It’s a good thing we waited a couple of weeks before commenting on the US attack on Venezuela because the entire thing is getting stranger by the day. It clearly wasn’t about regime change and even the logic of seizing oil reserves is looking shaky. It might have been because Donald Trump felt his dancing style was being mocked by the former Venezuelan President.
As disturbing as that is, of even more concern is the US threatening again to acquire Greenland – by force, if necessary. This is completely insane and would destroy NATO, but Trump seems to be obsessed with it. If the US continues to destroy the existing rules based order, will Australian politicians finally grow a spine or will they find ever more creative ways to grovel?
To listen to the podcast, click here.
For Editorial Inquiries Contact:
Editor Kym Bergmann at kym.bergmann@venturamedia.net
For Advertising Inquiries Contact:
Group Sales Director Simon Hadfield at simon.hadfield@venturamedia.net
In all seriousness I can imagine them looking at the Northern Territory and deciding that they will link any military alliance with Australia with us handing over that territory. Probably want hunks of the largely unpopulated northern parts of Queensland and WA as well.
In the current climate, nothing would surprise me.
Kym,
I agree with most of your comments in this podcast; however, I think it is unfair, as most of the media is doing, to blame Maduro for turning the Venezuelan economy into a basket case. That is an apt description, but isn’t it largely the result of many years of US sanctions on various parts of the Venezuelan economy, and currency manipulations by the US? If the US dictates that no-one is to buy Venezuelan oil, then it has no market for its oil and the entire infrastructure required for the production and sale of oil deteriorates. This is the responsibility of the US and not of Maduro’s government.
The other point relates to your comparison of Greenland and Australia as two large islands with relatively small populations and plenty of resources wanted by the US. The difference is that the US already owns Australia and has its agents of influence in Albanese, Wong and Marles giving them everything they want through AUKUS and the Force Posture Agreement. And such agents are firmly embedded in the Opposition, and in defence and security, so the US already has here what it hopes to get in Greenland.
Love your work!
Thanks Mike. Venezuela started going downhill under Hugo Chavez, a hugely controversial figure, who started off with ideas of financial redistribution in favor of the poor (as did Saddam Hussein in Iraq in the 1970s, btw) but much of this was accompanied by repression, the jailing of critics and various other moves that started the exodus of large numbers of people from Venezuela, which now sits at about 7 million, which is about a quarter of the population. Yes, various US measures have made the situation worse, as often is the case with sanctions because the people most affected are the poor no matter which country is the target – Iran, North Korea, Cuba etc. The ruling elites are fine – they will continue to eat lobster and drive luxury cars. Having said that, I often believe it is better for the international community to be jointly trying to do something rather than just watching from a safe distance and wringing their hands.
I believe you are correct in pointing out the difference between Greenland / Denmark and Australia. I’ll have a bit more to say about subservient Australian politicians in the near future.
An interesting Podcast but I disagree with the death of NATO if the U.S. attacks Greenland. If the Orange Adolf does attack Greenland that amounts to an attack on a NATO Member and that means the U.S. will be at war with Europe ( the NATO members anyway) wouldn’t all the U.S. troops and equipment in Europe be Enemy Assets and be seized by NATO ( the U.S. no longer being a member) ? And sent packing without the equipment. Hopefully we never find out.
I think it more likely that NATO will survive less the United States. As for Australia the U.S. would just tell the Australian Government what they want and the Government will happily oblige.
It might be semantics but I’m not sure that NATO without the US would still be NATO. I imagine it would be a form of European alliance with the addition of Canada and Turkey. But would Hungary be in it? Slovenia? I wonder if without the backing of the US, Finland might be under pressure to return to a previous non-aligned position. The command structure would be different and all European countries would have to increase defence spending. Many are, but some are not. Spain has already ruled that out.