TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 argues that while global focus is on Venezuela, Mexico, Cuba, and Colombia, Donald Trump quietly put Canada in the hot seat, presenting the Venezuelan operation as an opening salvo against the British empire. He frames Trump’s actions as not about Maduro alone but as a broader assault on imperial structures. Speaker 1 discusses the perceived death toll from drugs and asserts a real number of 300,000, noting drugs entering primarily through the southern border and also through Canada, implying this is part of a wider systemic issue. Speaker 0 notes that mainstream headlines focus on familiar targets, while the Toronto Globe and Mail editorially warns that Venezuela’s fate is a warning to Canada. The New York Times is described as framing this as another regime change operation from the Bush era that will split the MAGA movement, with Marjorie Taylor Greene contributing to that narrative. The Democratic Party is said to be shrieking about Trump’s actions, with some calling for impeachment. Former British MI6 head John Bolton is cited as recognizing that the operation is not a regime change. Speaker 0 and others present the view that this is a surgical strike against the British empire’s irregular warfare and the nexus of narcotics trafficking, terrorism, and the London-centered banking system. Susan Kokinda introduces herself as someone who has tracked offshore banking since the 1970s and claims this is the first time someone is taking on that system, namely Donald Trump, urging viewers to engage with Promethean Action for deeper analysis. Speaker 2 clarifies the big picture: there is not a war against Venezuela, but a war against drug trafficking organizations, arguing that the largest oil reserves are controlled by adversaries of the United States and misappropriated by oligarchs, including in Venezuela. The speaker emphasizes that the target is oligarchs and drug trafficking organizations, not socialism or communism. Speaker 0 connects oligarchs and drug trafficking with the British empire, describing Canada as run by the empire’s central bankers (notably Mark Carney) and as a major political outpost in North America used for drug trafficking, illegal immigration, and terrorism. This frame contrasts Trump’s actions with the cartels and highlights Canada’s role as part of the broader imperial apparatus. Speaker 3 (Sir John Soros) cautions against calling it regime change, noting Maduro has been abducted and taken to the U.S. to stand trial, but saying the army remains in power and the regime’s legal structures persist. He acknowledges the operation is not the same as Iraq’s regime change and notes Trump’s reluctance to deploy large-scale ground forces. John Bolton adds that Maduro has been removed from power, but the regime remains, and there is ambiguity about Trump’s thinking regarding Machado. Speaker 0 reiterates that this is not regime change but irregular warfare, with the United States pushing back against the empire’s rules-based order. The narrative argues that Trump is targeting the offshore banking system that finances terrorism, cartels, and the destruction of sovereign nations, including the London-centered financial network and its secrecy jurisdictions established in the 1960s. Prominent voices, including Tom Luongo and Crypto Rich, are cited to support the view that the British empire’s financial system and the rules-based order have long protected nonstate actors, NGOs, and cartels, and that Trump’s actions represent breaking those rules to defeat the imperial system. The piece frames the operation as the United States taking on irregular warfare and challenging the offshore financial framework that underpins global illicit activities, including narcotics trafficking and terrorism. Bottom line presented: Trump has launched a major offensive against the city of London’s offshore banking system and has targeted Canada as part of this broader strategy, signaling a shift from conventional regime-change thinking to irregular warfare against imperial financial and geopolitical structures.

Professor Sachs believes Trump's tariffs are pure protectionism based on flawed reasoning, not a negotiating tactic. Trump wrongly sees trade deficits as unfairness, when they reflect America's overspending due to large budget deficits. Sachs attributes this situation to a corrupted political system and the president's overreach of emergency powers. He notes the policies are destabilizing, against American business interests, and potentially illegal. Sachs suggests the world should move forward on open trade without the U.S. to avoid a domino effect of protectionism reminiscent of the 1930s. He hopes Europe and China can negotiate trade shifts. Sachs notes the dollar is weakening, signaling declining confidence in the U.S. economy and leadership. He argues the dollar's preeminence will decline due to the rise of other nations, technological advancements, and the weaponization of the dollar through sanctions, pushing BRICS countries towards non-dollar settlements. China is trying to stabilize the international system but recognizes the U.S. system is hostile. China is gradually internationalizing the renminbi, developing non-dollar payments, and diversifying its foreign exchange reserves. Sachs concludes that the U.S. is overplaying its hand with a delusional view of American power, leading to a dangerous period.

The discussion centers on claims that the CIA has long been involved in Venezuela, has enabled drug trafficking, and now seeks a visible foothold in the country to counter Russia and China. Speaker 0 argues CNN’s report that the CIA will establish a foothold in Venezuela is emblematic of a duplicative pattern: the CIA has supposedly enabled the drug trade for decades, so the attack on Venezuela cannot be about drugs if the CIA is involved. They cite Kevin Shipp, a CIA whistleblower, who said the CIA has been involved in Venezuela since at least the Cartel of the Sun, run by a general who was a CIA proxy and helped reconstruct Venezuela’s intelligence service to penetrate the government. The general cited is General Ramon Gulen, described as running narcotics and creating and running the Cartel of the Sun. The Cartel is portrayed as a pretext used by the Trump administration to stage attacks and operate around Congress, with the CIA behind past secret dealings tied to it. Speaker 0 then references a 60 Minutes piece from the 1990s reported on by mainstream media that allegedly showed the CIA collaborating with Venezuelan National Guard generals who moved tons of cocaine into the United States. The discussion moves to John Kerry, who led the Contra Cocaine Investigation in the mid-1980s, seeking to determine US government involvement in the contra drug trade. The Reagan administration resisted, stonewalled the Senate, and monitored the probe. The HITS report (the CIA inspector general report authorized under inspector general Frederick HITS) is described as concluding in the late 1990s that while the CIA did not officially participate in cocaine trafficking during the Contra War, it knowingly maintained relationships with and protected numerous contra-linked individuals and organizations involved in the drug trade when operationally useful, to keep the contra war alive and to maintain US objectives in Central America, even if it meant enabling and protecting drug lords. It also states the CIA hid this from Congress, contributing to drugs entering the United States. The Iran-Contra connection is summarized as arms to Iran generating cash to fund the Contras, with the same network tied to cocaine trafficking, implying a single pipeline of influence and criminal activity. The speakers discuss media coverage and relationships with locals in Venezuela, questioning the claimed “relationship-building” as a cover for coercive activities, given sanctions that harm locals. They criticize the notion that the CIA is simply building positive ties, suggesting instead a pattern of disruption and control. The dialogue then shifts to geopolitics: Venezuela reportedly traded oil with BRICS outside the petrodollar since at least 2017, which is framed as undermining US global oil hegemony. A recent move to settle oil transactions in yuan is mentioned, with a snide remark that the CIA’s presence in Venezuela aims to prevent any free-trade diversification away from the petrodollar. The claim is made that the CIA’s objective is to prevent alternative global trade arrangements and maintain US influence by blocking competition from Russia, China, and BRICS members. Speaker 3 adds that the CIA’s actions align with a long-standing pattern of intervention, suggesting that the agency’s open, unapologetic approach reflects a broader strategy of tension, where a third of the population would support such actions, a third would oppose, and a third remain indifferent. They reference Operation Mockingbird and the presence of CIA-linked figures in media, including Mike Pompeo as a Fox News contributor, arguing that mainstream outlets act as channels for the deep state’s messaging, with information often flowing from the CIA to outlets like the New York Times. In sum, the discussion argues that US intervention in Venezuela is less about drugs or democracy and more about strategic counteraction to Russian, Chinese, and BRICS influence, with a long history of CIA involvement in drug trafficking and media manipulation. The speakers invite audience reactions on these points.

