Mare Nostrum

At the peak of its development, the Roman Empire ruled over all the countries that were located around the Mediterranean. Carthage had been destroyed, Greece had been subjugated, even Egypt had been conquered. Gaul and Spain had been turned into Roman provinces as were the coastal regions of the Adriatic Sea. Hence the proud Romans could declare that all the waters in between Europe and Africa and Asia were Mare Nostrum or Our Sea. All merchantmen were controlled by Rome as were all the ports. No one could travel freely without Rome’s permission. The Romans did not need to bother about tolls or tariffs or whatever. (Sometimes they were bothered by pirates, but that problem would be swiftly solved by Rome’s military might.)

The Baltic Sea is five times smaller than the Mediterranean (approximately 0.5 million square kilometres against 2.5 million square kilometres), but it is an important and – in many cases – the only sea route for many European countries to the high seas, to the Atlantic Ocean. These countries include (clockwise, starting from the north) Sweden, Finland, Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Russia again (the Kaliningrad oblast), Poland, Germany, and Denmark. Since Sweden and Finland have recently joined NATO, the Baltic Sea had become a sea that is surrounded by NATO member countries with the exception of Russia. But Russia has a very narrow access through the Finnish Gulf (that’s where St Petersburg is located) and through the Kaliningrad oblast, which in turn is cut off from Russia proper by territories that belong to Poland and Lithuania. Having in mind the two narrow slips of land where Russia has access to the Baltic Sea, we can say that the Baltic has become NATO’s Mare Nostrum.

Considering the enmity that reigns supreme between the Western bloc and the Russian Federation, we can easily imagine the temptation on the part of the Western countries to view the Baltic Sea as a stranglehold on Russia. The leaders of these countries might choose to block Russia from sending its ships via the Baltic to the Atlantic Ocean or they might at least want to make life miserable for the Russian fleet. Let us not forget that Russia might access the Atlantic Ocean also through the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, but then, again, the access looks like a narrow throttle – especially in the place called the Bosporus Straight. It is controlled by Turkey, and although the 1936 Montreux Convention makes the Straight passable internationally, Turkey is a NATO member.

As it is, Russia can easily be cut off from the Atlantic Ocean irrespective of whether she chooses to access the ocean through the Baltic or through the Black and the Mediterranean Seas. Yet, being a nuclear superpower and finding itself in a mortal struggle with the West for sheer survival as an independent, sovereign state, the Russian Federation might be compelled to (aggressive? defensive? pre-emptive?) measures. Recall how the so-called Polish Corridor – a strip of land that cut off East Prussia from Germany proper during the time of 1918-1939 sparked the war between Germany and Poland, and consequently the Second World War. At that time Germany did not fight for its survival, certainly not against Poland, which did not threaten Germany’s existence, and still Berlin decided that Germany could not do without the corridor. Now Russia as a superpower needs access to the high seas or else. The Russian Federation is the largest country by territory, but its location is somewhat infelicitous. While the United States has unrestricted access to both the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans, Russia only has direct access to the Pacific Ocean. The problem is that while the United States’ eastern and western seaboards are equally well economically developed, Russia’s far east is not. The other point is that Russia’s far east is far flung from the European part of Russia. The distance between the western- and easternmost parts of the Russian Federation is much longer than that between America’s western and eastern seaboard. Moscow must, therefore, fight for access to the high seas cost it what it may. What may we expect?

If any one or all of the Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia) choose to alienate Russia, to deny its access to the Baltic, then they might fall prey to Russia’s military intervention. Will the said Baltic states risk such policy? In all probability, they will. Why? Because already we can see how bellicose they are in their dealings with the Russian Federation, and how their leaders bend over backwards to oblige their Western overlords. They might choose to take over the role which has been played by Ukraine for the last several years. Taking such steps, they will force Russia to step in militarily. Once Russia intervenes in the Baltic states, she might choose to either incorporate them, or install there governments that will be Russia friendly. Bear in mind that Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia used to be parts of imperial Russia (where they had no autonomy) and then of the Soviet Union (where they enjoyed the status of union republics with their governments, constitutions and the like; a status similar to that that they have now within the framework of the European Union).

