JD- would if he could...

There is a suggestion that Trump, on Venezuela and Greenland, might be adopting Nixon's ‘be unpredictable and potential enemies will be reluctant to poke the American bear’ foreign policy.

ttbn said- "There is a suggestion that Trump, on Venezuela and Greenland, might be adopting Nixon's ‘be unpredictable and potential enemies will be reluctant to poke the American bear’ foreign policy."

Answer- The Zen Master said we'll see... Kudos Ttbn.

Hi John Daysh,

Trump might be breaking international law in his operation to kidnap Maduro, but he's using international law as a pretext to continue his operations and seize the oil tankers.

Oil tankers from Venezuela have been stated as carrying 'Stolen US crude'

Sanctioned Tanker Marinera (the former Bella 1)
http://youtu.be/s-XPJsB53CU

US Seizes 'Russian' Russian Tanker Marinera (ex-Bella 1)
http://youtu.be/kksU9eqUcOM

You're pretty smart...

Google? Do US sanctions apply to the sea
AI Overview
"Yes, U.S. sanctions absolutely apply to the sea, targeting vessels, shipping activities, and related services globally to enforce restrictions on entities, countries (like Iran, Venezuela, Russia), and illicit oil/goods trade, often involving seizure of tankers, denial of port access, and penalties for non-compliance, even on the high seas
. The U.S. enforces these through naval actions, port restrictions, and targeting companies facilitating sanctions evasion, sometimes leading to international disputes over freedom of navigation"

Why is it that U.S. sanctions apply to the sea?
Shouldn't they be U.N. sanctions or international law?
Does the U.S. hold jurisdiction over all seas?
I understand there might be some questions about the flag change and transfer of ownership of Marinera (formerly Bella 1).

"Appealing to how many times you've read Thucydides isn't an argument. It's a credential, and it doesn't settle the question."

So that's a no from JD about reading Thukydides. JD's happy to tell us what Thukydides really meant when he wrote about the Melian Debate, but shows he's hasn't the slightest interest in understanding the full Thukydides. Of course, if he (JD) actually bothered to read up he'd realise that what he wants to believe Thukydides meant is a long way from the true. Solution - don't bother reading up, just assign approved views in utter contradictions to the actual text.

"Saying "realpolitik, who has the muscle is all that matters" isn't analysis either."

Maybe not. But it is aa recognition of the way the world really is as opposed to the way some wish it was.

"By that logic, Athens was right, Rome was right, Hitler was right, Stalin was right. If they prevailed for a time, that's all the validation required."

Its pretty funny how hard this is for you to understand. None of them were 'right'. But they all were powerful and prevailed.

"If brute force were literally all that mattered, history would look very different. Empires wouldn't keep collapsing, states wouldn't bother lining up allies, and leaders wouldn't waste time dressing invasions up as "defensive" or "necessary". They do all that because power on its own isn't enough."

That's just about the most clueless sentence you've written here, and that's saying something. Empires fall because they cease to be powerful. States create alliances to increase their collective power, generally against a more powerful foe. You utterly fail to understand the history of great powers.... a thorough reading of Thukydides would do wonders for your education.
_________________________________________________________________

AC,
the captured Russian vessels weren't, apparently, carrying Venezuelan oil. It seems they never actually got to Venezuela. But they had come from Iran and were presumably carrying something meant for Caracas. Currently speculation is left over Iranian nuclear fuel following the US-Israeli obliteration of the Iranian attempts to get the bomb

No, it's not, mhaze.

//So that's a no from JD about reading Thukydides.//

It's a no to treating "how many times you've read a book" as a substitute for an argument.

//JD's happy to tell us what Thukydides really meant when he wrote about the Melian Debate…//

I haven't claimed to reveal some hidden meaning. I've pointed out a basic distinction you keep collapsing: description versus endorsement. That distinction doesn't disappear because someone has read a text multiple times.

//…if he (JD) actually bothered to read up he'd realise that what he wants to believe Thukydides meant is a long way from the true.//

This is assertion without argument. You haven't shown where I've contradicted the text, only that you dislike the conclusion I draw from it.

//Maybe not. But it is aa recognition of the way the world really is…//

Saying "power explains outcomes" is a recognition of reality. Saying "power is all that matters" is a slogan. You keep sliding between the two and calling that realism.

//None of them were 'right'. But they all were powerful and prevailed.//

Temporarily. Which is exactly why "they prevailed" doesn't do the explanatory work you want it to. Prevailing at one moment tells us nothing about sustainability or eventual collapse.

//Empires fall because they cease to be powerful.//

That's a restatement, not an explanation. The question is why they lose power: overreach, internal fracture, coalition formation, legitimacy loss, economic strain.

//States create alliances to increase their collective power…//

Exactly. Which already concedes that raw, standalone muscle is often insufficient. Power is aggregated, managed, and offset.

//…a thorough reading of Thukydides would do wonders for your education.//

Appealing to your reading list doesn't answer the argument. It avoids it.

This debate isn't about whether power matters. It's about whether "power matters" exhausts the analysis. You keep asserting that it does, without ever defending that claim.