By Matt Underwood Trump says US may open talks with Venezuela’s Maduro, and that certainly raises some eyebrows. It’s hard not to notice a certain pattern here. He’s got a history of making bold statements about potential actions, and let’s just say, sometimes those words come before a more forceful response. It’s like a pre-emptive announcement, a warning shot, or maybe even a calculated play in a larger game.
The whole situation has a distinct air of a shakedown, doesn’t it? It seems almost obvious in retrospect. Like the playbook is familiar. It’s hard not to recall similar scenarios from the past. Didn’t he employ a similar strategy before… well, you get the idea. It feels like he’s using the “my troops are just passing through” tactic, a tactic often employed in situations with more immediate and, potentially, aggressive consequences.
The big question, of course, is what he wants. Could it be a personal payoff, perhaps an offer Maduro can’t refuse? It’s like a twisted version of “this is a nice country, it’d be a shame if something were to happen to it.” It’s hard to ignore the feeling that this is less about geopolitics and more about, well, a personal negotiation.
This whole matter has a strong connection to Marco Rubio, and his political base. They’re known to have a strong aversion to Latin American leftist regimes. There was even a report of Maduro offering to surrender Venezuela’s wealth to US interests, which was apparently rebuffed. It seemed Rubio and his allies weren’t just looking for an economic deal; they wanted a regime change. Their ideal outcome would be a managed exit for Maduro, allowing the US to install a more aligned leader, someone more amenable to US interests, a leader indebted to the US.
It seems Trump, while initially swayed by Rubio’s influence, might be hesitant about direct military action. He’s not one to shy away from a fight, but he also seems to recognize the potential for a misstep that could backfire. A full-blown invasion would be a huge gamble, a risk he’s unlikely to take. The preferred strategy, it seems, is still to scare Maduro into making a deal, perhaps with air strikes as a final push. But anything beyond that seems unlikely.
One must not overlook a potential distraction from the Epstein files. It’s a recurring theme. The timing of certain actions sometimes suggests an attempt to divert attention. It’s the old “diplomacy first” tactic, before the real action starts. If we’re seeing talks, what is the carrot in this scenario? This is especially pertinent given the timing of other events and announcements.
Let’s be clear; I’m skeptical about these “talks”. It feels like we’re being led down a familiar path, one where words have little value, and the true intentions are hidden beneath the surface. I wouldn’t be surprised if the talks are just a prelude. “Give us the oil or we will keep bombing you,” the script practically writes itself.
The underlying motivation is almost certainly oil, and maybe lithium, given the resources within Venezuela. It’s a classic case of gunboat diplomacy – the strong arm, the threat of force to secure resources. This could be a cover to distract from certain things. The whole thing could be a setup for a false flag attack, either on American vessels or within the US itself, to be blamed on Venezuela.
The focus is on the oil and lithium. It’s a matter of leverage, bullying, and potentially, grifting. It’s about securing a favorable deal, or perhaps a bribe. This is a tactic that has been employed previously. The idea is to get a leader to sign off on a favorable deal, and then hold the next leader accountable.
Ultimately, it boils down to this: Trump wants something from Maduro, most likely oil, and he is going to leverage every tool at his disposal to get it. The talks are likely a means to that end, a way to pressure Maduro into making concessions. It’s a familiar script, a well-worn path, and the outcome remains to be seen.