If Finland chooses to thwart Russia’s access to the Baltic Sea, it might expose itself to a repeat of the Winter War of 30 November 1939 – 13 March 1940. That war cost it territorial losses. Finland, too, used to be part of the Russian empire as an autonomous grand duchy (1809-1917) with its own parliament. If push comes to shove, Finland may again lose some of its territory or become an autonomous part of the Russian Federation.

I hear you say NATO will never allow that kind of land grab! If you think so, then, please, think again. If the scenario that we are presenting materializes, the ruling classes of the Baltic states and Finland will swiftly and comfortably run away (that’s the usual behaviour of the ruling classes), while the common Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians and Finns will remain, as is usually the case with the common people.

The Baltic as Mare Nostrum is a powerful geostrategic instrument in the hands of the managers of the Western world, but concurrently – a curse for the common people of small nations who matter to the managers of the world about as much as the pawns on the chessboard.

Human malleability

Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner are shuttling between Washington and Moscow in an attempt to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine. Whether their intentions are honest and sincere is a matter of your and my conjecture, but the fact is that they travel to and fro.

The Russian side is represented by one Kirill Dmitriev rather than Sergei Lavrov. Kirill Dmitriev is an interesting person. He was born in 1975, in Ukraine – Soviet Ukraine. Nonetheless, between the ages 14 and 25 he studied at… no, not Kiev or Moscow university. He studied at Stanford University and Harvard Business School. His father was – yes, you guessed it right – a high-ranking member of the Communist Party of Ukraine. This did not prevent his son – Dmitriev – from working for Goldman Sachs in the capacity of an investment banker for a couple of years. A son of a staunch communist transitioned to being a capitalist from one day to the next. His father fitted into the communist system because it was then the order of the day; Kirill became a worshipper of capitalism because – yes – now capitalism has become the order of the day. One wonders about the human psyche.

The human psyche seems to be very malleable. Human psyche might fit the definition of what liquid is. You may remember the simple and nice definition from your elementary school that liquid is any substance that takes the form of the container into which it is poured. So does the human psyche. When communism reigns supreme, you become a communist; when capitalism gets the upper hand, you become a capitalist. That’s all there is to it.

Such changes often take place within the same generation. Imagine a German born in, say, 1900, and living to be a hundred in 2000. During his childhood and early youth our Helmut would certainly have been an ardent follower of the German monarchy, of the Kaiser; after the fall of the monarchy in 1918, he would have certainly changed gear and become an obedient citizen of the Weimar Republic; during the national-socialist times of 1933-1945 the same Helmut would have certainly become a loyal member or supporter of the NSDAP; after the 1945 debacle he would have become either a regular citizen of (capitalist) West Germany operating under American tutelage or a regular citizen of (socialist) East Germany operating under the Soviet tutelage, depending on in which part of the country he would have found himself at war’s end; after 1989 he would have eagerly voted for the unification of the two German states, although prior to this event he certainly would have willingly fought in a fraternal war against the Germans across the border if such were the circumstances. More to it: during much of his life our Helmut would have been a German patriot (of imperial Germany, national-socialist Germany, the Federal Republic or the German Democratic Republic) to end up as a globalist and cosmopolitan in the post 1991 reunified Germany. As the citizen of national-socialist Germany he would have looked down upon non-European human races and even on the Slavs; after 1945 – irrespective of his place of residence, be it West or East Germany – he would have sloughed off his racism while in the 2000s he would have embraced not only Slavs but also — and predominantly so – people from the Third World. All those changes would have occurred during the life of one man, during the life of one generation.

In the case of the Dmitrievs it took two generations to transit from anti-capitalism (communism) to capitalism (anti-communism), but the time span during which those epic changes in the worldview of the two related individuals occurred is comparable with that of our Helmut. Both examples showcase the infinitely malleable human psyche.

Iran in turmoil

Again and again, we hear news from Iran. We are hearing it right now. There are street demonstrations, there are street riots, there are arrests. We’ve been hearing about it for some time now, and we are hearing it at present. Obviously, the Iranian government does not suit the political plans of the powers that be or else there would be no riots, no demonstrations. What is happening in Iran has been practised in many other places around the globe, be it Syria or Libya, be it Serbia or Georgia, be it Venezuela or Kazakhstan. There is no evidence, but all the fingerprints point to the culprit behind the riots, and the culprit is always the same: CIA or MI6… or both.

