Trump's desperate destabilizing wars. Invading Venezuela. Gold up. Bitcoin down.

[WillyAp]

Those people should man up and fight Maduro themselves. Why are psychopaths like Machado begging for Americans to sacrifice their lives and waste hundreds of billions of tax dollars to turn another country into rubble?

You need to read:
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/how-venezuela-got-here-a-timeline-of-the-political-crisis-idUSKCN1PJ03O/

[Mate2237]

Most people want Maduro as far way as possible from power, as he is just unfit for the charge, due to his corrupt way to manage a country.

Those people should man up and fight Maduro themselves. Why are psychopaths like Machado begging for Americans to sacrifice their lives and waste hundreds of billions of tax dollars to turn another country into rubble?

The question you should ask yourself is are the people of Venezuela trump is pretending to fight and protect by invading an independent sovereign nation really complaining about the government. We know what this is all about Maduro has not been a friend of Trump and has not been doing the dictates of trump and his American agenda that is why we are seeing all these outburst from trump, others wise I don't see any reason why Trump should be going this way.


Trump to me is still not aware that there seems to be a change in the global economic order that, China, Russia and the Bricks Blocks is now an alternative option for many countries. I don't know why the American parliament has not called for the impeachment of Trump because the fact is ever since Trump came to power in this his second term all his actions knowingly or unknowingly is targeting at destroying the American economy.

[FinneysTrueVision]

You need to read:
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/how-venezuela-got-here-a-timeline-of-the-political-crisis-idUSKCN1PJ03O/

I don’t know what this is supposed to prove. These events culminated in a coup attempt led by Juan Guaido, which failed miserably. The opposition knows how weak they are, which is why their only hope is foreign intervention and giving up their national sovereignty.

The question you should ask yourself is are the people of Venezuela trump is pretending to fight and protect by invading an independent sovereign nation really complaining about the government. We know what this is all about Maduro has not been a friend of Trump and has not been doing the dictates of trump and his American agenda that is why we are seeing all these outburst from trump, others wise I don't see any reason why Trump should be going this way.

Even if everything the Maria Corina Machado supporters want people to believe were true and everyone in Venezuela wanted to remove Maduro, it is not the responsibility of the United States to intervene. The US is not going to invade them to save their democracy or fight terrorists. The reality is far more sinister.

[Renampun]

The US has never cared about the welfare, human rights or democracy in any country. Every war they wage in the name of human rights and world peace is aimed at seizing their own resources and interests. Even what is about to happen in Africa as Trump hints at intervening in Nigeria. They don't care what is going on there and even that is just a trap they created to have a legitimate reason to intervene in Nigeria. Because their close brother France is being kicked out of many African countries.
snip

Exactly, they made war in the name of humanity or to maintain their sovereignty, even though we know that it is only for their own interests, they are not really fighting for anything other than to seize resources from their target country, this is the old way they usually use on countries that they consider weak.

my country was once a victim of America, and we almost lost part of our country's territory because they (America and its allies) argued that our country's government violated human rights and that the region was not part of our country from the past, so they helped the separatist movement to create chaos, but actually the reason for all of that was because they wanted to control the region which had so many gold reserves. luckily at that time the Soviet Union bloc was willing to help, so they were unable to seize it. but after how long the leader of our country at that time was overthrown by his own right hand, and guess what, America succeeded in planting their gold mine in the region they wanted to seize through that president, and until now the company exists and operates.

so I think that the scenario they are using in Venezuela is almost the same, they are making all kinds of excuses to point their guns at Venezuela and at the same time there is an opposition leader (Maria Corina Machado) who they might support to overthrow Maduro, and then if that scenario works, America can come in and control Venezuela.

[pooya87]

my country was once a victim of America, and we almost lost part of our country's territory because they (America and its allies) argued that our country's government violated human rights and that the region was not part of our country from the past, so they helped the separatist movement to create chaos, but actually the reason for all of that was because they wanted to control the region which had so many gold reserves.

Thanks for sharing this. The bold part reminded me of something I recently saw from a former CIA whistleblower John Stockwell about these destabilizing acts we have been discussing in this topic and they've been doing it for decades. Here is the web-generated transcript:

We've set out to overthrow functioning constitutional democracies in over 20 countries.
We manipulated elections in dozens of countries.
We created standing armies and directed them to fight.
We went after to organize ethnic minorities to encourage them to revolt.

