.
Fiona Hill, a former senior White House advisor on Russia and Europe, who later testified during US President Donald Trump’s first impeachment inquiry, said the offer was made informally amid Venezuela’s 2019 political turmoil, marked by massive nationwide blackouts, food shortages and service disruptions that triggered widespread protests.
Within hours of the US military's snatching Maduro and his wife from Venezuela, Russia’s Foreign Ministry condemned what it called “an act of armed aggression” and an “unacceptable assault” on Venezuelan sovereignty, calling for dialogue and respect for territorial integrity.
Russia, now in its fifth year of a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, is preaching about respecting borders and resolving disputes through dialogue. Moscow’s statement emphasized that “ideological animosity has prevailed over business pragmatism and the willingness to build relationships based on trust and predictability.”
The legal argument, however cynical its source, creates a genuine problem for Ukraine.
Ukraine’s response to the Venezuela strikes was notably measured. Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiha condemned the Maduro regime’s human rights violations and authoritarianism while emphasizing that “further developments” should proceed “in accordance with the principles of international law.”
It’s a careful positioning. Ukraine will not back Maduro, a dictator who supported Russia’s war effort. But it is also reluctant to endorse unilateral military action against sovereign states.
Before getting too deep into Venezuela, it would be prudent to remember that, in 2002 when the US military took down the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2003, when our military took out Saddam Hussein, and in 2011, when we helped remove Muammar Gaddafi from power in Libya. These were very, very bad people, much, much worse than Maduro and Venezuela, which was never a significant national security threat to the United States, we were left with a multi-year quagmire which is still playing out. At least two of the above was to gain control of oil fields.
Yesterday, he threatened Cuba and Columbia.
More importantly (IMHO), he said “We need Greenland from a national security situation,” Trump said. “The EU needs us to have Greenland.” In an interview published in The Atlantic on Sunday, Trump was asked about his repeated calls for the U.S. to annex Greenland in the name of national security, saying, "We do need Greenland, absolutely. We need it for defense." I find that a bit confusing as Greenland is already part of NATO and the US is obligated, along with the EU to defend it.
The prime minister of Denmark called on President Donald Trump to "stop the threats" of the U.S. annexing Greenland. It comes after public comments from Trump and the wife of top adviser Stephen Miller (who posted a map of Greenland superimposed by the US flag) garnered international attention. "I have to say this very directly to the United States," Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen wrote in a statement on X on Sunday. "It makes absolutely no sense to talk about the United States needing to take over Greenland. The U.S. has no right to annex one of the three countries in the Danish Kingdom.
I'm wondering if Putin tossed in Greenland as a sweetener to induce Trump to back off of Ukraine. We have already seen the affects of a foreign policy based on speres of influence when it comes to Trump's support for Israel, so I wonder what this augers for China and Taiwan (considering that Taiwan is not necessarily considered a "country" in some contexts).
Jeff