What is again occurring in Tehran is a typical example of a colour revolution, of a revolution from outside. It makes one think about the two Russian revolutions of 1917. Those, too, were instigated from abroad. The result, initially at least, was astonishing. The grand Russian Empire disappeared; Russia sank into a prolonged, atrocious civil war that was also a war of attrition. When the country eventually surfaced onto the political stage, barely anyone reckoned with it because it was so weakened.

Such revolutions, or regime changes as they are called, have been applied very frequently during the second half of the former century, and continue to be applied in the current century. They are very often successful. They were successful in Serbia and Libya, in Syria and in Ukraine. Attempts were made in Belarus, Georgia and Kazakhstan, but they failed. Recently, in Venezuela, another approach has been adopted: that of abduction.

Iran is supported by (first of all) China and Russia. China purchases large quantities of oil from Iran. Iran is a BRICS member. Iran forms a slightly remote underbelly of the Russian Federation. But Iran is also a thorn in Israel’s flesh, and since the United States serves Israel just as the European Union serves Ukraine, so Washington feels obliged to support Israel. We do remember – do we not? — last time when Iran was bombed while the Washington-Tehran negotiations were under way?

The West will either achieve its goal of regime change – like in Syria – or it will lose its grip on Iran for good – just like it lost its grip on Belarus. Let us not forget that it was the British and the Americans who toppled Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953 and paved the way for the monarchical political system to be installed in Tehran. It might be that the same political actors would not mind at all if monarchy were to be restored in Iran. No, it is not monarchy that they are after, we know. It might be monarchy, it might be oligarchy, it might be as well as democracy – or, indeed, any other system of government so long as it is compliant with the managers of the world.

Freedom of expression in the West

The West is fighting to restore democracy and freedom of expression in Russia, Belarus, China, Venezuela and everywhere else on the planet. But Western democracy is like an increasingly rigid corset that restricts citizens’ freedom of movement and expression. In Western democracies, you can only say what the so-called quality media, i.e. government-friendly media, say, otherwise you will end up in prison. To illustrate this, we have selected this graphic from the World of Statistics website (see below).

It turns out that the United Kingdom is the leader in the category of the New Beautiful World, Orwellian style. Of course, someone might say: But this graph does not take into account the population of a particular country. And that’s true, but in the case of the United Kingdom, it doesn’t change much. The population of the United Kingdom is approximately 70 million, which is almost twice the population of Poland. Meanwhile, 40 times more people have been arrested for comments in the United Kingdom than in Poland.

Source

Let’s move on. There are reports that the UK is planning to introduce a surveillance system that reads facial expressions and emotions. The police will be able to analyse people’s emotions in public places using a camera system supported by artificial intelligence algorithms. These technologies will identify potentially suspicious behaviour based on facial expressions, movement patterns, tone of voice or characteristic gestures. The authorities are presenting the project as a tool for fighting crime, preventing suicide attempts and speeding up the search for missing persons. In practice, however, this means paving the way for the creation of a surveillance system that until recently was only a vision from dystopian novels. If such a system is implemented, it will be possible to initiate an arrest before you even touch the keyboard. The Chinese regime is not that far ahead.

Source

Discrepant Exegeses

It was not executed in broad daylight – rather, in the dead of night – but still it was disrespectful as disrespectful can be. A head of state of a sovereign nation was abducted as if he were a criminal. Handcuffs were put on his hands, he was blindfolded and transported – together with his wife – from his own country to the United States. What a show! For all to see. For all leaders to take notice. For all top politicians to be on their guard. That happened on January 3. We all know it, the whole world knows it – the whole world observed it with bated breath.

A head of a relatively large country was captured like he was a street ruffian. Apart from his personal security detail that attempted to put up a fight there was no resistance in the true sense of the word. American aircraft hovered over Caracas the way they might hover over their own turf. There were casualties to be sure but no appreciable resistance of the country as such. Pundits draw conclusions that Nicolás Maduro’s closest associates – generals, ministers – had betrayed him, had let themselves be bribed, and abandoned him in the critical moment. Word has it that only Cuban bodyguards stood up for Nicolás Maduro, as a result of which some of them were killed.

The warrant for the action? The drug trafficking into the United States that allegedly had been sponsored by Caracas and the president himself. Sure enough that is the declared objective, not the genuine one. We’ll talk about the genuine objective later in the text. Here let us make an assumption that it was drug trafficking that triggered the US action, and that Nicolás Maduro really sponsored it. If that were the case then a couple of questions arise.

