Trump: What's He Planning?
As regards to Maduro?
Who would have thought the US would be facing another moustachioed dictator who looks alarmingly like Saddam? But there you go, folks, history has a way of repeating itself. Long accused of being a drug lord and giving the US the middle finger, Nicolas Maduro has been a thorn in the side of the US. The first Trump administration tried to replace him with a Venezuelan candidate more to their liking. However, for whatever reason, it didn't come off, and Maduro remained in power.
Nicolas Maduro came to power in 2013. Maduro was chosen by the United Socialist Party of Venezuela to run in the presidential election. He narrowly won the election in April 2013 amid allegations of fraud, and he was subsequently sworn in as president, continuing Hugo Chavez's socialist policies.
Chavez died of cancer on March 05, 2013, after a long battle with the disease. His death created a power vacuum, which Maduro filled. Trump wants Maduro gone because he sees him as an illegitimate, authoritarian leader who undermines democracy with ties to Cuba, China, Russia, and Iran. Apparently, on the phone, Trump told Maduro to step down, or he would face whatever Trump wants to unleash on him. Recalling when George Bush II told Saddam he had 48 hours to leave Iraq, and we know what followed. Of course, a full US invasion might not occur in Venezuela as it did in Iraq. After all, Trump said he is the President to end forever wars, or so he said. But we will have to wait and see what happens.
The US has gathered a massive task force in the Caribbean. Allegedly, to tackle drug boats and destroy them. The US action has accounted for 80 deaths. These 80 deaths were supposedly drug trafficking crews. Some countries, like the UK, remain deeply uncomfortable with the US's actions. Stating attacks on shipping in international waters could be breaking maritime law. However, Trump justifies it as protecting Americans from drugs. Also, Maduro is allegedly behind many of these drug shipments. NGOs and other South American countries have stated they believe Maduro is a drug kingpin.
So, the US presence not far from the coast of Northern Venezuela seems to be on a twin-track design. One to stop drug trafficking and two to launch some kind of military attack on the regime of Nicolas Maduro. So it's possible Trump is attacking drug boats, but at the same time, preparing for military intervention in Venezuela. Yes, it could be a policing operation, but when the US has deployed the most powerful aircraft carrier in the world in the area, the USS Gerald. R. Ford, it ceases to be merely a policing operation.
Trump's forces might be enough to scare Maduro out of power. However, just as Bush's words didn't persuade Saddam to leave power, it could be the same with Maduro. In that case, it might force the US's hand to take military action. Maduro knows his forces are dwarfed by the sheer size of the US military. However, Maduro has been consulting with his officers and has arranged some kind of response to any US attack.
Maduro has sent IGLA missiles to the coast to defend against US aerial attacks, be they jets, missiles, or drones. Maduro has set up squads of men to launch sabotage attacks and guerrilla efforts to hamper any US land invasion. Even though Maduro has 20 SU-30 Russian fighters, how effective they will be in action against American military assets will remain to be seen. Maduro's military is made up of old, antiquated Russian equipment. How well it has been maintained for battle readiness is an open question. The military is paid pittance wages, with many servicemen and women deserting. Desertion is bound to escalate if the US attacks.
Maduro has asked Russia for help. With Russia being tied up in Ukraine, they won't come galloping to his rescue. However, Russia seems to have been flying in equipment to fortify Maduro's armed forces. There are probably Russian instructors on the ground in Venezuela anyway to help the Venezuelan military.
Let's hope for everyone that this can be resolved peacefully because, as Churchill said, "Jaw jaw is better than war war".
su
About the Creator
Nicholas Bishop
I am a freelance writer currently writing for Blasting News and HubPages. I mainly write about politics. But have and will cover all subjects when the need arises.
Keep reading
More stories from Nicholas Bishop and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Flee to Russia!!
Imagine going to a country to live on a 3-month visa issued by Vlad "The Invader" Putin. Yes, that's right, folks, the Russian leader issued 3-month stay visas for people fleeing persecution as they see it. You would think who would feel persecuted in so-called liberal Western democracies?
By Nicholas Bishop2 months ago in The Swamp
France Steps Back as G7 Summit Is Rescheduled to Avoid Clash With White House UFC Event
In an unexpected twist that has raised eyebrows across diplomatic circles, France has agreed to step back from its preferred scheduling as the G7 summit was moved to avoid a direct clash with a White House–hosted UFC event. The decision, while seemingly procedural, has sparked wider debate about political priorities, international symbolism, and how global diplomacy increasingly competes with high-profile domestic events for attention. The Group of Seven (G7) — comprising the United States, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Canada, and Japan — is traditionally a stage for coordinated responses to the world’s most pressing challenges. From wars and climate change to economic instability and technological regulation, the summit is meant to project unity and seriousness. That is why the rescheduling, reportedly prompted by a clash with a major UFC event linked to the White House calendar, has drawn both criticism and bemusement. How a Scheduling Conflict Became a Diplomatic Issue According to diplomatic sources, France had initially proposed dates for the upcoming G7 meeting that aligned with its broader foreign policy agenda. However, those dates conflicted with a high-profile UFC event scheduled to take place with strong White House backing. Rather than competing for political attention — particularly from U.S. leadership — negotiations led to a decision to move the summit. France, as a key diplomatic player within the G7, ultimately agreed to “tap out,” a phrase borrowed from mixed martial arts that has been widely used by commentators to describe the outcome. While the term adds humor to the situation, the underlying implications are far more serious. At its core, the episode highlights how domestic political events in powerful countries can influence international diplomacy, sometimes in unexpected ways. The White House, Spectacle, and Soft Power The involvement of a UFC event — a sporting spectacle with massive popular appeal — points to a broader trend in modern politics: the blending of entertainment, image-making, and governance. Sporting events have long been used as tools of soft power, from Olympic Games to World Cups. However, the idea that a global diplomatic summit would be rescheduled to avoid clashing with a combat sports event hosted around the White House is a striking illustration of changing priorities. For U.S. officials, the UFC event reportedly carried significant domestic political value, attracting media attention, high-profile guests, and a large public audience. In an era where optics and engagement matter as much as policy substance, the White House appeared unwilling to divide focus. This placed allies like France in a difficult position. Insisting on original dates risked reduced U.S. engagement at the summit — something no G7 country wants, given Washington’s central role in global decision-making. France’s Calculated Compromise France’s decision to accept the rescheduling reflects diplomatic pragmatism rather than weakness. French officials are well aware that the effectiveness of a G7 summit depends heavily on full participation and attention from all members, particularly the United States. By stepping aside on scheduling, France avoided a potential scenario where the summit would be overshadowed, poorly attended, or perceived as secondary. Still, critics argue that the move sets an uncomfortable precedent, suggesting that entertainment-driven political events can take priority over multilateral diplomacy. Supporters of France’s decision counter that diplomacy is about choosing battles wisely. Preserving unity and ensuring productive discussions, they argue, matters more than symbolic rigidity over dates. Reactions From Other G7 Members Other G7 nations have reacted cautiously, with most avoiding public criticism. Privately, however, diplomats have expressed concern that the episode reflects a deeper imbalance in how global governance is conducted. Some European officials worry that repeated concessions could weaken the perceived seriousness of forums like the G7. If summits are seen as flexible around domestic political calendars — particularly those tied to spectacle — their authority may gradually erode. At the same time, countries such as Japan and Canada are said to have supported the compromise, emphasizing the importance of maintaining smooth relations and ensuring the summit remains effective rather than symbolic. What This Says About Global Leadership Today Beyond the immediate scheduling issue, the incident offers insight into the evolving nature of global leadership. Politics today operates in a crowded attention economy, where leaders juggle international crises, domestic pressures, and media-driven events simultaneously. The clash between a G7 summit and a UFC event may seem trivial on the surface, but it reflects how political capital is increasingly tied to visibility and public engagement. Leaders must balance governing with maintaining relevance in a fast-moving media landscape. For traditional diplomatic powers like France, this shift can be frustrating. European diplomacy often emphasizes process, continuity, and institutional strength — values that can clash with more performative political styles. Critics Warn of Slippery Slope Critics argue that accommodating such conflicts risks normalizing the sidelining of diplomacy. Today it may be a UFC event; tomorrow it could be an election rally, a media appearance, or another high-profile spectacle. They warn that global challenges — from ongoing conflicts to climate emergencies — demand sustained, focused leadership. Anything that dilutes the importance of forums designed to address these issues could have long-term consequences. Some commentators have also pointed out the irony of world leaders struggling to align schedules at a time when global cooperation is more urgently needed than ever. Conclusion: Symbolism Matters France’s decision to step back as the G7 summit was moved to avoid clashing with a White House UFC event is more than a quirky headline. It is a reflection of the changing dynamics of power, attention, and symbolism in international politics. While the rescheduling may ensure better participation and smoother logistics, it also raises uncomfortable questions about what global leaders prioritize — and how diplomacy competes with spectacle in the modern age. As the G7 eventually convenes, the real test will not be the date on the calendar, but whether leaders can rise above distractions and deliver meaningful action. Still, the episode will linger as a reminder that in today’s world, even the most serious global gatherings are not immune to the pull of entertainment and domestic politics.
By Muhammad Hassan2 days ago in The Swamp
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.