Recent posts

#1

Off the Record / Re: US - Greenland Crisis Thre...

Last post by The Minsky Moment - January 06, 2026, 10:34:33 PM

You keep harping about logistics being dependent on the US but I really don't know where you get that idea from. France alone has 67 heavy airlift planes and 14 tanker/refueling planes. Brits have 30 heavy airlift and 14 tankers.

Yeah my thoughts on this are similar to when the question came up in the other thread whether Germany could move troops across the country.  Of course they could.  And of course Europe could move troops to Greenland. They have boats and planes, they have people that can use them.  You can debate how many and how fast, and whether the transport operation would meet the highest of operational standards.  But it could be done.

#2

Off the Record / Re: US - Greenland Crisis Thre...

Last post by The Minsky Moment - January 06, 2026, 10:27:47 PM

Sheilbh has a theory that they have local collaborators in Venezuela already, they're just rolling it out slowly.

It would be competent.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to do it that way.

It does appear that CIA was trying to work some key players in the government to try to engineer something like this, but then Trump prematurely took action to grab Maduro before a real plan was in place. It makes no sense to do this before you have the post-Maduro plan reasonably in place.

I might be willing to entertain the contrary if I had any level of confidence in the coherence of the administration decision making process.  But there is no process at all. It's a scrum of courtiers and caporegimes scheming to shove half-baked ideas in front of the President's eyes (and pen) before his day old puppy attention span shifts. 

It also doesn't help that Trump's understanding of the Venezuelan oil industry and reserves and what would be involved to monetize them is so comically naive.

Occam's razor - if it looks half-baked and comes out of a process we know is badly flawed, it probably is what it looks like.

#3

Off the Record / Re: Trump's Venezuela Vendetta

Last post by Valmy - January 06, 2026, 08:52:26 PM

Yeah, I read all that.  We don't even have the concept of a plan.  It's just rambling nonsense.  It's like rule by meme.  I don't care that much about Venezuela, but I really prefer the US doesn't try to occupy the country.  I'm not that enthused with the "take their oil" idea that Trump is talking about.

Some Democrats want to defend Maduro, but I'm not one of them.  I would have preferred if we just continued ignoring Venezuela, like we have done for the last two decades.  They didn't seem to be much of a threat.  Still, I'm not going to complain too much that the guy was captured.  Unless the country falls into civil war or the US invades.  Then I will complain quite a bit.

I guess I am not clear how important Maduro even is. This isn't like taking out Hugo Chavez, It is possible Maduro was just the dude at the top of an establish regime that has been in power for decades now. He seems to me to be easily replaceable. But I could be wrong, maybe he was this charismatic leader and without him the whole thing collapses. I don't know for sure.

The thing to complain about is just going into another country and capturing their President. Not that this asshole was worth defending. And, of course, now if some disaster occurs because of this it is now our fault.

Of course we also have to have some kind of legal basis of putting him on trial and finding him guilty of a crime.

#4

Off the Record / Re: Trump's Venezuela Vendetta

Last post by Tonitrus - January 06, 2026, 08:52:13 PM

I haven't heard of any Dems defending Maduro.

#5

Off the Record / Re: Trump's Venezuela Vendetta

Last post by Razgovory - January 06, 2026, 08:47:53 PM

I would like to know what are government is actually planning to do with Venezuela.

From what Syt posted above:

"What we are going to react to is very simple: what do you do? Not what you're saying publicly, what happens... Do the drugs stop coming? Are the changes made? Is Iran expelled? Is Hezbollah and Iran no longer able to operate against our interests from Venezuela?" (Watch)
"It's running policy — the policy with regards to this. We want Venezuela to move in a certain direction because not only do we think it's good for the people of Venezuela, it's in our national interest."

... it sounds like "nothing". The US doesn't in fact have Venezuela, so they (you) are not going to do anything with it.

It sounds to me like they expected Venezuela to suddenly take direction from the US because Maduro was abducted. And, I suppose, they'll potentially take other similar (non-Congressional-approval-requiring) short limited actions to look strong and attempt to intimidate Venezuela's leadership if the leadership doesn't improve in that "certain direction".

Which I expect Venezuela won't.

Maybe they'll abduct the VP next?

Yeah, I read all that.  We don't even have the concept of a plan.  It's just rambling nonsense.  It's like rule by meme.  I don't care that much about Venezuela, but I really prefer the US doesn't try to occupy the country.  I'm not that enthused with the "take their oil" idea that Trump is talking about.

Some Democrats want to defend Maduro, but I'm not one of them.  I would have preferred if we just continued ignoring Venezuela, like we have done for the last two decades.  They didn't seem to be much of a threat.  Still, I'm not going to complain too much that the guy was captured.  Unless the country falls into civil war or the US invades.  Then I will complain quite a bit.

#6

Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...

Last post by Jacob - January 06, 2026, 08:14:00 PM

Admiral Yi - the UK may have judged that the likelihood of the US engaging in armed conflict with a Wuropean country, but the White House is discussing it as an option according to the BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyg1jg8xkmo

The White House said on Tuesday: "The president and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the US military is always an option at the Commander-in-Chief's disposal."

#7

Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...

Last post by HisMajestyBOB - January 06, 2026, 07:57:06 PM

They say misery loves company but doesn't hearten me much to see the complacency and incompetence of the Democrats in the face of an existantial threat seems to be a political phenomenon throughout the western world for non extremist political parties.

No kidding. I can't even enjoy books about WW2 now because I keep thinking about the contrast between leaders then and now. Churchill didn't say he was "monitoring the situation" when Hitler invaded Poland.

#8

Off the Record / Re: US - Greenland Crisis Thre...

Last post by Zoupa - January 06, 2026, 07:42:47 PM

A couple of thoughts....

You keep harping about logistics being dependent on the US but I really don't know where you get that idea from. France alone has 67 heavy airlift planes and 14 tanker/refueling planes. Brits have 30 heavy airlift and 14 tankers.

The reason the US was involved in the Sahel operations is because they wanted to be.

#9

Off the Record / Re: US - Greenland Crisis Thre...

Last post by Valmy - January 06, 2026, 07:27:21 PM

Sheilbh has a theory that they have local collaborators in Venezuela already, they're just rolling it out slowly.

It would be competent.

Does he? Sorry Sheilbh, you have to be the biggest sucker around to think these guys secretly have a plan. George W Bush didn't.

#10

Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...

Last post by HVC - January 06, 2026, 07:25:28 PM

Not even to buy time? If there no current alternative is there really an option?

Like surrendering the Sudetenland bought time?  I don't see how contracting with Palantir does that.

I don't think surrendering the Sudetenland provided an opportunity and time to create an alternative Sudetenland, but I guess it's possible

Not saying that europe is creating an alternative (which would be the smart thing to do) but if there really is no current alternative like sheilbh says then signing a contract until such an alternative becomes available would be something a country in their right mind would do even if they believe they might be at war in the future, would it not?