For at least four years during the Biden administration the American southern border was not merely porous: it was wide open for all to come. Arrivals from South America were flocking across the border and they were not even vetted! Sure enough, drug traffickers may have been among them. Why should Venezuela be punished for that? The drugs are distributed in American cities – does anybody forces the purchase of them at gun point? Last but not least, why are the American police not effective enough? Why must the American army step in? If particular countries were to be blamed for particular sorts of crime that is perpetrated on American soil, then the US army should be intervening around the globe twenty-four seven. But then, if you do not want to have drug traffickers, why have borders open wide for all to cross them?

The event of January 3rd compels one to draw a comparison between the intervention of the US Army in Venezuela and the intervention of the armed forces of the Russian Federation in Ukraine. How alike they are and at the same time how different! Americans claim that Venezuela posed a security threat to the United States; Russia claims that Ukraine posed a security threat to the Russian Federation. Washington says it is protecting its citizens from drug trafficking cartels; Russia maintains it is protecting its citizens from Banderite fascist ideology and the military bases complete with ballistic missiles to be installed in Ukraine once Kiev joins NATO. Washington feels threatened by a country that is three-four thousand kilometers away from America’s coastline; Russia feels threatened by a neighbouring country, a country that is adjacent to Russia, a country that is not separated from the Russian Federation by a body of sea as the United States is separated from Venezuela.

Knowing all this full well, America’s allies go out of their way to either support politically the United States or keep their mouths shut; contrarily, they are beside themselves with outrage when it comes to the Russian intervention in Ukraine. Caracas had diplomatic and economic ties with China and Russia – America’s rivals, but Kiev had ties with the United States and was planning to join NATO, a military alliance which is openly hostile to Russia. These are mirror events and yet they are adjudicated entirely differently. Why?

The United States has executed an action of decapitation which is just yet another one in the long string of such actions. Think about Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, Serbia’s Slobodan Milošević, Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, and many others. Leaders of sovereign states are put on trial (Slobodan Milošević, Nicolás Maduro) or killed (Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milošević) or chased away (Bashar al-Assad). Do you still remember the repulsive repugnant disgusting sickening abhorrent enunciation of one Hillary Clinton as she said – commenting on Gaddafi’s death and paraphrasing Julius Caesar – We came, we saw, he died! – and laughed heartily at that? Imagine Vladimir Putin saying something along these lines, commenting on the death of, say, Volodymyr Zelenskyy… What a howl would be raised in the the ‘free’ world! A statement like that would be interpreted as ultimate evidence of Putin’s wickedness.

Might is right, that’s all there is to it. So, America intervened in Venezuela because it saw it fit. All the justification that is being rolled out is either easily refutable or laughable. Isn’t it ridiculous to hear that the world’s dominant superpower needs to abduct the head of a small country located thousands of miles away across the sea because the superpower feels insecure? Isn’t it laughable to hear that the Russian Federation has no legitimate grounds for intervening in a neighbouring country that is about to join a military alliance which is openly hostile to Russia? And yet, millions of people do not seem to see it.

Now the genuine reasons for the American intervention in Venezuela. Venezuela holds the largest oil reserves than any other country, including Saudi Arabia. Venezuela also has other valuable resources. Control over them will provide the United States with enormous economic and – what follows – political leverage. We should not lose the sight of the fact that Saudi Arabia has not prolonged the agreement it once signed with Washington to only sell its oil for American dollars. That in itself is dangerous for the United States. It was the petrodollars that safeguarded American might and American development. All countries and any country wishing to buy oil – and they all need oil for a variety of purposes – needed to first have dollars. Dollars are issued by the United States, so ultimately all the world’s nations needed to directly or indirectly either sell to the United States their goods and services or borrow from the United States. Americans were growing rich by simply… printing dollars or transferring electronic impulses from their bank account to the bank account of a country which was in need of dollars.