In this conversation, the speakers discuss a high-profile operation centered on Maduro’s kidnapping, its implications, and broader geopolitical consequences. - The operation to capture Maduro is described as not a regime change but an action intended to “hold off Maduro, get US control of the oil, and get China and Russia and Iran out.” A senior Venezuelan security official is identified as a full cooperator with the United States, allowing US forces to enter “the front door” with minimal resistance and no return fire. The plan reportedly involved a coordinated assault with Venezuelan forces, and while several air defenses were destroyed or not activated, most were not deployed due to a stand-down order. The operation did not replace the Venezuelan government; Maduro remained in power, at least for the moment. - For context on the execution, Speaker 1, who has experience scripting Delta Force and SEAL Team Six exercises, notes the mission took place in full moonlight (unusual for planned clandestine night operations). He claims the Venezuelan air defenses were substantial but largely avoided activation because of the stand-down order, enabling a seamless entry for US forces. He compares this to a counterterrorism exercise in the US years earlier—staged surveillance and pre-positioned access that eliminated obstacles in advance. - Casualties and aftermath are uncertain. There are conflicting reports on casualties among Cubans and Venezuelans, with no clear names or numbers yet confirmed. The operation involved collaboration with Venezuelan forces and did not topple the Maduro regime. - On the motive and internal dynamics, Speaker 1 suggests multiple potential actors within Maduro’s circle could have incentives to cooperate with the US, possibly including financial or visa-based incentives. The possibility of infiltrators within intelligence, military, or police is raised. The role of a specific senior official who allegedly ordered a stand-down is mentioned, though not named. - Questions about the rocket attack on a US chopper are raised, with speculation that it might have been a lone actor or a malfunction rather than a deliberate act by a large organized force. - The discussion turns to the interim president Delcy Rodríguez. While theories exist that she cooperated with the US, Speaker 1 says that the theory of her involvement is likely a cover story designed to divert attention from those actually involved. - The broader geopolitical frame emphasizes that this is not about regime change in Venezuela, but about oil access and limiting adversaries. The conversation suggests a recurring US strategy: remove Maduro, gain oil leverage, and push rivals like China, Russia, and Iran out of influence. The hypothesis includes using economic and political pressure and, if necessary, military options, while acknowledging the risk of drawing wider regional opposition and potential escalation. - The discussion then broadens to the US role in the multipolar order. The speakers debate whether the world is tilting toward a multipolar system or a reinforced US unipolar order. They agree that the reality is mixed: Russia and China are building a new international order with India and Brazil, while US actions—such as threats against Venezuela, arms packages to Taiwan, and support for Ukraine—signal both erosion of hegemony and attempts to sustain influence. - The Monroe Doctrine is critiqued. The speakers contend that the so-called Dunro Doctrine (a term they use to describe perceived US interference) misreads the historical framework. They argue that the Monroe Doctrine was never a proclamation of exclusive US dominance in the Western Hemisphere; instead, the US has historically faced resistance as other powers gain influence. - Iran and the Middle East are discussed at length. The twelve-day war (in reference to Iran’s confrontation with Israel) is described as not severely weakening Iran militarily, though it has economic and political strains. Iran’s allies (Russia, China) have become more engaged since sanctions relief began in September, and Iran has pursued stronger economic ties with both Russia and China, including a potential North–South Corridor. Iran reportedly rejected a mutual defense treaty with Russia initially but later pursued stronger cooperation after the conflict. Iran’s leadership is described as consolidating power and preparing for potential future conflicts, while the protests inside Iran are depicted as largely manufactured or at least amplified by Western intelligence networks, though there is genuine internal discontent over currency and economic conditions. - The panelists debate whether the US could or would attempt another targeted strike on Iranian leadership. They argue that the US would face greater risk and likely casualties if attempting a similar operation without a compatible insider network, making a repeat Maduro-like capture unlikely. - Final reflections acknowledge that the US’s global influence is eroding, but the US remains deeply involved in global affairs. The discussion ends with a cautionary stance toward US hegemonic assumptions and recognition of a rising multipolar framework in which China, Russia, and allied states exert greater influence in Latin America, the Middle East, and beyond.

Speaker 0 argues that financial warfare could destabilize Venezuela and Brazil and help end the war in Ukraine with “one move,” specifically via $20 oil. He notes his awareness of Lincoln Gordon, US ambassador to Brazil in 1964 during a successful coup, and says he does not advocate that today, but Eduardo mentioned this idea. He contends that Venezuela is utterly dependent on oil and Brazil is dependent as well, suggesting financial techniques to destabilize both countries as the most powerful approach. He mentions the possibility of bombing labs or cartel depots in Venezuela but insists that there are better ways—financial warfare being the number one method. He recalls discussing the tactic with Peter Navarro last summer and emphasizes that there are many powerful techniques beyond kinetic means. Speaker 1 questions the practicality of oil being priced at $20 per barrel, noting that such a price would bankrupt frackers and that Saudi Arabia’s finances depend on higher oil prices, since lifting costs are around $60. He asks how the rest of the dominoes would fall if oil is set at $20. He invites Speaker 0 to name the “poison,” acknowledging Saudi Arabia as a factor, and contends that oil may head toward lower prices for reasons unrelated to financial warfare. Speaker 0 responds that Saudi Arabia could be affected by the strategy, and reiterates that the core point is to hurry up and act, while acknowledging many other techniques exist beyond financial warfare. He reiterates that there are many methods to destabilize these countries—banking system disruptions, hacking, power grid disruptions—and argues that Bolsonaro’s direction in Brazil is favorable from his perspective. He emphasizes that while kinetic options exist, there are very powerful financial techniques that could be used to achieve the aim. Overall, the discussion centers on using financial warfare—particularly manipulating oil prices around $20 per barrel and employing banking, cyber, and infrastructure disruption—as the primary, non-kinetic means to destabilize Brazil and Venezuela and influence geopolitical outcomes, including pressuring Russia and signaling Putin to take notice.

The discussion centers on the Venezuelan political crisis, U.S. involvement, and historical precedents of regime change in the region. The speakers contrast current military buildup around Venezuela with past Latin American coups, and they assess domestic support, international dynamics, and potential outcomes. - Venezuela under Maduro: Speaker 0 notes a broader deployment of military infrastructure than in recent Latin American coups, implying heightened risk or intensity of any intervention. Speaker 1 counters that domestically there is a “rally around the flag” effect in response to U.S. threats, with about 20% of Venezuelans supporting U.S. military intervention and over 55% opposing it. - Regime-change calculus: The conversation asks for the value of regime change when Maduro is willing to open the Venezuelan market to the U.S. Speaker 1 responds that there is no clear political or economic value to regime change; the predicted consequences would include a massive migration wave, civil war, and higher oil prices. They discuss the implications of implementing a regime-change strategy in the Venezuelan context. - Cartel of the Suns: The Cartel of the Suns is discussed as a U.S.-designated terrorist group. Speaker 1 explains that the designation emerged from a DOJ/intelligence collaboration during the Trump era, with William Barr involved in pursuing Maduro. The term traces back to the Reagan era, when the CIA and DEA allegedly allowed drug trafficking through Venezuela to monitor routes, revealing a long history of U.S. involvement in narco-trafficking networks as a tool of influence. Ramon Guillen Davia is named as a Venezuelan National Guard contact, with broader exposure through media such as a 60 Minutes segment and a New York Times expose by Tim Weiner. The cartel’s earlier existence and its resurfacing in U.S. legal actions are tied to broader U.S. efforts to delegitimize Maduro’s government. - Venezuelan political history since Chavez: Speaker 1 outlines Chavez’s rise and popularity (e.g., reducing extreme poverty by 60% before sanctions), the 2002 coup attempt led by opposition figures including Leopoldo Lopez, and the subsequent public support for Chavez when the people protested to restore him. They describe “La Salida” in 2004–2014 as an opposition strategy funded by U.S. entities (NED, USAID) to depose Chavez, with various protests and riots that damaged the economy. After Chavez, Maduro faced U.S. sanctions and a narrative of illegitimacy framed by the opposition’s efforts to install Guaidó as a parallel government in 2019, enabling asset seizures and embargos on Venezuela’s Sitco assets. - 2019 events and aftermath: The 2019 U.S.-backed attempt to install Juan Guaido as interim president is described, including the staged “humanitarian aid” convoy at the Colombia border which failed; Guaidó’s association with Las Bratas (the Las Frastrojos cartel members) is cited as a public-relations embarrassment, corroborated by major outlets. Leopoldo Lopez is described as a persistent organizer of opposition efforts, connected to a broader U.S.-funded framework through the CIA’s ecosystem (Canvas, Einstein Institute), and by extension to regime-change policy. The possibility of Maduro arresting Guaido is discussed as strategically unwise for Maduro to avoid bolstering U.S. claims of repression. - Opposition fragmentation and polling: The panel debates whether the opposition has broad support. Speaker 1 says a November poll by Datanalysis shows Maria Carina Machado at roughly 14–15% and Maduro around 20%, with most voters undecided and younger voters leaning toward external media narratives. Older, rural, and poor Venezuelans—Chavista base—remain a significant portion of the population. Young people are described as more influenced by social media and potentially more susceptible to pro-U.S. messaging but not broadly supportive of the radical opposition. - External actors and drug-trafficking links: The dialogue links narco-trafficking networks to geopolitical strategy, arguing that the U.S. has used or tolerates narcotics channels to fund political aims in Latin America. The discussion covers broader examples, including Ecuador and the Balkans, and references to U.S. figures and policies (e.g., regime-change agendas, naval movements, sanctions, and strategic partnerships) to illustrate how narcotics intersects with geopolitics. - Geopolitical trajectory and outcomes: The speakers speculate on possible futures: (1) a negotiated deal between Trump and Maduro or U.S. diplomacy (with the oil sector’s re-entry and debt relief) being preferable to open intervention; (2) a decapitation strike leading to destabilization and civil war with severe humanitarian and migration consequences; (3) ongoing sanctions and coercive measures as a long-term strategy. They caution that a direct, large-scale military invasion seems unlikely due to political and logistical risks, including American public opinion and potential backlash if U.S. troops are lost. - Global context and strategy: The broader international framework is discussed, including the U.S. strategic doctrine shifting toward a multipolar world and hemispheric dominance concerns. The conversation touches on how U.S. policy toward Venezuela fits into wider ambitions regarding Russia, China, and regional partners, as well as potential domestic political changes in the U.S. that could influence future approaches to Venezuela and Latin America. - Concluding note: The discussion closes with reflections on the complexity of regime-change ambitions, the difficulty of predicting outcomes, and the possibility that diplomacy or limited, targeted pressure may emerge as more viable paths than broad invasion or decapitation strategies. The participants acknowledge the influence of regional personalities and U.S. domestic politics on policy direction.

