Defending against the United States

This is a roughly 45-minute discussion in two parts about Trump’s foreign policy on Venezuela from the MeidasTouch Legal AF “Court of History” podcast with Sidney Blumenthal, and Sean Wilentz (one of my favorite historians) and Jonathn Winer. All three legitimately qualify as “old white guys.” But they are considerably more in touch with reality than Trumpista freaks like Stephen Miller. (1)

Part 1:

Part 2:

Winer’s comments are a reminder that having tremendous oil reserves has been a big blessing and a big curse for Venezuela. An economy so heavily dominated by the oil business struggles with chronic problems, such as strong incentives to neglect less lucrative sectors of the economy (including the public sector) and big temptations for official corruption.

Winer had direct experience at the State Department with US-directed regime change in Haiti, which he discusses here and which like most such operations did not work out well.

The discussion also focuses on what a bonkers claim it is that the (officially asserted) US control of Venezuela “will pay for itself.” And of course Trump’s claim that the US will somehow reap enormous financial benefits from Venezuelan oil is ludicrous in the short or medium term. And profits for oil corporations will depend on their making large-scale, long-term investments. Which at the moment they have little incentive to und,032222222ertake, at least not without massive US governmental subsidies of some kind.

And in another current crisis deliberately generated by the Trump 2.0 regime, the European nations who are technically still NATO allies of the US are working quietly but urgently on how to respond to US military aggression against other NATO allies, with Denmark/Greenland being the most immediate challenge.

Politico EU reports on current developments:

European Union Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius has said the bloc should consider establishing a standing military force of 100,000 troops and overhaul the political processes governing defense.

Faced with Russian aggression and the U.S. shifting its focus away from Europe and threatening Greenland, Kubilius argued for a “big bang” approach to re-imagining Europe’s common defense.

“Would the United States be militarily stronger if they would have 50 armies on the States level instead of a single federal army,” he said at a Swedish security conference on Sunday. “Fifty state defence policies and defense budgets on the states level, instead of a single federal defense policy and budget?” [my emphasis] (2)

How to include Britain in a close military alliance without Britain being part of the European Union is a major political and structural issue in changing European defense policies to defend against the US as well as Russia. But international alliances in the face of perceived common threats is hardly a new thing in the world.

Notes:

(1) Trump WALKS Himself into NIGHTMARE Scenario. Legal AF YouTube channel. Part 1 (01/10/2026): https://youtu.be/cgf7OrP-oo8?si=RW4AbM0PGb2yX2FO> Part 2 (01/11/2026): <https://youtu.be/mmvlL_rYsaI?si=yCijfbNMA3xRShUw> (Accessed: 2026-12-01).

(2) Stanley-Smith, Joe (2026): EU may need 100,000-strong army, says defense commissioner. Politico EU 01/12/2026. <https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-needs-100000-strong-army-defense-commissioner-andrius-kubilius-military-overhaul/> (Accessed : 2026-12-01).