The capture of the head of state and the installment of someone who might be willing to comply with American wishes is also a strike dealt against China. China has been spreading its tentacles to Africa and… South America. Beijing has been replacing European colonial powers on the Dark Continent and attempting to dislodge American influence from the Western hemisphere. Americans suddenly remembered the 1823 Monroe’s doctrine, which stated that both American continents are the sphere of influence of the United States alone. No one should dare to set foot anywhere south of the American border. The Chinese have financed the construction of the Port of Chancay in Peru as a part of the Belt and Road Initiative. Its task is to enable the exports to China from South American countries and imports from China to South America. The Middle Kingdom is setting foot where it should not dare, according to the Monroe doctrine.

With this intervention Americans have set yet another example – a warning sign – a mafioso-like manifestation what awaits those leaders who will not comply…

Be it as it may, what strikes the eye is pure hubris, the kind of hubris that has always been present throughout history and always will be. In 1939, the Third Reich and the Soviet Union signed a pact to divide Poland. That pact has been branded by the European Union as a conspiracy against peace; the leaders of the contracting states – Hitler and Stalin – were labeled warmongers who paved the way for the outbreak of the Second World War. Now almost a whole year earlier another pact had been signed, a pact between Germany, Italy, France and the United Kingdom, a pact that paved the way for the partitioning of Czechoslovakia. This pact – signed by Hitler, Mussolini, Daladier and Chamberlain – in Munich has not been branded by the European Union as outrageous, although it, too, led straight to the outbreak of the Second World War. You see? Very similar events, very different interpretations. Much the same is true of the current interventions in Venezuela and Ukraine: American intervention is regarded as the right one, Russian intervention as abominable. History is full of events mirroring each other and receiving discrepant exegeses.

Nuclear fusion, or how Americans want to keep inflating the AI bubble

Nuclear fusion is the process in which two light atomic nuclei fuse under extreme conditions (heat and pressure) to form a heavier nucleus, releasing enormous amounts of energy—similar to what happens in the sun and has been exploited in hydrogen bombs, but this time for the purpose of future energy production.

Nuclear fusion is a kind of holy grail for scientists, as power plants operating in this way would produce huge amounts of energy at low cost. Why so much energy? – one might immediately ask. Well, AI (and cryptocurrencies, for that matter) only work thanks to huge amounts of energy.

Has something new happened? Have we achieved a breakthrough in nuclear fusion technology? Apparently so: on December 19, the owner of the Truth Social platform (Trump Media & Technology Group, DJT) announced a merger with Tae Technologies, a private nuclear fusion company. The transaction is valued at more than $6 billion and its goal was to create the world’s first publicly traded company dedicated to this revolutionary technology. According to Donald the Great, construction of the first power plant was supposed to begin as early as 2026, which is unlikely. However, ambitious promises arise from actual needs. As mentioned, the data centers created by the flood of artificial intelligence around the world require gigantic amounts of energy that the system simply cannot provide.

However, the merger of DJT with TAE Technologies is cause for concern. Nuclear fusion is a technology that requires stable financing, while Trump’s media company is considered a “meme stock” due to its high volatility.

TAE Technologies is not an uninteresting company—it is in a key development phase. In collaboration with Google, they are building a machine called Copernicus, which is intended to demonstrate that it can produce more energy than it consumes. The challenge is great because previous devices heated the plasma to 75 million °C, while a temperature of 1 billion °C is required for efficient power generation. Their technology has a chance of success, but it now requires large investments to lead to its potential commercialization. There is still a long way to go, and given the volatility of DJT, it may just be hot air.

As always, regardless of who is at the helm of the US, a Democrat or a Republican, it is the markets that save the day and play into the hands of Wall Street, especially now that more and more analysts are pointing out the overvaluation of companies such as Nvidia and others in the Magnificent 7.

Conclusion: Perpetual growth is the holy grail of America’s political class.

Venezuela

The country has more oil than Saudi Arabia, yet the majority of its citizens live in poverty. Venezuela’s history is instructive, even for Europeans. When demand for oil rose during the Second World War, the country benefited from its location outside the military conflicts in Europe and Asia to such an extent that in the 1950s it ranked fourth in the world in terms of GDP per capita.

It is noteworthy that this success was achieved under the dictatorship of Jimenez, which refutes the theory that dictatorships of any kind are bad for the economy. Jimenez created a healthy coexistence between foreign corporations and his state: large companies such as Exxon Mobil and Shell brought their technologies and expertise and received 50% of the profits in return, with the other half going to the state treasury.

Country	GDP per capita in 1950

USA	9 500 $
Switzerland	9 000 $
New Zealand	8 500 $
Venezuela	7 500 $
Australia	7 200 $

Source: IWF

When the Arab producers united in OPEC raised prices during the oil crisis in the 1970s, Venezuela was flooded with petrodollars (incidentally, OPEC was Caracas’ initiative). Government revenues rose by 300% between 1972 and 1974! However, the “democrats” who ruled after the fall of Jimenez did not think about the future: instead of building up reserves for a rainy day, such as the Norwegian state pension fund, they spent everything. Although the standard of living in the country rose and the education system was developed, the economy was completely “channelled” into oil production instead of being diversified, as the countries in the Persian Gulf are currently doing. At the same time, the ruling Democrats around Pérez made numerous other mistakes: for example, they embarked on a course of neoliberal austerity policies. When it came to austerity, they resisted the notorious IMF, which tried to impose its will (i.e. that of the US government) on Venezuela, as it did on many other countries around the world. Incidentally, Pérez aptly described the IMF as a “neutron bomb” that “kills people but leaves buildings standing.” Later, due to falling oil prices on the world markets, Pérez privatized state-owned enterprises, subsidies and price controls for public services were abolished, and oil prices were liberalized, which was intended to satisfy the IMF and enable new loans from major Western banks. However, foreign debt hardly decreased, but fuel at petrol stations and public transport prices became significantly more expensive.

Although Pérez was partly neoliberal, he belonged to the National Socialist Party and opened the door to the greatest plague in the world – socialism. And, of course, this did not happen without bloodshed, but with mass protests against his policies, the deployment of the army against its own people, and military coups in which thousands were killed. Extremists naturally emerged victorious from the battles: the Marxists led by Hugo Chávez, the supporters of the Bolivarian Revolution. And lo and behold: while the country had been doing well after the Second World War, despite being ruled by a military junta, its steep decline began with the government of an officer who had been infected with Marxism.

The large corporation that was created by the nationalization of oil companies under Pérez in 1976, which deprived foreign corporations of control over resources (in an effort to achieve self-sufficiency), PDVSA (Petroleum of Venezuela), began investing in infrastructure and technology in the 1990s when oil prices rose again. Once again, foreign companies were allowed to cooperate, contributing capital and technological solutions. This made it possible to produce oil cost-effectively even in old, inefficient fields. As long as PDVSA was independent of politicians, invested in refineries abroad in order to process Venezuelan oil (which was of poor quality) effectively, and performed well on the stock market, the entire post-war system continued to function efficiently. However, Chávez did not like the fact that the company’s lower profits due to investments were making the state coffers in Caracas poorer. He turned PDVSA into a wholly state-owned company, filled it with his own people, and made it ineffective, inefficient and unprofitable. This was also the fate of almost all companies in the former Soviet bloc that were taken over by the state.

Chavez’s policies were met with massive protests because he dismissed over half the workforce of the company that fed the state. The protests (supported by whom? – take a guess) led to Chavez even being arrested in 2002. George Bush triumphed and Donald Trump now wants to follow in his footsteps. But then Chávez returned to power and ruled for so long that he had to name his successor – Nicolás Maduro.
The two men – Chávez and Maduro – ruined the country. PDVSA had consolidated revenues of $96.2 billion in 2007. In 2015, it was barely $12 billion. Not to mention the decline in GDP per capita over the last two decades! Inflation rose from an initial level of 40% in 2013 to over 250% in 2016. Was that when Western sanctions began in order to stop the president? No way! It was to take back the resources!

We do not want to burden you any further with a historical description of the defeat of the Venezuelan socialists/Marxists. There is too much to write about. It suffices to mention a few facts and figures to illustrate the outcome of decades of left-wing governments: Over the past 20 years, Maduro has carried out a complete expropriation of businesses and citizens, the economy is practically non-functional, inflation has risen to an absurd level of 1.3 million per cent, oil production has fallen to World War II levels, foreign assets have been seized by creditors, there is a shortage of food and medicine in shops and pharmacies, and almost 3.5 million Venezuelans have left the country.

Only the USA has the military capability to take over/occupy the country/resources/beautiful piece of nature in South America. War is always waged in the name of something. This time, it is in the name of the fight against drugs and, of course, against dictatorship. If the Russians or Chinese had such an opportunity, they would have seized it immediately. The armed forces have already been sent to the Caribbean.