The first thing we did in Nicaragua is to go to the mosquito Indians who had never gotten along with the other people in Nicaragua very well and give them more money than they had seen in the entirety of history and arms and training and rational and sanctuaries in Honduras and sent them into Nicaragua to attack, kill, fight, rape, burn, pillage.

And this has been a technique the CIA has used in Nicaragua, in Thailand, in Vietnam, in Laos, in the Congo, in Iran, Iraq, with the Kurds in different parts of the world.

We created, trained, and funded death squads like the Treasury police in El Salvador. And we've assassinated world leaders, including the United States president in 1963. And I'll get to that in more detail in just a moment. You can never be sure how many people are killed in the jungles of of Laos or the hills of Nicaragua. But adding them up as best we can. We come up with a figure of 6 million people killed. Minimum figure. It has to be more than that. These things are all done in countries of the third world where the governments don't have the power to force the United States to stop destabilizing the country and brutalizing their people.

I think these confessions are from back in the late 70's and today the US regime has gotten a million times worse. Apart from separatist groups they are also using terrorist groups, many of which are multinational and act as proxies for this rogue regime to create chaos in many countries.
The most recent example is NATO destroying Syria using these Takfiri terrorist groups. One of these globally recognized terrorists is currently installed by the CIA in Syria as their "president"!

[WillyAp]

You need to read:
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/how-venezuela-got-here-a-timeline-of-the-political-crisis-idUSKCN1PJ03O/

I don’t know what this is supposed to prove. These events culminated in a coup attempt led by Juan Guaido, which failed miserably. The opposition knows how weak they are, which is why their only hope is foreign intervention and giving up their national sovereignty.

The fight to get back to democracy. 

[minairia3]

Trump to me is still not aware that there seems to be a change in the global economic order that, China, Russia and the Bricks Blocks is now an alternative option for many countries. I don't know why the American parliament has not called for the impeachment of Trump because the fact is ever since Trump came to power in this his second term all his actions knowingly or unknowingly is targeting at destroying the American economy.

What he did was not entirely wrong if we put ourselves in the shoes of the US. Because even without a trade war, there is no geopolitical turmoil like what is going on. De-dollarization and the rise of BRICS are also inevitable. Because the world has been tired of the American regime for decades, not just under Trump.

“Even patience has its limits", sooner or later, the rest of the world will rise up against the US. What Trump is doing is only making that happen faster.

In my opinion, America is letting Trump do everything, they are just playing a gamble that they believe they can win. Either they can restore world order and continue to dominate, or they will have to accept defeat. But it seems that scenario 2 is happening instead of scenario 1 as Trump and the US administration expected. Instead of the world being terrified and continuing to suffer under American leadership, the world is rising.

[abhiseshakana]

Exactly, they made war in the name of humanity or to maintain their sovereignty, even though we know that it is only for their own interests, they are not really fighting for anything other than to seize resources from their target country, this is the old way they usually use on countries that they consider weak.

my country was once a victim of America, and we almost lost part of our country's territory because they (America and its allies) argued that our country's government violated human rights and that the region was not part of our country from the past, so they helped the separatist movement to create chaos, but actually the reason for all of that was because they wanted to control the region which had so many gold reserves. luckily at that time the Soviet Union bloc was willing to help, so they were unable to seize it. but after how long the leader of our country at that time was overthrown by his own right hand, and guess what, America succeeded in planting their gold mine in the region they wanted to seize through that president, and until now the company exists and operates.

so I think that the scenario they are using in Venezuela is almost the same, they are making all kinds of excuses to point their guns at Venezuela and at the same time there is an opposition leader (Maria Corina Machado) who they might support to overthrow Maduro, and then if that scenario works, America can come in and control Venezuela.

I don't think it's appropriate to compare Indonesia with Venezuela. From your explanation, the US pattern is to escalate human rights issues, support separatists, and seek control of gold. There's a historical aspect you've overlooked: the regime was very pro-American (not anti-US), and Freeport investment in Indonesia was widely opened in 1967. Therefore, drawing this conclusion is inappropriate, as the US's interest is in a stable gold-rich region under Indonesia, not in separating it.

