By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Colombian President Gustavo Petro expressed concern over a recent U.S. strike, stating there are “hints” the targeted vessel was Colombian and contained Colombian citizens. He agreed with Senator Adam Schiff’s criticism of the strikes, asserting they are illegal and risk escalating conflict. Petro further claimed the attack represents a new war front in the Caribbean, with the real goal being control of oil resources, not combating smuggling. He criticized the U.S. actions as an attempt to seize Venezuelan and Guyanese oil, comparing the situation to events in Gaza.
Read the original article here
President Petro, of Colombia, has made some pretty striking statements. He’s basically saying that the recent attacks on vessels, allegedly by the U.S., might have targeted Colombian assets. And the reason, according to him, is straightforward: “It’s a war for oil.” This, of course, sparks a whole chain of thought, doesn’t it?
The situation, as presented, is murky. The fact that the identities of the deceased from these incidents remain unknown, even after the release of video evidence, raises significant questions. How can a boat be blown up with photographic evidence, and yet no one from the South American ports claims to know anything about it? It’s almost as if there’s a silence that is deafening. This, compounded with the President’s assertions, feels intentionally destabilizing.
Is President Petro using this situation to his advantage? Some speculate that his stance is a diversion from domestic issues like corruption and low approval ratings. Others suggest a more strategic play, possibly aimed at garnering support for a larger vision – perhaps even a “Gran Colombia” – or aligning with other nations. His past statements about NATO and joint exercises with Venezuela fuel these speculations. The backdrop of the Ukrainian war, with reported Colombian involvement, adds another layer of complexity.
The motives being presented are definitely mixed. While the immediate focus is on oil, could there be additional factors at play? Is this just about securing resources, or are there larger geopolitical games? It’s worth remembering that the U.S. has been strengthening ties with Guyana and is deeply involved in its oil production, while there’s clearly a long-standing, contentious relationship with Venezuela, which holds substantial oil reserves. The narrative of a fight for resources certainly fits.
The connection to the historical context, where the U.S. has been accused of using these kinds of aggressive tactics, needs to be considered. The U.S. has a long history of regime change and the strategic manipulation of conflicts. Some believe this current situation could be a repeat of past behavior – provoking a reaction to justify intervention and secure resources. This resonates with a pattern of using military force for economic gain.
The President’s words seem to be setting the stage for a clash. He claims that the U.S. is essentially trying to “harass us to get the oil for free,” as if a war of words might be a precursor for actual warfare. While it’s tempting to dismiss the claims, especially given the current political climate, the underlying questions about resource control and geopolitical maneuvering cannot be overlooked.
Even the way the story is unfolding is strange. There’s the odd detail of blowing up boats without securing evidence or finding an interest in proving a drug cartel’s dominance in the region. It is difficult not to acknowledge that the narrative seems incomplete.
There’s also the persistent undercurrent of the Epstein files and the perceived lack of interest in their release, seemingly pointing to higher-level influence. It adds another layer of skepticism. Even if the documents were released, the political climate is so polarized that they probably wouldn’t make a difference. Those who would believe it already do, and the supporters would find excuses to deny everything.
The situation is a complex web of competing interests and shifting alliances. The US may want the oil and perhaps has a long history of doing whatever it takes to get it. Then again, there are a few different angles to consider – the involvement of cartels, the strategic significance of Russia, and the larger regional power dynamics. Ultimately, President Petro’s words force us to think: is it really that simple?