Jeffrey Sachs and Glenn discuss the threat environment around Iran amid Trump-era tensions. - Observed mobilization: The United States has a massive military build-up in the region; allied transports appear en route to the Middle East. The impression, from Tehran’s view, is that an attack seems unavoidable, with Israel and Washington seemingly seeking regime change. - Threat framing and regime change: Sachs says Israel has pursued over thirty years to overthrow the Iranian government, with the United States broadly acting in lockstep with Israel. He notes that last summer’s effort aimed at regime change did not succeed, and that a carrier task group is now moving toward Iran, signaling imminent attack. He asserts that “the goal here has never been negotiation.” - JCPOA history and negotiations: A nuclear deal, JCPOA, was reached and ratified by UN Security Council resolution 2231 (2015). Trump ripped it up in his first term. Sachs argues there has never been genuine readiness by the United States or Israel for a negotiated settlement; when negotiations occurred, Israel resisted, and the attack on Iran two days before scheduled U.S.–Iran negotiations in June 2025 is cited as proof that the goal is regime change, not diplomacy. - Hybrid warfare and tactics: The plan is described as a regime change operation carried out through hybrid warfare—cyber, street unrest, economic strangulation, bombing, assassinations. Trump is characterized as blustering to pressure Iran to comply with demands that would amount to dismantling the regime. - UN Charter and legality: Sachs invokes UN Charter Article 2(4), stating that all members shall refrain from threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, and argues the current posture is a gross violation of the charter. - Venezuela comparison and propaganda accusation: He likens the current stance to the coercive U.S. approach seen in Venezuela, accusing the United States of invasion, kidnapping, oil seizures, and confiscation of oil profits, with Trump claiming the money goes to him. He alleges similar propaganda is present in major media regarding Iran, including misrepresentation of economic collapse as a sign of Iranian misgovernment. - Economic statecraft and its effects: Scott Bessent, the U.S. Treasury Secretary, is cited as stating that sanctions aimed to “collapse” Iran’s currency and provoke mass unrest, enabling a political outcome favorable to U.S. aims. Sachs claims sanctions caused a December economic collapse, bank failures, currency issues, and imports shortages, driving people into the streets. - Marketed outcomes and media treatment: Bessent is accused of describing a “positive” outcome from destabilization, with mainstream media avoiding coverage of this stance. The claim is that weaponized finance is a tactic to destabilize Iran without conventional warfare. - Containment risk and nuclear considerations: Sachs warns that if the situation deteriorates, Iran could decide to dash for nuclear weapons, particularly if existential threats mount. He emphasizes that a broader regional war could involve many countries and risk nuclear escalation, making prevention imperative. He argues the UN Security Council should convene immediately to stop escalation. - Prospects for Europe and regional actors: He criticizes European leaders for not resisting aggression, noting skepticism about who would oppose U.S. aggression. He suggests some regional players (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Turkey) may not want a wider war, but questions whether they can prevent it given U.S. leadership and Israeli influence. - Final note: Sachs calls for a strong, principled international response to prevent an explosion in a highly volatile region, urging opposition to unilateral threats and actions.

Glenn opens by noting a year has passed since Jeffrey Sachs urged Europe to adopt a realistic foreign policy that understands Russia, Europe, and the United States, and to avoid being invaded by the U.S.—even suggesting Trump could land troops in Greenland. Glenn asks how to read the current situation, including Davos and Europe’s anger at U.S. hostility, and the revived emphasis on international law. Jeffrey Sachs responds with a version of the “ride on the back of a tiger” metaphor from Kennedy, arguing Europeans forgot that the United States is an imperial power that has acted brazenly and brutally for about twenty years. He lists U.S. actions: invasions, regime changes, and reckless interference in Ukraine, and U.S. complicity in Israel’s wars across Africa and the Middle East, along with involvement in overthrowing Ukraine’s Yanukovych and other interventions. He claims Europeans were silent or complicit as the United States bombed Iran, kidnapped its president, and pursued Greenland, calling the Greenland push a grotesque power grab by Trump. He asserts New York Times recognition of U.S. imperial tendencies and says Europe’s naivete and hypocrisy are evident. He states: “The United States is thuggish, imperialistic, reckless, and that The U. S. Has left a large swath of the world in misery. Europe has been mostly compliant or complicit.” He urges Europeans to understand what the United States is about, to stop Russophobia, and to keep lines of communication with Russia open; he argues Europe’s Russophobia made it boxed in with little diplomacy with Russia or the U.S. Glenn adds that Europe’s stance mirrors a Cold War-like unity against Russia, but that the current reality differs: the U.S. does not view Russia as its main adversary, and Russophobia deepens Europe’s dependence on the U.S. Glenn notes mixed reactions at Davos, including Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney signaling a shift away from a rules-based order that privileges the West, and Macron’s private message to Trump seeking a cooperative stance on Syria, Iran, and Greenland. He remarks that NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg praised NATO while Trump hinted that the real enemy is within NATO, highlighting the chaos. He asks if this signals a decline of the U.S. empire or NATO. Sachs discusses Carney's stance as significant: Carney’s trip to China and a dialogue with Beijing indicating diversification with China, including a Canadian-Chinese investment plan. He credits Carney with being a rare straightforward statesman and notes instability ahead. Trump’s Davos retreat from threats (notably Greenland) may have been influenced by stock-market declines, according to Sachs’ theory. He mentions a possible European concession about U.S. sovereignty over parts of Greenland, though he doubts any negotiation has been meaningful. He cites Scott Bessent’s Fox Business interview as revealing: sanctions on Iran are a form of economic statecraft designed to crush the Iranian economy, with Iran’s currency collapse and bank failures cited as evidence; Sachs condemns this as a violation of international law and UN Charter, and calls Bessent’s pride in wielding currency-destabilization as alarming. He points to sanctions against Cuba and a broader pattern of “thuggish gangster behavior” by the U.S., noting Europeans’ silence on Iran and other regimes until it backfires on them. Sachs argues Europe’s Russophobia is self-destructive, and he emphasizes that diplomacy remains possible if Germany, France, and Italy adopt a rational approach. He criticizes Germany for duplicity in NATO enlargement and Minsk II, blaming Merkel for dropped commitments, and notes that Italy shows less Russophobia and could shift toward diplomacy. He believes Central Europe and some leaders (e.g., Orban, Czech and Slovak figures) favor diplomacy, but German leadership has been weak. He stresses that Europe must avoid dismemberment and choose diplomacy with Russia, warning that continued war policy will leave Europe isolated. He closes with optimism that there remains a path forward if key European powers act differently. Glenn thanks Sachs for the discussion and ends.

Mario and Max discuss the January 3 operation in Venezuela, its potential objectives, and the wider geopolitical implications. - The operation raised early fears of a full amphibious invasion or a new war, with rapid questions about how Maduro could be kidnapped with so little resistance and whether a single downed helicopter could have produced a catastrophe for Donald Trump. Max notes that 16 guards of Nicolas Maduro were killed, including his personal bodyguard who had guarded Hugo Chavez, and suggests this could indicate the operation was choreographed or left open to a deal through Maduro. - Max says he had woken late and watched the event unfold, and he entertained theories about a negotiated exit for Maduro that would leave the Pesuv (Chavista) structure in place, enabling a transition to a figure like Delsy Rodriguez (the vice president) who would work within Chavismo to exploit Venezuelan resources for Trump’s cronies. He states he predicted that Trump would claim Maria Carina Machado did not have enough support to rule and would not be returned to power, a point he supported with sources and his reading of Trump’s behavior, including Trump’s condemnation of Machado’s Nobel Prize and disregard for Juan Guaido. - Max describes a theory of a deal and questions whether the Venezuelan military stood down. He notes that the US military is dominant but that losing a single helicopter could have become a political disaster for Trump. He mentions Joaquin Padrino Lopez (defense minister) and Diosdado Cabello as other power centers, suggesting that even if Maduro was abducted, a power vacuum could destabilize Venezuela. He cites Cabello signaling resistance by appearing on the street with military figures and the Second Republic flag. - The conversation covers whether Delsy Rodriguez has broad support in Venezuela. Max recalls Rodriguez’s 2021 interview and her role during the COVID response, portraying her as stabilizing economically and presiding over ministries, which aided an economic revival supported by China and others. Max suggests her potential as a US-friendly figure but notes she lacks the military backing to consolidate power against other Pesuv factions. - Mario asks about Maduro’s leadership, and Max rejects the idea that Maduro is purely incompetent, noting corruption under the Bolivarian regime and Maduro’s own background as a student of Simon Bolivar, a former bus driver who rose through the ranks. He argues Maduro was not a stupid leader and contrasts his profile with Trump’s. He warns that achieving regime change would not be simple, given Venezuela’s polarization and the military’s importance. - The discussion turns to the economic situation in Venezuela. Mario references statistics: economy shrinking by around 80% since 2013, 95% in poverty, oil production down, living standards collapsed, and out-migration. Max acknowledges some statistics may be flawed but agrees that Delsy Rodriguez had presided over an economic revival and that China played a central role, purchasing a large share of Venezuelan oil and helping with oil infrastructure, while Iran and Russia also provided support. He notes the impact of US sanctions and the broader “financial terrorism” narrative, arguing that sanctions and IMF-style measures contributed to economic decline and the diaspora’s views. - They debate who bears responsibility for the crisis. Max emphasizes longstanding US sanctions and political interference as primary factors, arguing that the US sought to undermine Venezuela’s sovereignty and to plunder its resources, with Maduro’s government framed by Western outlets as corrupt; he cites evidence of corruption and suggests a pattern of coercive measures against Venezuela. - The conversation covers the purpose behind capturing Maduro. Max suggests the aim might be to replace Maduro with a more pliable figure who would cooperate with US oil interests and allow greater control over Venezuela’s PDVSA structure. He discusses the possibility of grooming a candidate from within Pesuv or returning Machado, though he notes Marco Rubio’s public stance that elections could be delayed to avoid destabilizing Venezuela. - The role of China and the broader multipolar dynamic is addressed. The Chinese envoy’s meeting with Maduro hours before the strikes is seen as signaling China’s interest and as part of a broader message to China, Russia, and Iran about US reach. Max believes the operation sends a wider message of US willingness to act in the hemisphere and to police resource access. - The interview ends with a comparison to the Panama regime change (Manuel Noriega) and a reminder that Maduro will be tried in the Southern District of New York. Max notes that Machado’s supporters and US associates are calculating future power arrangements, while Maduro remains central to ongoing debates about Venezuela’s political and economic future.