Why, according to the US, should the gold-rich region remain in Indonesia? The security of US investments, especially Freeport, which was already operating before the conflict, means Freeport should remain with Indonesia, which has a strong military and a government capable of controlling internal conflicts. Furthermore, if Indonesia were to split, small countries like Papua New Guinea, Fiji, and the Solomon Islands would be vulnerable to Chinese advances. The US has never supported separatist movements, and in fact, it forced the Netherlands to surrender to Indonesia to prevent Indonesia from moving closer to the Eastern Bloc. If the US wanted a separate gold-rich region for the sake of gold mining, it should have supported the Netherlands (which wanted an independent gold-rich region) or made it an international territory. The use of human rights issues does not equate to support separatism. Human rights pressure is used by the US to encourage Indonesia to reduce violence, maintain stability in the Freeport operational area, and mitigate NGO pressure.

Meanwhile, Venezuela is clearly an anti-US regime that has nationalized US assets, and Venezuela is friendly with US enemies. The US doesn't need Venezuela to remain intact; the most important thing is that the alliance with anti-US forces is weakened and it can control global oil supplies.

Thanks for sharing this. The bold part reminded me of something I recently saw from a former CIA whistleblower John Stockwell about these destabilizing acts we have been discussing in this topic and they've been doing it for decades. Here is the web-generated transcript:

We've set out to overthrow functioning constitutional democracies in over 20 countries.
We manipulated elections in dozens of countries.
We created standing armies and directed them to fight.
We went after to organize ethnic minorities to encourage them to revolt.

The first thing we did in Nicaragua is to go to the mosquito Indians who had never gotten along with the other people in Nicaragua very well and give them more money than they had seen in the entirety of history and arms and training and rational and sanctuaries in Honduras and sent them into Nicaragua to attack, kill, fight, rape, burn, pillage.

And this has been a technique the CIA has used in Nicaragua, in Thailand, in Vietnam, in Laos, in the Congo, in Iran, Iraq, with the Kurds in different parts of the world.

We created, trained, and funded death squads like the Treasury police in El Salvador. And we've assassinated world leaders, including the United States president in 1963. And I'll get to that in more detail in just a moment. You can never be sure how many people are killed in the jungles of of Laos or the hills of Nicaragua. But adding them up as best we can. We come up with a figure of 6 million people killed. Minimum figure. It has to be more than that. These things are all done in countries of the third world where the governments don't have the power to force the United States to stop destabilizing the country and brutalizing their people.

I think these confessions are from back in the late 70's and today the US regime has gotten a million times worse. Apart from separatist groups they are also using terrorist groups, many of which are multinational and act as proxies for this rogue regime to create chaos in many countries.
The most recent example is NATO destroying Syria using these Takfiri terrorist groups. One of these globally recognized terrorists is currently installed by the CIA in Syria as their "president"!

Analyzing or categorizing many cases into a single pattern seems inappropriate, even though each case has its own distinct dynamics. In geopolitical and geostrategic studies, each conflict has very different actors, interests, and local structures.

Let's take a brief example:

• Indonesia, the issue of decolonization and integration from the 1940s to the 1960s.
• Venezuela, the conflict over political legitimacy and economic sanctions.
• Syria, a multipolar civil war with seven major actors (the US, Russia, Iran, Turkey, the Kurds, ISIS, and the Syrian government).
• Kurdish ethnonationalism predates the US by hundreds of years.

Not all conflicts can be considered US-style; if such a conclusion were drawn, geopolitical and geostrategic analysis would become dogma rather than research.

Stockwell's testimony is relevant to Cold War-era operations, when the CIA conducted intensive covert operations against the Soviet Union. But the global political landscape changed completely after 1991 (the collapse of the Soviet Union), so it's irrelevant to see the CIA's 1975 model as identical to the 2025 model.

In the case of Syria, I assume you're discussing President Ahmed Al-Sharaa, not President Bashar Al-Assad. I see diplomatic relations as distinct from proxy control. The US-Syria rapprochement is a pragmatic approach to normalization (building international legitimacy and national stability), not an ideological loyalist or NATO terrorist puppet president (the jihadist background is absurd). I also enjoy using conspiracy theories, but we must distinguish between diplomatic support/relations and installation/full control in geopolitical discussions.

