Comment by afavour
3 days ago
> Venezuela can have a real election now
Assuming the US wants and will allow that. Which isn’t at all clear, given the desire to get a hold of Venezuelan oil.
3 days ago
> Venezuela can have a real election now
Assuming the US wants and will allow that. Which isn’t at all clear, given the desire to get a hold of Venezuelan oil.
> ... we're making that decision now. We can't take a chance on letting somebody else run it, just take over where he left off. So we're making that decision
they have already signaled that this is not what will be allowed to happen
Yes. I am generally dumbfolded on how many of these comments trying to explain the situation completely ignore oil, when it is the main drive for US going to war in the last 50 years. This _is_ an oil motivated attack no doubt
it would 100% be somebody who is aligned with far-right Trumpian values. so basically a fascist kleptocrat a la Bolsonaro, Putin, Orban, et al.
a la Juan Guaidó
The US has no use for Venezuelan oil. The US is sitting on a vast reserve of relatively good quality oil and is pumping as much as the global markets can handle. Venezuela is sitting on massive reserves of low quality, difficult to process oil.
The US goal is deprive China of access to Venezuelan oil. China is ~80% of all Venezuelan oil exports (legal or illegal). Venezuela represents a very large potential supply of oil for China, for the next 30-50 years (a time after which oil probably won't matter very much to China).
Note that the US also did not take Iraq's oil. China & India mostly have got that output. The US spent trillions of dollars, used its super power military to fully invade and occupy Iraq, and then did not take its oil. Read that again if anybody still feels brainwashed from the false campaign that endlessly proclaimed the US invasion of Iraq was to Steal The Oil.
Iraq was about the great power conflict with Russia across the Middle East (see: Syria, Libya, etc).
Venezuela is about the great power conflict with China and controlling what the US considers its backyard.
> The US has no use for Venezuelan oil. The US is sitting on a vast reserve of relatively good quality oil and is pumping as much as the global markets can handle.
First, our oil tends to be better for making gasoline but worse did asphalt or diesel, so there is a market for Venezuelan oil replacing Alberta’s.
Second, this is what the man himself has been talking about. He spent weeks going on about the nationalization in the 70s–and note how much of his worldview is stuck half a century ago when he was young—and in the first interview today he said this: “We’re going to have our very large US oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure, and start making money for the country and we are ready to stage a second and much larger attack if we need to do so. So we were prepared to do a second wave.”
There are reasonable arguments about how much this is really worth but one thing we’ve learned is that he doesn’t do subterfuge or misdirection well. If he’s talking about making the world safe for Exxon, I’d bet that he believes it.
> The US has no use for Venezuelan oil.
Actually it's just the exact opposite. The US might be the biggest oil producer, but it still imports 60% of its oil that it uses from Canada. Why is that? Apparently because US infrastructure was built for heavy oil, not the light version the US produces.
Well, well, well ... It just so happens that Venezuela sits on the worlds largest repository of heavy oil.
The US consumes about 20 mil bbls of oil per day and imports around 4 mil bbls per day from Canada, about 20% of US consumption. Total oil imports is about 6 mil bbls/day, with about 2/3 of imports coming from Canada.
Two fun facts: 1) the US is now the largest producer of crude oil on the planet and 2) the US exports about 4 mil bbs of oil per day. Venezuela is a distant #18 at around 1 mil bbls/day
And lastly, pretty much anything you can distil from heavy crude, you can also distil from light crude, just less of it (by volume). There's a reason tar, asphalt and such is so cheap, it's made from the distillation waste products.
1 reply →
“The US has no use for Venezuelan oil.”
> Trump also said he believes that American companies will be “heavily involved” in rebuilding Venezuela’s oil infrastructure.
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c5yqygxe41pt
Considering this was one of his first statements on what happened, I think it’s a clear signal for what his priorities are.
We are straight back to the Reagan years of toppling regimes for our own resource interests. There is no way we did this out of the kindness of our hearts or because we believe in open, free elections. We have clear material interests and he’s not even trying to hide it.
Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy (/s obviously) but let’s not pretend this was some sort of magnanimous gesture or that it shouldn’t be deeply concerning to their neighbors that the US has no problem attacking a sovereign nation’s capital city and making off with a country’s leader + family when we’re not even at war.
Again I am not losing sleep for Maduro specifically but the way this was handled is not something that should be simply glossed over because of who he was and how he came to power, and we should definitely not pretend “the US has no use for Venezuelan oil.”
Agreed, and it would have played out the same if Trump liked the abduction of the Dalai Llama for Tibetan oil.
the president just announced that they are directing US companies to take control of Venezuelan oil.
Sure, and it's silly. There's very little oil in Venezuela that isn't too expensive to extract.
1 reply →
Before the invasion, influence and control was iraqi state owned. Afterwards, it was controlled by the US government up to ~2011. Then the western oil companies had influence. So sure they didn’t use it but they can dictate where it goes.
> Venezuela is about the great power conflict with China and controlling what the US considers its backyard.
Sure, can you extend that idea to China v Taiwan?
"Taiwan is about the great power conflict with US and controlling what the China considers its backyard."
Sure: it would be dumb for Washington through inaction to allow China to become secure in its region like the US is secure in its region because then China would be free to intervene all over the world, like the US does and has done for 80 years, which would be bad for the US, so Washington should try to prevent it.
In short, great-power competition is mostly zero-sum, and intuitions derived from relations between individuals in a civilized society mostly do not apply.
The US may have no use for Venezuelan oil, but Venezuela nationalized US investments in 1976, stealing Exxon and Gulf Oil's assets then paying them back a pittance.
Venezuela owes those companies several billion in 1976 dollars, money they have not repaid. The US will now likely use their oil as collateral to force them to pay. No I am not dumb enough to think they will stop only there or do this in a justifiable way, but I would assert, when someone steals something from you, you have the right to use force to get it back, even if the method just used is not the right one.
I'm fairly certain that there's a large segment of the population who would deeply dislike that rationale, especially if it's applied consistently to all past actions (cough slavery)
1 reply →
Where do you draw the line in the list of "not the right [method]"? I would assert that this is not justified, (in addition to not being the right method).
Can we send troops down there and just starting kill people until they pay us? Torture them maybe? Start spraying agent orange?
If someone steals something from me, I'm justified in beating them up, threatening their family, maybe even burning their house down until I get what I want, 50 years later?
Where do you draw the line between justified and unjustified when it comes to "not the right [method]"?
Conveniently leaving out over 100 years of US involvement in Venezuela and stealing of natural resources huh.
Then let Exxon and Gulf Oil try to use force to get it back. Why should I be forced to help them?
7 replies →
Then why isn't Trump saying this in his speech. Instead he's talking about Venezuela emptying it's prisons into the US and making cities he sent the NG to crime ridden because the Democratic leaders failed or some such rationalization.
Because he doesn’t write his speeches.
> The US has no use for Venezuelan oil
Someone should tell Trump that because he’s not been remotely subtle about his thought process.
> Note that the US also did not take Iraq's oil
That doesn’t mean there was no desire to take that oil. And there very transparently was. Looking at the end result and working backwards is faulty thinking. The US disastrously mismanaged Iraq. They certainly didn’t intend to.
>Someone should tell Trump that because he’s not been remotely subtle about his thought process.
Maybe Trump just believes it'll be a good lie for his target demographic, because it certainly is a lie.
5 replies →