In a wide-ranging discussion about the January 3 operation in Venezuela, the speakers explore initial reactions, possible motives, and the broader geopolitical implications. - Initial reaction and early concerns: The exchange begins with the worry that the events marked the start of a full amphibious assault or a new war. Speaker 1 recalls staying up late and being shocked by the “sheer gangsterism” of Maduro’s kidnapping, noting that Maduro was flown out of the country with little resistance. He models several theories around how such an operation could occur with minimal opposition and suggests the possibility of a negotiated exit that would keep the Chavista structure in place through a successor like Delsy Rodriguez. - The “deal” theory and who might be involved: Speaker 1 explains a theory that Donald Trump and Marco Rubio wanted a negotiated exit for Maduro that would allow the Pesuv (Chavista) structure to remain and enable the installation of a figure like Delsy Rodriguez to work within Chavismo to secure resource contracts for Trump’s allies. He cites sources close to negotiations and references coverage in the New York Times supporting elements of this narrative. He also notes Trump’s public dismissal of Maria Carina Machado as lacking support to rule, a point he says he predicted on a livestream. - The military stand-down hypothesis: The conversation delves into why no strikes targeted the helicopters, positing a stand-down order. Speaker 0 asks who would authorize such a stand-down and cites Ian Bremmer’s assessment as a possibility but unlikely due to the risk. Speaker 1 acknowledges the plausibility of many theories, including the idea that a stand-down could spare the country from greater U.S. violence, reminiscent of past operations in Baghdad or Raqqa, and emphasizes that the question of who issued any stand-down order remains unresolved. He mentions Delsy Rodriguez’s potential self-protection concerns and notes Diosdado Cabello’s visible signaling alongside military figures after Maduro’s abduction. - Delsy Rodriguez and potential motivations: The interlocutors discuss Rodriguez’s political stature, her management of Venezuela’s COVID response, and the perception she could pose a more direct challenge to U.S. interests due to her economic stabilization efforts and heavy ties to China. Speaker 1 underscores that Rodriguez stabilized the economy and was central to a revival that included substantial China-driven oil exports, a point supported by a New York Times profile. He clarifies that he did not speculate Rodriguez was the U.S. mole but stresses she would be asked by interviewers about such questions. - Maduro’s leadership and the economic crisis: The participants debate Maduro’s competence, acknowledging corruption and structural issues within a petro-state framework but arguing that the decline in living standards and oil production has deep roots, including U.S. sanctions and geopolitical pressure. Speaker 1 contends that while Maduro was not a “stupid” leader, Chavez-era and post-Chavez mismanagement, together with U.S. financial sanctions and regime-change tactics, contributed to Venezuela’s economic collapse. He insists the regime’s persistence does not hinge on one leader and cautions against simplistic characterizations of Maduro or Chavez as solely responsible for ruin. - Economic dynamics and sanctions: The discussion emphasizes that Venezuela’s economic trajectory has been shaped by sanctions and counter-sanctions, with Speaker 1 asserting that U.S. maximum-pressure campaigns and the theft of assets (including Sitco and gold reserves) severely impacted the economy. He argues the sanctions constitute financial terrorism and compares U.S. policy to broader imperial dynamics centered on dollar dominance and oil leverage. - Regime change prospects and future leadership: The speakers speculate about possible future leadership within the Pesuv or an alternative power structure, including the potential grooming of a candidate from within the regime or the return of Maria Carina Machado if conditions align. They note that a political shift would require military backing, and they discuss whether an eventual election could be staged or delayed to a more favorable time for U.S. interests. They emphasize that, absent military support, it would be difficult for any non-Maduro leadership to emerge. - China, Russia, and global signaling: The conversation covers the Chinese envoy’s presence in Caracas before the operation and the broader implications for China’s role in Venezuela. Speaker 1 argues the operation sent a global message to rivals (China, Russia, Iran) that the U.S. can seize leadership and resources, while also suggesting that China could be leveraged to avoid deeper conflict by permitting continued oil exports. The dialogue also touches on potential retaliatory moves by Russia or China and the broader geopolitical chessboard, including implications for Greenland and other strategic theaters. - Legal proceedings and comparisons to other regime changes: Maduro’s indictment in the Southern District of New York is discussed, with reflections on its weaknesses and how it compares to similar prosecutions (e.g., Juan Orlando Hernandez). The discussion concludes with a sense that Venezuela will likely face a prolonged, complex confrontation, with lingering questions about who will govern next and under what terms.

Speaker 0 and Professor Jeffrey Sachs discuss the US attack on Venezuela and the detention of President Maduro, with Sachs calling it an illegal act and part of a long pattern of American regime-change operations. Key points: - Sachs calls the attack on Venezuela blatantly illegal and part of a sequence of what he describes as illegally aggressive US actions. He cites recent US threats to invade other countries, including Nigeria and Iran, and the declaration that Greenland “will be ours,” arguing the US is operating outside constitutional order, ruled by executive decree, with Congress moribund. - He notes that the arrest of Maduro is not the end of the Venezuela story, emphasizing a history of regime-change operations since World War II that have created instability, coups, civil wars, and bloodshed. He points out he has not seen mainstream US media question the action, criticizing press and congressional reaction as insufficient. - Sachs argues Europe’s response has been weak, describing European leaders as cowering to the US and labeling the Nobel Peace Prize recipient Machado (Norwegian prize) as having been rewarded for supporting the invasion narrative. He criticizes the EU for lacking diplomacy, multilateralism, and attachment to the UN Charter, while noting Russia and China condemn the action but will not intervene militarily in the Western Hemisphere. - He asserts Trump’s rhetoric includes “the oil is ours” and “our companies will go back in and do business in Venezuela,” calling this approach crass imperialism. He warns this sets a precedent for other actions in Latin America and beyond, linking it to broader goals of sidelining international law and UN institutions. - The discussion turns to broader implications: the US “rules the Western Hemisphere,” and European leaders’ support signals a wider collapse of international norms. Sachs predicts a dangerous trajectory with potential ripple effects if violence escalates in Venezuela or elsewhere (Iran, Gaza). - Regarding the future of Venezuela, Sachs explains that the US has pursued regime change for decades, with Marco Rubio as a leading advocate of invasion. He describes the operation as a decapitation of Maduro and his wife rather than a full regime collapse, suggesting long-term unrest and instability are likely outcomes, referencing Lindsay O’Rourke’s work on covert regime-change operations. - On broader geopolitics, Sachs argues that the US is attempting to counter China in Latin America and that the incident will not deter China or Russia from condemning the action at the UN but not engaging militarily. He warns of potential escalation if Israel attacks Iran following perceived US-led aggression, highlighting a dangerous contagion effect and the potential for a wider conflict. - He disputes the notion that democracy equates to peace, citing historical examples (Athens, Britain, the US) and describing US intervention in Iran since 1953, including the overthrow of Mosaddeq and subsequent conflicts, sanctions, and pressure to destabilize Iran’s economy. - Sachs stresses the need to revive the UN and multilateral institutions, arguing that the world should respond to a “rogue” US and prevent a total breakdown of international law. Speaker 0 closes by noting media framing and European reactions, and Sachs restates that Ukraine should be understood in the context of ongoing US projects, not as a direct parallel to Venezuela, calling for a broader understanding of US foreign policy and the military-industrial state. Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 thank each other for the discussion.