[Renampun]

Exactly, they made war in the name of humanity or to maintain their sovereignty, even though we know that it is only for their own interests, they are not really fighting for anything other than to seize resources from their target country, this is the old way they usually use on countries that they consider weak.

my country was once a victim of America, and we almost lost part of our country's territory because they (America and its allies) argued that our country's government violated human rights and that the region was not part of our country from the past, so they helped the separatist movement to create chaos, but actually the reason for all of that was because they wanted to control the region which had so many gold reserves. luckily at that time the Soviet Union bloc was willing to help, so they were unable to seize it. but after how long the leader of our country at that time was overthrown by his own right hand, and guess what, America succeeded in planting their gold mine in the region they wanted to seize through that president, and until now the company exists and operates.

so I think that the scenario they are using in Venezuela is almost the same, they are making all kinds of excuses to point their guns at Venezuela and at the same time there is an opposition leader (Maria Corina Machado) who they might support to overthrow Maduro, and then if that scenario works, America can come in and control Venezuela.

snip

I think we can discuss this all night if you want because there is a lot of evidence that how Suharto, the man accused of being a traitor and supported by the US, was able to take power from Sukarno, who was more pro-Soviet bloc, and how John F. Kennedy wanted to control natural resources in Papua and use Suharto as his accomplice.

that's why nowadays many people oppose giving Suharto the title of hero because he is the culprit of how chaotic Indonesia is, even what he did when he took office, such as people from abroad being prohibited from returning to Indonesia, people with long hair can be accused of being thugs, and many other cruel things, it made Indonesia experience setbacks, and that is felt until now.

if you have your own view that what the US is doing is worth doing for "the good of Indonesia itself" just a reminder that these books exist:

• The United States and the Overthrow of Sukarno 1965-67 by Peter Dale Scott, Subversion as Foreign Policy: The Secret Eisenhower and Dulles Debacle in Indonesia by George McT. Kahin, Economists with Guns: Authoritarian Development and US-Indonesian Relations 1960-1968 by Bradley Simpson, and Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA by Tim Weiner.
• The Incubus of Intervention: Conflicting Indonesian Strategies of John F. Kennedy and Allen Dulles.

there is a lot of other evidence that says US involvement in this matter.

[abhiseshakana]

my country was once a victim of America, and we almost lost part of our country's territory because they (America and its allies) argued that our country's government violated human rights and that the region was not part of our country from the past, so they helped the separatist movement to create chaos, but actually the reason for all of that was because they wanted to control the region which had so many gold reserves.

Let's just say I misunderstood your writing and didn't read enough historical literature.
Do you mean separatism, the plan for Papuan independence that would become the precursor to the Free Papua Movement?
If so, which US operations support separatism, and what would be the US's benefit if Papua were independent?

luckily at that time the Soviet Union bloc was willing to help, so they were unable to seize it. but after how long the leader of our country at that time was overthrown by his own right hand, and guess what, America succeeded in planting their gold mine in the region they wanted to seize through that president, and until now the company exists and operates.

If I'm not mistaken, you're discussing the G30SPKI. I don't deny that the CIA played a major role in this event, but the Indonesian Communist Party was not a US creation. In the context of the Cold War, US initiatives and support are still logical. Let's not forget the history of the brutal massacre of tens of thousands of Indonesians by the Indonesian Communist Party and the coup d'état that proclaimed the Republic of Soviet Indonesia, Execution pits filled with corpses were found everywhere. President Sukarno failed to stop the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) despite numerous demands to ban and disband it. The PKI remained unbanned, but instead underwent reconstruction and grew until 1965.

so they helped the separatist movement to create chaos

You're drawing a single pattern from two cases with very different actors, contexts, goals, and outcomes. The G30S/PKI incident was an internal conflict related to a national power struggle at the height of the Cold War; Papua is a decolonization dispute and ongoing identity movement. Combining the two into universal evidence is methodologically flawed. Focus on sentences "US-driven separatism for resources"  are logically flawed and contradicts historical evidence.

if you have your own view that what the US is doing is worth doing for "the good of Indonesia itself" just a reminder that these books exist:

• The United States and the Overthrow of Sukarno 1965-67 by Peter Dale Scott, Subversion as Foreign Policy: The Secret Eisenhower and Dulles Debacle in Indonesia by George McT. Kahin, Economists with Guns: Authoritarian Development and US-Indonesian Relations 1960-1968 by Bradley Simpson, and Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA by Tim Weiner.
• The Incubus of Intervention: Conflicting Indonesian Strategies of John F. Kennedy and Allen Dulles.

there is a lot of other evidence that says US involvement in this matter.

