Venezuela's Navy Begins Escorting Ships as U.s. Threatens Blockade
Posted25 days agoActive22 days ago
nytimes.comNewsstory
heatednegative
Debate
80/100
PoliticsVenezuela
Key topics
Politics
Venezuela
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
58m
Peak period
68
0-6h
Avg / period
13.1
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Dec 17, 2025 at 6:13 PM EST
25 days ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Dec 17, 2025 at 7:11 PM EST
58m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
68 comments in 0-6h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Dec 20, 2025 at 1:23 PM EST
22 days ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 46306925Type: storyLast synced: 12/18/2025, 12:40:41 AM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
Maybe if they can pinpoint its whereabouts at a specific time when it's not heavily guarded, they can send a team to snatch it with minimal casualties.
2031: After 4 year struggle Maracay has finally fallen, An F35 has been shot down by unknown energy weapon, probably provided by China.
Granted considering his statements as things has gone on I'm not at all sure about his grasp on reality. Maybe he sees the wrong tweets and does something stupid(er) than usual?
If we're optimistic and assume that Trump, Xi and Putin have some kind of deal for a new world order where the US is no longer a world police, and the US gets to have its oligarchs just like Russia has.
Maybe that part of the deal is that Trump gets the Americas. It sure sucks for the new vassal states, but it beats having a nuclear war.
Could it be Trump is leaning towards just letting Putin and the EU settle their own differences by themselves - - while Trump concentrates on his side of the world, which Venezuela is a too easy prize to win. The old playbook: Find a US leaning Venezuelan leader who can be bought off with CIA money, get rid of Maduro, by force if needed, then the huge discoveries in the oilfields of Guyana next door that Exxon, Hess Corporation, CNOOC and others have their hands deep in are secured.
All moot now, as anyone could have predicted, but it was fun to think about.
What's a problem is companies that claim to be registered in Delaware when Delaware records show no such registration.
You seem to know very little about oil tankers and flags. What flag do most oil tankers from the Persian Gulf heading to the US fly? Rarely a US flag or flag from a Oersian Gulf state. Often a Liberian flag. So the seas are filled with oil tankers headed to the US under what you call a "false flag".
However the M/V Skipper was not registered in Guyana. It was flying a false flag and so any country was free to seize it.
If you believe in "might makes right" why not just be honest and come out and say that?
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/oil-tanker-seized-by-...
https://trumpstruth.org/statuses/34245
No, but they'll win all the battles.
Whether they should have bothered in the first place though, given how corrupt and dysfunctional the regime in the south was, is an open moral question.
Yes, that's literally how essentially every war ends; some combination of factors causes one side to stop fighting rather than continuing the pay the price in blood and treasure that fighting demands.
There's probably a few somewhere that end because the losing side doesn't give up but fights to the last person, but that's very much not the norm.
Yes, that's called "losing a war," and no serious strategist pretends that politics is not one of the key theaters (if not the key theater) of conflict.
How does a country lose a war without losing any major battles? On the homefront first.
Although the U.S. ruling class often likes to pretend it can operate with no regard for its domestic perceptions of legitimacy, the stunning amounts they expend on relentless psychological operations suggest otherwise. Killing millions in an aggressive nuclear strike would do nothing but reveal to many people (who are desperately trying to pretend otherwise) that they are controlled by a klatch of relentless psychopaths.
Iraq’s Republican Guards rejoice!
Like seriously not even Trump can be stupid enough to actually want to GOVERN it. Can he?
One there could be a bit easier than Afghanistan etc. in that they have an alternative leader to bring in who seems to have won the last election. I don't think Maduro is very popular so much of the army could turn.
I don't disagree, but it cost at least 400,000 civilian lives in Vietnam war. It's hard for me to say "good move."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wag_the_Dog
It would serve to darken Trump's image a bit while affirming he's a Strong Man (a quote from the article).
Maybe they'll try to arrange some kind of Gulf of Tonkin style false flag.
They are sometimes described as "sanctioned", but what does it mean here? Does it mean Trump tweeted so? Is that by UN? US Congress?
Trump is clearly acting with bad will in Venezuela regardless, but I think the criticism should focus on the many parts where he is doing something wrong. If there were internationally-recognised sanctions that simply weren't enforced, I'd criticise Trump for all the other parts.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/us-unseals-warrant-tanker...
I think we need to be wary of the pattern where:
- some bad things happen but are ignored / uncontested by the "good" side
- the "bad" side comes in and does a lot of genuinely bad things of their own
- but also, perhaps selectively, contests other "bad" things that were left hanging by the "good" side, where it fits their narrative
- the "good" side is up in arms against the "bad" side following the law
Clearly this argument hinges on recognising Trump as a baddie and the Democrats, somewhat, as baddies. As a non-American, this is roughly how I see it, but I can't stir up outrage against Trump for enforcing sanctions according to his country's own laws. Bullying Venezuela, sure, but not this particular fragment.
I remember how defensive Democrats were of illegal immigration during the last election. I'll agree with anyone who wants to treat people fairly and humanely, but the Democrats were almost making out that illegal immigrants are some kind of modern day martyrs. If you think the immigration laws are not right, change them, but don't sit on and praise a system perpetuated by illegality.
It's just a hypocritical, massive own goal, and I detracts from all the genuinely bad things done by the "bad" side.
If they want to change the immigration laws, they first need to convince people that immigrants currently in the country illegally aren't monsters.
Sadly, your senate and congress chose to end the rule of law and application of the constitution and so no longer acts to curtail the president from being a de facto dictator. So he continues to act against international law and against basic morality: in this case in having foreign sailors kidnapped at sea and in supporting piracy.
My understanding is that it would only be unconstitutional, anti-democratic, and immoral if it was within USA's waters; so you could argue then it would be valid.
Did I err?