Mario asked Pepe Escobar for his take on the state of affairs, focusing on Venezuela and Iran, in the wake of dramatic developments including the alleged attack on Maduro-era Venezuela and broader upheavals in Iran, Russia, and beyond. Pepe frames Venezuela as a desperate move connected to the demise of the petrodollar, with multiple overlapping headlines and actors maneuvering for advantage in a test of national security and regional influence. He says the United States has claimed Venezuela as “my backyard,” and questions whether Washington is prepared to back a fifth-column government in Venezuela or to overhaul the Venezuelan oil industry to serve American interests. He argues that reconstituting Venezuela’s energy sector to produce about 3 million barrels per day would require five years and roughly $183 billion in investment, and notes that American CEOs are not willing to spend that much without total investment guarantees. He suggests the White House lacked a coherent, forward-looking strategy for reorganizing Venezuela’s oil industry and that the ego of neoconservatism drove actions that lacked feasibility. On the leadership dynamics, Pepe notes that Delcy Rodríguez, a seasoned Chavista negotiator and daughter of a revolutionary killed by the CIA, leads a government that prioritizes Venezuela’s interests over U.S. interests. He mentions that Maduro’s security head, previously said to be linked to the operation, was demoted rather than arrested, indicating an intelligence and political calculus aimed at explaining the leadership in a way domestic audiences can accept. He emphasizes that the regime remains, with Padrino López and other core figures still in place, and that the “regime change” dream from Trump’s team did not materialize as hoped. He suggests the regime change narrative was limited to a “mini Netflix special with full of special effects.” Pepe shifts to the broader regional and global context, noting that Venezuela’s crisis intersects with Brazil’s Lula, BRICS dynamics, and US foreign policy. He asserts that Delcy Rodríguez’s negotiating skills could help Venezuela if the sanctions were lifted, and stresses the importance of popular support for her—reportedly over 90% of Venezuelans backing her. He argues that Latin American sentiment strongly rejects external interference, pointing to regional uproar over U.S. actions in Venezuela. He also discusses how Brazil’s stance within BRICS and Lula’s position affect Venezuela’s prospects for integration into BRICS, including Lula’s veto in BRICS discussions that blocked Venezuela from becoming a BRICS member. Turning to the broader geopolitics, Pepe argues that the strategic landscape is dominated by three major players: Iran, Russia, and China. He explains that, unlike the United States, Russia and China respond to actions with measured, long-term strategies and emphasize concrete acts over rhetoric. He points to NATO attacks on Russia’s nuclear triad site and the Novgorod residence as pivotal events, arguing that Russia’s response is framed by a long-term calculus rather than immediate negotiations. He notes that China seeks to move global trade toward the yuan rather than the dollar, framing this as a de facto removal of dollar dominance rather than a formal currency replacement. He emphasizes that Iran is maneuvering under severe sanctions, with protests driven largely by economic grievances but potentially hijacked by foreign actors as seen in color-revolution playbooks, and that Iran’s leadership stresses long-term resilience and partnerships with Russia and China. Pepe cautions that the Iran and Venezuela situations show a broader pattern: sanctions and mismanagement combine to create fragility, while external actors press their own strategic agendas. He warns that the instability in Iran and the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war create a dangerous, volatile environment, with the potential for a prolonged European and global conflict if escalation continues. He concludes with a bleak assessment for the near term, suggesting that the war in Ukraine could extend for years and that Europe faces mounting economic strain as it bears the costs of ongoing conflict. In sum, Pepe Escobar portrays Venezuela as a case where sanctions, strategic miscalculations, and competing powers intersect, while Iran, Russia, and China pursue longer-term, multilayered strategies that complicate Western-led attempts at regime change or coercive diplomacy.

In this discussion, the guests analyze the implications of a United States military attack on Venezuela and its broader impact on Latin America, Asia, and the evolving world order. The Chilean ambassador to BRICS describes the event as a historic milestone: it is “the first time we have seen a US military attack on the South American mainland,” differing from past interventions in Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean. He notes that at a Saturday press conference, President Trump warned Colombia and Mexico that they might be next, and Secretary of State Rubio warned Cuba to watch out. This is presented as potentially the beginning of a larger shift, not an isolated incident like the 1989 invasion of Panama. The ambassador points to Trump’s 2025 national security doctrine, which places the Western Hemisphere at the center of US strategy, marking a significant departure from Bush’s focus on the Middle East and Obama’s pivot to Asia. He argues the motive is not humanitarian or stabilizing Latin America, but subjugation, resource extraction, and domination of governments in the region, a stance he characterizes as an attempt to reassert empire in the Western Hemisphere. On the macro level, the discussion addresses Latin America’s changing economic architecture, including a shift from the United States as the primary trading partner to China as a dominant partner for many countries. The US response, including the Venezuelan action, is framed as a mercantilist impulse to secure resources and influence, rather than a pro-democracy or pro-human rights initiative. The conversation emphasizes that the region’s instability is intertwined with oil, minerals, and strategic resources, and that the US move may be more about controlling these assets than about leaders’ legitimacy. The speakers then examine regional dynamics within Latin America. The region is fragmented, with SELAC (the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States) weak and unable to unify a response. Some governments—Argentina, Ecuador, the Dominican Republic, Panama, Costa Rica—have openly sided with the US, while others are more cautious about Maduro’s leadership. The ambassador reiterates that Maduro’s regime was unpopular domestically due to authoritarianism and incompetence, yet the US action targets Venezuela’s oil and sovereignty more than Maduro’s personal legitimacy. He suggests that anti-American sentiment could grow across the region, regardless of specific governments. A key theme is the emergence of BRICS as a counterweight to US hegemony. The ambassador notes that Trump has attacked BRICS members—South Africa, Brazil, and India—through trade measures and visa policies, highlighting BRICS’ rise with the New Development Bank and expanding membership (including Indonesia). He argues that BRICS represents a shift toward a multipolar world where the Global South seeks to diversify dependencies and leverage different centers of power. He differentiates BRICS from the Global South, describing BRICS as a forum aligned with Global South demands, while acknowledging that neither China nor Russia are part of the traditional Global South, though China and India are influential within BRICS. The conversation argues for active nonalignment as a guiding principle for the Global South in a multipolar order. The ambassador cites examples like Brazil under Lula who resisted US pressure, and contrasts European concessions in trade deals (e.g., the EU-US golf-course agreement) with the need for greater strategic autonomy. He asserts that Europe’s capitulation has weakened its economic and political independence, while Latin America must avoid overreliance on the US and diversify with China and other partners. He argues that the long-term consequences of US military actions could be counterproductive, weakening US standing and strengthening China’s position by eroding a sense of predictable community in the Americas. In closing, the ambassador emphasizes that the Maduro-led Venezuela episode underscores the rise of Asia, the relative decline and fragmentation of the West, and the importance of multipolarity for smaller and medium-sized states. He reiterates the value of active nonalignment as a compass for Latin America, Africa, and Asia in navigating a turbulent, power-shifting world. He and the host note that the discussion will extend to the ambassador’s work on active nonalignment and BRICS, with a link to his writings provided.

In 2000, Saddam Hussein announced that Iraq would sell oil in euros instead of dollars, leading to the US invasion in 2003. Similarly, Venezuela's plan to sell oil for euros in 2002 resulted in a failed coup backed by the US. Despite having the largest oil reserves, Venezuela is now one of the poorest economies. Libya, with the largest oil reserves in Africa, also faced consequences when Muammar Gaddafi suggested selling oil for gold instead of dollars. NATO intervened in Libya, leading to Gaddafi's execution. These countries wanted to break away from using the dollar for oil payments, but faced the wrath of America.

Ironically, it’s happening organically outside of BRICS anyway. For example, Enbridge and Brazil trade with China 48% in non-dollar terms. Russia–China trade is 95% in rubles and renminbi. Russia also trades with India similarly. BRICS is not driving this alone; these are individual developments. BRICS, a bit more than a decade ago, was the first to implement a framework agreement between them to move toward using national currencies more. It was still a time of less turbulence in the international scene, and the move was not for each country at once but addressed different pockets of activity. China, at that point, not only advanced this BRICS framework agreement but also struck agreements with 22 countries outside BRICS to use the renminbi. Russia did not abandon the dollar; it started using its own currency and other currencies as well. The aim was not to be against the dollar but to avoid being ordered by others about what they should or should not do. This shift occurred before Trump, though Trump contributed to the trend as well; the speaker notes they cannot simply blame Biden. The era of dollar and SWIFT being used as a weapon began to become explicit. The claim is that the dollar was promoted as a public good available to everyone no matter what happened, and then that expectation was broken. Russia has faced the most sanctions, over 20,000 in total, and the speaker suggests there may be more to come. There is large pressure from the US on each country. The UAE is mentioned as being cautious about moving too far, but each BRICS member now understands that this could be turned against them as well. That awareness is driving the direction toward greater use of national currencies and non-dollar transactions.