Your assumption is baseless. Nothing in my writing justifies the US acting in Indonesia's best interest.

The US's support for certain actors (providing equipment, intelligence, and diplomatic support) certainly has economic and political motives for US national interests, but support is not the same as full control.
The correct explanation, historically and geopolitically, is that the US supports Indonesia (not the separatists) to ensure Papua remains under the control of the central government, allowing stable mining operations/exploration/explotation by US companies.

Your reference books describe CIA operations during the Cold War era, 1950–1970. This era saw Indonesia as the main front against the Soviet Union, with Sukarno's Jakarta–Beijing–Moscow axis. Indonesia became the country with the largest communist party outside the Soviet Union. The CIA still operated under a Cold War mandate, and the world remained bipolar. The current situation has changed completely. The Soviet Union has collapsed, Indonesia is no longer a proxy battlefield like in 1965, Indonesian government institutions are stronger, and open Cold War-style interventions are outdated and incompatible with the current structure of international law. History doesn't work by copying and pasting. Excessive analogies actually weaken geopolitical analysis, as the global political economy is highly dynamic and complex.

Without defending Suharto, those who learn from history are naturally quick to criticize, and the reality is that corruption, collusion, and nepotism were rife during that era. But let's not forget that the 1960s were the New Order era, and Indonesia was in a post-independence transition period. It needed rapid funding and development, needed major investors and political/military support for stability, lacked bargaining power, and a weak government lacking experience negotiating large-scale contracts. This resulted in an illusion of rapid development, with the appearance of significant investment but suboptimal long-term benefits.

Initially, President Suharto's actions were misguided, pragmatic policies, or erroneous/risky political decisions influenced by short-term factors (the image of development), thus harming the country's long-term interests. An analogy could be drawn when Sri Mulyani successfully eliminated massive tax defaulters, who were considered a hero, but whose strict fiscal policies ultimately made her a loser.

[pooya87]

Analyzing or categorizing many cases into a single pattern seems inappropriate, even though each case has its own distinct dynamics. In geopolitical and geostrategic studies, each conflict has very different actors, interests, and local structures.

True, but I'm not categorizing many cases I am talking about one entity which is the US regime and they always had a small number of doctrines which they execute for different cases. So it is indeed a pattern.

Stockwell's testimony is relevant to Cold War-era operations, when the CIA conducted intensive covert operations against the Soviet Union. But the global political landscape changed completely after 1991 (the collapse of the Soviet Union), so it's irrelevant to see the CIA's 1975 model as identical to the 2025 model.

We have to study the past and know how the enemy operates to understand the present and be able to predict the future. These tactics have not changed at all. The US regime has been doing the same exact things in every country they've destroyed and are doing the same thing to nations they wish to destroy.

You can find similar whistleblowers, similar declassified confessions of the US regime itself, and unlimited amount of evidence on same tactics being used today as well.
If you like I can give you more intelligence on what the US regime is currently doing to Iran since after Iran crushed the NATO-Zionist-Takfiri axis in June this year, the axis has been trying to attack Iran from all sides using small but numerous terrorist groups that operate as separatists with CIA training and arms.

In the case of Syria, I assume you're discussing President Ahmed Al-Sharaa, not President Bashar Al-Assad. I see diplomatic relations as distinct from proxy control. The US-Syria rapprochement is a pragmatic approach to normalization (building international legitimacy and national stability), not an ideological loyalist or NATO terrorist puppet president (the jihadist background is absurd). I also enjoy using conspiracy theories, but we must distinguish between diplomatic support/relations and installation/full control in geopolitical discussions.

It's not conspiracy theories, you just don't know the history my friend.
I am talking about abu-Muhammad al-Jolani a well known and internationally recognized terrorist who was a deputy of ISIS and created a new terrorist branch out of al-Qaeda a little more than a decade ago called Jibhat al-Nusrah. He has changed his name, his terrorist group's name and his clothes multiple times ever since as his American handlers (like the US ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford) taught him. His most recent name is Ahmad al-Sharaa but he is still the same terrorist who sat between these two other al-Qaeda deputies the first time he showed his face back in 2016:

Do you want me to translate what he said in this video and how he started his speech by praising another US regime's operatives/proxies called Bin Ladan?
From praising Bin Ladan to praising Trump LOL: