My 83rd birthday was on Friday. For several reasons I chose to hold the party on Saturday, yesterday. So I was busy the whole day picking up food, setting up the room, welcoming and enjoying my guests, cleaning up afterward. I had a lovely day. I had no time to see what was happening in the world.

It wasn’t until evening that I looked at the news and discovered the US moves on Venezuela. I didn’t see the trump “victory” press event (I wouldn’t have watched it, anyway). This morning I have read two reactions that offer a sense of what will now transpire.

Michael Cohen explains what will happen in court on Monday when Maduro and his wife are brought before the judge there. https://substack.com/home/post/p-183424483

This case will not be decided by press conferences at Mar-a-Lago or chest-thumping rhetoric about “illegitimate rulers.” It will be decided motion by motion, evidentiary hearing by evidentiary hearing, under the watchful eye of a judge who has already demonstrated he will not allow the executive branch to trample constitutional boundaries; no matter how politically popular the target.

Maduro will plead not guilty. His wife will plead not guilty. And then the real work begins.

Trump may have wanted a trophy. What he got instead was Judge Hellerstein.

And trust me; having been on the receiving end of his rulings when the government overreaches, that’s not the outcome this administration thinks it is.

In other words, he explains, a long drawn out circus that now begins.

I also read Timothy Snyder – a look at some similar US incursions where the outcomes were not what they hoped for. He implies this time is likely no different. https://snyder.substack.com/p/venezuela-the-precedents?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email-restack-comment&r=cgren&triedRedirect=true

The point of these four comparisons is not that history repeats. It is that history reveals. It can help us see around corners, into possible futures. Each of these examples, I hope, provides a useful perspective: that American imperialism is a tradition; that removing something or someone does not lead to predictable results; that dispensing with international law is not only wrong but undesirable; that foreign military actions can be about domestic regime change. What we see we can stop; what we understand we can change.

Snyder has a broad understanding of fascism and dictatorships – the focus of his scholarship. It’s worth reading his piece to understand trump’s play here and what some of the unexpected consequences might be.

Phillips P. Obrien yesterday (written before it was clear what precisely had occurred in Venezuela) points our gaze to Cuba and some unexpected consequences of the US military operation in Venezuela.

If this military operation is for real, getting rid of Maduro might be the easiest part of it. He will not be mourned by the Venezuelan people and already his ability to secure capital was under threat. I’m sure everyone around is calculating whether now is the moment to cut and run—or even turn him over. 

However its what comes after that will determine this. If the Venezuelan people are allowed to establish a free and democratic country, with control of their own natural resources, this will be a good thing. However, very few of the outside actors seem to have prioritized this. The USA has made a claim to Venezuelan oil itself, and the Trump administration prefers dictators/autocrats to democrats. The Cubans will also not want a democratic Venezuela in charge of its own destiny and we can assume that some members of the Venezuelan security forces will prefer another strong-man to keep control and spread around the corrupt takings. Sorry if I sound cynical.

So, no tears for Maduro, but do not assume that what comes after will be better or that this will be over soon. And watch the Cubans.

Ann Telnaes sums all of this up as well as anyone: https://substack.com/home/post/p-183299999

Just after the release of former special counsel Jack Smith’s deposition where he unequivocally states that Trump “engaged in a criminal scheme” to overturn the 2020 election, Trump changes the conversation.