The speaker addressed the Security Council on the issue of whether any member state may determine Venezuela’s political future by force, coercion, or economic strangulation, stressing that the question concerns the prohibition on the threat or use of force against a state's territorial integrity or political independence under the UN Charter. The council must decide whether that prohibition is to be upheld or abandoned. Background is offered on U.S. foreign policy, described as repeatedly using force, covert action, and political manipulation to achieve regime change since 1947. The speaker cites Lindsay O’Rourke’s documentation of 70 attempted U.S. regime-change operations between 1947 and 1989, noting that such practices continued after the Cold War. Regime-change actions attributed to the United States since 1989 include Iraq 2003, Libya 2011, Syria beginning in 2011, Honduras 2009, Ukraine 2014, and Venezuela from 2002 onward, employing methods such as open warfare, covert operations, instigation of unrest, support for armed groups, manipulation of media, bribery, targeted assassinations, false flag operations, and economic warfare. These measures are described as illegal under the UN Charter and typically yielding ongoing violence and civilian suffering. Specific Venezuelan-related actions cited include: the April 2002 coup attempt known to the U.S.; funding of civil-society groups engaged in anti-government protests in the 2010s; sanctions following crackdowns; in 2015, President Obama labeling Venezuela an “unusual and extraordinary threat”; in 2017, President Trump discussing invasion options at a UN General Assembly margin dinner. Between 2017 and 2020, sweeping sanctions on PDVSA reduced oil production by 75% from 2016 to 2020 and dropped real GDP per capita by 62%. The UN General Assembly is said to have repeatedly voted against unilateral coercive measures, and the speaker asserts that under international law only the Security Council may impose such measures. On January 23, 2019, the U.S. unilaterally recognized Juan Guaidó as interim president and soon after froze about $7 billion of Venezuelan sovereign assets abroad. The actions are framed as part of a two-decade-long regime-change effort. The speaker notes U.S. bombing operations in seven countries in the past year without UN Security Council authorization or lawful self-defense, listing Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and Venezuela, and cites threats by President Trump against six UN member states, including Colombia, Denmark, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, and Venezuela. The speaker invokes realist theory and the League of Nations’ failure, arguing the UN was created to place international law above anarchy and urging that failure to uphold the Charter would threaten humanity. The proposed resolutions call for: the United States to cease all explicit and implicit threats or use of force against Venezuela, terminate the naval quarantine and related coercive measures without UN authorization, withdraw all military forces and forward-deployed assets from Venezuela’s vicinity, and require Venezuela to adhere to the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The secretary-general should appoint a special envoy to engage Venezuelan and international stakeholders and report back within fourteen days with Charter-consistent recommendations; the Security Council should remain urgently seized of the matter. All states should refrain from unilateral threats, coercive measures, or armed actions outside the Security Council’s authority. The speaker closes by emphasizing that the UN Charter must remain a living instrument of international law.

Mario: Let's start with Venezuela. Do you think this is a strategy by Trump? Larry: I saw something similar back in 1988. The CIA was involved with trying to provoke Manuel Noriega into taking some action, so we could say we had to respond to set the stage for a military invasion, which I believe that in 2018, Donald Trump signed a finding authorizing a covert CIA action to get rid of Maduro. That attempt failed. And now the objective is to get control of the oil. That's the number one priority, with an eye toward the risk of a renewed Iran conflict and the prospect of shutdown of the Persian Gulf, and the need to have an alternative supplier. Ukraine defeating Russia was the plan, and Russia’s military is now around 1,500,000. Mario: What’s your initial reaction to Venezuela? I talked to John Kuriaki who said to read naval movements to gauge what the military plans. The buildup on the coast of Venezuela is significant. They’ve got 14, 12 warships, including the Gerald Ford. Do you think they are bluffing or this is a Trump strategy? Larry: It could be a bluff. I saw something similar in 1988. I was in the Central America branch, and the CIA’s analytical thrust was to provoke Noriega into taking action to justify a response and invasion. That happened in 1988. But that time there were US bases in Panama; Quarry Heights was full. Southern Command was there. Now Southern Command has moved to Miami, just near Southcom. Another issue: within the military, the concept of supported and supporting commands means the special operations command (SOCOM) would normally be the supporting commander, but here Southern Command would be subordinate to SOCOM, which is problematic because SOCOM cannot fight a conventional war. Delta Force, SEAL Team Six, and others are light infantry for raids, not mass warfare. So launching shells or sending ground forces won’t solve Venezuela; terrain is rugged and favors ambushes. If US troops ashore, body bags would likely exceed those from Iraq and Afghanistan. Venezuelans will fight, and insurgents from Brazil and Colombia could join. Decapitation strikes against Maduro could provoke an insurgency that the US would struggle to pacify. Mario: Could we see a decapitation strike like Israel against Hezbollah and Iran? Larry: Decapitating Maduro would still leave loyalists and other actors with weapons; an insurgency could erupt, and the US would be unable to pacify it. The real objective here is unclear. The State Department’s INL/INSCR programs have long documented Venezuela as a transit point for drugs; Trump claimed fentanyl is the issue, but most cocaine also goes to Europe. The 2018 Trump era mentioned the Trendy Aragua as a pretext to justify covert actions; I believe Trump signed a finding authorizing a CIA operation to remove Maduro, leading to Guaidó, but that failed. The broader agenda appears to be regaining oil influence and countering Russia, China, and Iran’s influence in Venezuela. Mario: Elaborate the agenda and strategy behind these strikes on boats out of Venezuela and Trump’s public acknowledgement of a CIA covert operation. What’s the strategy and intention? Larry: The objective is to restore oil control in Venezuela and reduce adversary influence. Maduro once aligned with the CIA, and Chavez/Maduro have maintained cordial relations with Moscow and Beijing. The US aims to curtail BRICS and reduce Venezuelan ties to Russia, China, and Iran, potentially moving Venezuela away from the dollar-based system. The theory that this is a message to Putin circulates, but if that were the aim, it’s a poor strategy given the broader geopolitical dynamics in Syria, Iran, and the Palestinian-Israeli arena. The US previously overpromised in the Red Sea and failed to secure freedom of navigation, signaling limited military capacity for large-scale campaigns. The objective of any Venezuela action must be concrete, otherwise it risks entanglement in an insurgency. Mario: Turning to general foreign policy under Trump. What about the national security strategy? Europe’s criticisms, and Trump’s approach to Ukraine—Witkoff and Kushner meeting Putin? Larry: The 2025 national security strategy signals change, but these documents are not blueprints; they’re guidelines. Europe is being asked to step up, while the US distances itself, arguing Europe’s resources and industrial capacity have diminished while Russia and China shift. Europe’s censorship and defense spending are under scrutiny. The US–UK intelligence relationship still lingers, but overall the West’s ability to project force is questioned. Russia and China’s relationship is deep and mutually reinforcing; the Rand Corporation’s earlier ideas that Ukraine would defeat Russia to force Moscow to join the West have not materialized. Ukraine’s fight has forced Russia to mobilize and shift front lines; casualty counts are contested, but Russia’s front has expanded with a larger force and higher attrition. Mario: What about Ukraine negotiations and Putin’s terms? Larry: Putin’s terms (as stated on 06/14/2024) are: Crimea, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Donetsk, and Luhansk permanently part of Russia; Ukraine must withdraw forces from those territories before negotiations begin. An election must be held in Ukraine with a legitimately elected president, potentially replacing Zelenskyy, and Russia would then talk to Ukraine. Russia’s stance treats these territories as non-negotiable; freezing lines is not acceptable to Russia. If negotiations fail, Russia is likely to maintain control over large parts of Donbas and southern Ukraine, potentially extending into Kharkiv and Odessa. Western military support is insufficient in scale to match Russia’s production; Russia’s oil revenue remains a significant portion of GDP, and the global south is pivoting toward BRICS, with Modi’s meeting signaling stronger ties with Russia and China. The strategic trend is a shift away from Western dominance toward a multipolar order. Mario: Larry, appreciate your time. Larry: Pleasure as always, Mario.

Speaker 0 argues that despite claims that the United States kidnapped Maduro in Venezuela to seize oil resources, the true motive was to counter China. China, according to the speaker, has tools and weapons that could destabilize the U.S. dollar, which would impact civil markets. At the start of the year, China announced it would restrict exports of its silver, and since China dominates the silver market, this caused the price of silver to surge. The speaker asserts that if the United States embargoed China's oil, China could dump its U.S. Treasuries and cause financial havoc, potentially destroying both nations. A central metaphor is presented: a ladder over an abyss, with both China and the United States attempting to climb it together. The United States supposedly insists on remaining higher than China; if the U.S. goes too far and falls behind, the latter destabilizes and both fall into the abyss. Conversely, if China overtakes and climbs too far, they both fall. The speaker contends that the American financial industry currently lacks the capacity to self-correct, and a market collapse could pull the entire economy down. Another major problem cited is over-financialization. Regarding silver, the speaker asserts that China needs silver, but in the United States it is used for speculation, describing silver as “really just paper silver.” They claim that some companies, such as JPMorgan, are significantly overleveraged—“300 to one”—so every ounce of silver they hold is promised 300 on paper. The speaker then shifts to a geopolitical forecast: “This war will be settled in Odessa.” NATO, they claim, will commit to defending Odessa; Russia will encircle and blockade, and NATO will be unable to hold on. Europeans would be forced to be conscripted to fight in Odessa, would refuse, and civil war would ensue across Europe. The timeframe is given as five to ten years, with a note that it would be a slow death for Europe, and that some aspects are expected to unfold “this year.”

Speaker 0 argues that Venezuela may not want to ally with this Western form of economic exchange, noting they have tried to join BRICS twice but were vetoed by neighboring Brazil. They describe Venezuela as one of the few countries not controlled by private equity oligarchs and central banksters, and say Venezuela pushed back on a monetary exchange that relies on high-interest promissory notes back to Rothschild Boulevard, like Saddam Hussein, Bashar al-Assad, and Muammar Gaddafi. They claim Maduro has effectively been kidnapped, and that Trump said, “kidnapped is fine.” The question is how such events can be real and presented as beneficial to Americans, asserting that economically, there is no benefit to the average citizen or to national security, and that it puts the United States in more imminent, grave danger as the U.S. “agitates around the world,” including in relation to Israel’s enemies. Speaker 1 adds that there will be a political and economic reset, suggesting that silver and gold are at record highs and that gold and silver have tripled historically in short periods, leading to a system reset of sorts. They say Venezuela’s attempts to join the system were to be part of a new framework that Russia, China, Iran and BRICS were trying to create, which would go against the dollar as the global reserve currency and directly affect the U.S. economy. They ask whether this should change. Speaker 0 elaborates that the issue is about flipping countries into the same central banker–controlled monetary exchange system. Speaker 1 notes that Trump, from day one, warned that if you mess with the U.S. dollar or trade outside of the dollar, the U.S. will punish you via sanctions or strikes, and that this is what has been happening. They discuss the possibility that if the system resets and a combination of gold, silver, and possibly crypto or other minerals backs a new dollar or digital currency emerges, the entire game could reset and eliminate these types of issues. In such a scenario, countries might have a looser ability to choose or replace the type of system their country is under.

John Stubtack outlines a four-part regime-change playbook shearing Iran from the U.S.-Israeli perspective: 1) sanctions to wreck the economy and provoke public misery; 2) foment and fuel massive protests, with evidence cited of Mossad involvement and public statements by Trump and Pompeo supporting U.S. participation; 3) a massive disinformation campaign to sell to the West that protests are internally generated and that the regime is finished; 4) U.S. and likely Israeli military intervention to finish off the regime and topple it. He argues that, in Iran, phase four has not occurred and the protests have diminished significantly since their peak a week earlier. A Jerusalem Post December 29 article is cited as indicating Mossad’s deep involvement, and Trump and Pompeo are portrayed as openly backing the regime-change effort. There are other signals discussed: 40,000 Starlink terminals supplied to protesters after Iran shut down the Internet; Qatar and India issuing warnings to their citizens to leave the region; and an Israeli plane movement described as signaling preparation for potential action. Speaker 1 (Danny) and Speaker 2 (Lindsey Graham) are referenced to illustrate mainstream political support for regime change and the belief that the plan is underway, with Graham saying it would be the biggest change in the Middle East in a thousand years if successful. Pompeo is shown as publicly celebrating Mossad agents “beside them.” Stubtack downplays Graham’s credibility but emphasizes Pompeo’s statements as the more consequential evidence. In discussing current capabilities and risks, Stubtack notes that American combat power in the region has diminished since June 2025, though the U.S. could still strike. He emphasizes that Iranian ballistic missiles, which became more effective later in the June 12-day war, could overwhelm defenses, and that Iran has threatened retaliation against both Israel and U.S. bases. He highlights three key deterrents: Iran shutting down the Straits of Hormuz, the limited ability of U.S. and Israeli defenses to stop Iranian missiles from hitting Israel, and the question of what military action would actually achieve—arguing that past strikes would likely rally the Iranian population and fail to produce regime change. Stubtack contends the four-point plan has failed in practice, making continued military action a cockamamie idea. He suggests the real aim for the United States and Israel is to wreck Iran and break it apart, similar to their approach in Syria, rather than to foster liberal democracy. He argues the Israelis are committed to eradicating serious threats to their existence, and that the United States and Israel operate as a tag team in the region. On diplomacy, Stubtack posits that a negotiated deal could be possible—resembling the JCPOA in preventing Iran from weaponizing its enrichment program and allowing for improved relations with both Israel and the United States—though he stresses Iran would not abandon enrichment entirely and would resist giving up nuclear capabilities completely. He notes that even with diplomacy, Iran and Israel might still have tensions, but a workable modus vivendi could exist. Looking ahead five years, Stubtack predicts the regime will likely remain in place in Iran, Israel will likely be more hawkish, and the United States will stay closely aligned with Israel. He suggests Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah will persist as threats, and questions whether Iran will acquire nuclear weapons—arguing that if Iran had them earlier, U.S. and Israeli pressure might have been different. He leaves open the possibility of diplomacy but remains skeptical of a peaceful, full resolution in the near term.

The speaker argues that whenever a country defends its own people, the United States asks, “Who owns the resources?” and if the answer isn’t The US, a coup follows. The claim is that over 80 foreign governments have been overthrown or destabilized by the United States, and that most of them weren’t dictatorships, but democratically elected governments that threatened US corporate profits. The described playbook involves the CIA funding opposition groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda, planting stories in the media, bribing generals, arming rebels, or collapsing a country’s economy, with the coup replacing the leader with a pro-US dictatorship. The overarching assertion is that this is not about democracy but about power and control. Key historical examples cited include: - Iran in 1953: Mosaddegh attempted to nationalize oil; the CIA launched Operation Ajax, orchestrated protests, paid off politicians, and installed the Shah, resulting in twenty-five years of dictatorship and torture under US protection. - Guatemala in 1954: President Arbenz redistributed land from the United Fruit Company, a US corporation; the CIA branded him a communist, conducted a coup, and Guatemala descended into a civil war with over 200,000 deaths. - Chile in 1973: Allende was overthrown in a US-backed military coup, and Pinochet’s regime tortured and killed thousands after Allende’s attempts to nationalize copper. - Congo in 1961: Lumumba sought African control of African resources; the CIA helped orchestrate his assassination and installed a brutal dictator who was supported for decades. The speaker adds that there are “dozens of others” beyond these cases, including Haiti, Iraq, Libya, Nicaragua, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Brazil, Bolivia, and beyond, arguing that the motive is not fighting tyranny but profits and control. When a country attempts to exit the system or nationalize resources to reduce inequality, they threaten profits and the idea that another world is possible, so the CIA sabotages such efforts to prevent successful example-making, such as Libya. The conclusion is that many nations don’t trust the United States because “we’ve been the villains throughout most of our history.” The speaker invites readers to comment to receive a “forbidden reading list” of books and documentaries that “they never wanted you to find.”

The conversation centers on Iran’s current crisis and the likelihood, timing, and aims of potential U.S. and Israeli actions against Iran. The speakers discuss whether protests inside Iran are driving any attack plans or if those plans were made beforehand, and what the objectives might be if war occurs. Key points and claims, preserved as stated: - The Iranian regime is described as facing its worst crisis since 1979, with reports of thousands dead, and questions about whether the U.S. and possibly Israel will strike Iran, and what their objectives would be (regime change vs installing a new leader under the supreme leader). - The interviewer introduces Trita Parsi, noting his nuanced, non-dual position and his personal history of fleeing Iran around the revolution. - The analysts discuss whether a war plan against Iran existed before the protests; Speaker 1 (Parsi) argues the plan was made prior to the protests and that the protests did not cause the decision. He says the Israelis intended to provoke the U.S. into war, but the sequence shifted so the United States would lead with Israel in a supporting role. He notes Netanyahu’s unusual quiet and suggests a deliberate effort to present this as Trump’s war, not Israel’s, though he believes the plan originated in Washington in late December at the White House. - The protests are said to be organic and not instigated from abroad, with possible slight slowing of plans due to the protests. The rationale for striking Iran initially emphasized Israeli concerns about Iranian missile capabilities and their potential rebuilding of missiles and, ambiguously, nuclear ambitions; there was no credible media evidence presented to support new nuclear development claims, according to Speaker 1. - The justification for an attack is viewed as a pretext tied to “unfinished business,” with the broader aim of addressing Iran’s missile program and perceived threats, rather than the protests alone. The discussion notes that pro-Iran regime factions in the U.S. may find protests more persuasive among centrist Democrats, but less so among MAGA or core Trump supporters. - The origins of the protests are described as organic, driven by currency collapse and sanctions, which Speaker 1 connects to decades of sanctions and the economic crisis in Iran. He states sanctions were designed to produce desperation to create a window for outside intervention, though he emphasizes this does not mean the protests are purely externally driven. - The role of sanctions is elaborated: Pompeo’s “maximum pressure” statement is cited as intentional to create conditions for regime change, with Speaker 0 highlighting the destruction of Iran’s economy as a method to weaken the regime and empower opposition. Speaker 1 agrees the sanctions contributed to economic distress but stresses that the protests’ roots are broader than the economy alone. - The discussion considers whether the protests could be used to justify external action and whether a regional or global backlash could ensue, including refugee flows and regional instability affecting Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan, and GCC states. It’s noted that the U.S. and some regional actors would prefer to avoid a total collapse of Iran, while Israel would welcome greater upheaval if it constrains Iranian capabilities. - The question of a power vacuum inside Iran is addressed. Speaker 1 argues there is no obvious internal opposition strong enough to quickly replace the regime; MeK is excluded as a coalition partner in current Iran opposition movements. The Pahlavi (Reza Pallavi) faction is discussed as a possible figurehead outside Iran, with debate about his domestic support. The MEK is described as outside any coalition due to its history. - Pallavi’s potential role: Speaker 1 suggests Pallavi has gained closer ties with Israel and some pro-Israel circles in Washington, but emphasizes that domestic support inside Iran remains uncertain and difficult to gauge. Pallavi says he would seek a democratically elected leader if the regime falls; Speaker 1 cautions that words alone are insufficient without proven ability to secure loyalty from security forces and to persuade key societal sectors. - The Shah’s legacy and comparison: The Shah’s regime is described as highly repressive but comparatively more open socially and economically, though with a discredited political system. The current regime disperses power within a more complex system where the supreme leader is central but not incomparable to past autocrats. - The potential for separatism and regional spillover is discussed, including Kurdish separatism in western Iran. Speaker 1 clarifies that the Kurdish group is not part of the protests but a separate element taking advantage of the situation; the risk of civil war if the state collapses is acknowledged as a nightmare scenario. - The possibility of a Maduro-like approach (managed transition through elite elements) is considered. While channels of communication exist, Speaker 1 doubts the same dynamics as Venezuela; Iran lacks internal continuity in the security establishment, making a similar path unlikely. - Military retaliation dynamics are examined: Iran’s response to limited U.S. strikes could be symbolic or broader, including potential strikes on U.S. bases in the region. The possibility that Israel would push the United States to target Iran’s military capabilities rather than just decapitation is discussed, with notes about potential after-effects and regional reactions. - The 12-day war context and Iran’s current military capabilities: There is debate about whether Iran’s military could be a greater threat to U.S. bases than previously believed and about how easily Iranian missile launches could be located and neutralized. - The closing forecast: The likely trajectory depends on the next few days. A limited, negotiated strike could lead to negotiations and a transformed regime with lifted sanctions, perhaps avoiding a wholesale regime change; a more aggressive or decapitating approach could provoke substantial instability and regional repercussions. The conversation ends with a personal note of concern for Parsi’s family in Iran. - Final reflection: The interview ends with expressions of concern for family safety and a mutual appreciation for the discussion.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs argues that the current moment represents dramatic and dangerous upheaval, with the war against Iran in its second week and a “regime change operation” not going as planned. He says there is tremendous confusion about war aims and the ground situation, describing Washington as “fogged” and characterizing Donald Trump’s public messaging as “ravings” from a “madman.” He contends that escalation control is illusory and that the world is sliding toward a broader and more dangerous conflict. Sachs asserts that the war is not limited to Iran: Iran has claimed to strike U.S. bases in several countries while denying attacks on Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey. He suggests the U.S. and Israel are pulling in proxies, including Kurdish fighters, and that Russia may be supplying Iran with intelligence while the U.S. supplies Ukraine. He contends that after decapitation strikes on Iran, Moscow faces pressure to deter NATO attacks, while Europe contemplates increasing nuclear weapons. He views the conflict as part of a wider global struggle, with fighting across the world and potential linkages to energy markets, indicating that an energy crisis is likely to be severe and poorly priced in by markets. He argues that if China and Russia support Iran, it underscores a broader strategic dynamic, given China’s oil interests and the U.S.’s efforts to cut off oil supplies to China from Venezuela, Russia, and Iran. On international law, Sachs reiterates his argument that the U.S.-Israel attack on Iran is also an attack on the United Nations. He asserts that the U.S. under Trump “despises the UN” and seeks to kill it “through a thousand cuts and through a devastating blow,” pointing to the U.S. withdrawal from UN agencies and rejection of key treaties. He emphasizes that Europe is complicit, with European leaders and ambassadors at the UN Security Council focusing critiques on Iran rather than on the U.S.-Israel strike. He invokes Article 2(4) of the UN Charter as the essence of the UN’s purpose to stop the use of force, contrasting this with the belief that the U.S. “rules the world” and uses violence to impose demands, including the call for “unconditional surrender” in Iran. Sachs describes the U.S. foreign policy machinery as dominated by the CIA and a network of “off the books militaries” that pursue regime change and hegemony. He recalls historical episodes: the 1953 coup in Iran, the Kennedy and Eisenhower era, and the long-standing pattern of U.S. interference in other countries’ leadership. He asserts that performance of checks and balances is deteriorating, with democracy weakening under threat and dissent punished, both in the U.S. and in Europe. He likens Trump’s rhetoric to a hyperbolic assertion that he would determine Iran’s next leader, calling this symptomatic of a broader U.S. imperial project. In discussing European responses, Sachs criticizes Germany for showing subservience to the U.S. stance, with European leaders at times prioritizing confrontation with Iran over engagement with Russia or seeking peace. He laments the decline of European strategic autonomy and the EU as a whole, noting the Danish ambassador’s focus on Iran while ignoring U.S.-Israeli actions. He argues that Europe’s leadership has failed to act in the spirit of postwar peace, contrasting current leadership with figures like de Gaulle, Mitterrand, Kohl, or Schroeder. Toward multipolarity, Sachs traces the idea back to Roosevelt’s vision for a United Nations-centered postwar order and contrasts it with the post-1990s U.S. unilateralism. He argues that the United States, Britain, Russia, and China would need to cooperate to avert catastrophe, and that the current trajectory—led by an obsession with global dominance—risks war, economic crisis, and widespread destabilization. He suggests that China and Russia are the most likely to push back against U.S. hegemony, with India possibly playing a role, though its alignment remains ambivalent. Sachs closes by noting that a move toward peaceful multipolar cooperation would require different leadership and a rejection of the Leviathan-style dominance mindset.

Professor Zhang argues that geopolitics is a game where players maximize their self-interest, with predictions built on game theory rather than ideology. For 2026, the central event is Trump’s state visit to China in April, and the US–China relationship is identified as the key uncertain variable, while Russia–Ukraine is considered settled and Europe–NATO–Russia largely forecastable. Zhang outlines the grand strategy behind current tensions: Trump supposedly aims to force a grand bargain with China by leveraging the destabilization of the Middle East and Western Hemisphere to push China into continuing to buy US dollars. He contends that since Nixon’s 1971 decision to float the dollar, the US has relied on two pillars—the petrodollar system and opening China to American technology and markets. As the US then ran deficits and engaged in Middle East wars, China sought to internationalize the yuan and reduce dependence on the dollar via instruments like the Shanghai gold exchange. This, in his view, destabilizes the dollar, prompting Trump to push China to maintain dollar demand by destabilizing oil supply routes and minerals for China’s EV, AI, and other sectors. By invading Venezuela and potentially destabilizing Iran, Trump allegedly aims to force China to rely more on Western Hemisphere oil, silver, gold, lithium, copper, etc., and thus buy more US Treasuries to support the dollar. The discussion then shifts to possible bifurcations: if the United States truly wants China to use the dollar, it would create trust and a predictable, rules-based order; yet current actions—such as cutting China off from semiconductors or “crushing its tech industry”—could push China away, making it more independent and less dependent on the dollar. The Venezuelan case is cited as evidence that the aim is to obstruct China rather than claim oil directly; it would rather block rival powers than simply seize resources. The two powers are described as codependent: China imports about three-quarters of its oil, with roughly 50% from the Middle East and 20% from Russia; China would face a long and costly transition to replace Russian oil entirely, including pipelines. China also has tools to push back, such as triggering instability in silver markets (where China dominates) or other commodities used for manufacturing, a dynamic described as mutually assured economic destruction if either side overplays. When asked how the US could simultaneously pursue trust and coercion, Zhang asserts it cannot have both; the US is described as a global hegemon that should treat China as an equal, but instead presses to subordinate China. This creates a “ladder over an abyss” metaphor: both sides must climb together, or both fall; overt coercion could push China toward a different strategic alignment, possibly toward Russia or a diversified energy portfolio. Zhang emphasizes the role of hubris and racism in US policy, rather than pure ideology, and says the US dollar’s strength is also its vulnerability. Looking at US domestic dynamics, Zhang predicts a potential US economic crisis could magnify political instability. He identifies three US fragilities: (1) AI-driven GDP components that may not generate enduring profits, as data centers consume vast resources and job loss looms; (2) over-financialization, including a speculative silver market and leverage in commodities; and (3) cryptocurrency de-coupled from real utility, with quantum easing allowing continued money printing. He argues these weaknesses could precipitate a fiscal crisis and civil conflict if not contained, potentially catalyzing a broader crisis of state legitimacy. In Europe, Zhang foresees militarization and a misguided pro-war stance despite domestic discontent, predicting irrational policies and a possible collapse of NATO’s existing framework. He forecasts intensified Europe–Russia tensions, including a possible endgame around Odessa, with NATO likely to be overwhelmed militarily, leading to civil unrest and a “slow death” for European cohesion over five to ten years. He contends Europe’s strategic autonomy is eroding under multiculturalist policies and internal polarization, undermining willingness to fight. Regarding the United States’ global posture, Zhang argues Washington is moving toward transactional empire-building—exploiting its vassals when advantageous and abandoning them when not—while projecting power from the Western Hemisphere as a core strategy. He argues that this approach will erode Europe’s relevance and provoke global backlash. Finally, Zhang returns to Iran: Trump’s push for regime change there is linked to leveraging support from Israel and influential backers, such as Adelson and Elon Musk, with the likely aim of a ground invasion. Yet the plausibility of a successful invasion is questionable, given Iran’s size and power, and Trump’s emphasis on optics over sustained policy. The main unknown is China’s response; factions within China differ on dependence on Russia versus diversified oil sources, and the April meeting will shape whether a grand bargain reduces conflict or merely preserves the empire’s decline. To conclude, the April China meeting is pivotal, with four scheduled meetings in 2026; a China–US deal could stabilize some tensions, but the underlying imperial collapse is expected to persist, fueling wars and confrontations worldwide regardless of occasional bargains.