Instability – January 23, 2026

All this recent activity? 

For the purposes of this conversation, let us focus on just the last month or so with respect to international matters. What role the US has played in all that. 

Right off the top we have seen the Trump Administration use military assets to assist the DOJ in the arrest of Maduro and his wife on various drug charges calling them “fugitives of American justice,” even though the same administration admitted they tried to negotiate a “very generous offer” for Maduro to leave on his own accord. Unsure anyone knows where, with what wealth, with what company, and under what conditions. No matter, Art of the Deal negotiations clearly did not result in much and one could argue forced the hand of the President.

Our first question, why is Maduro important to capture and Hernández pardoned? 

The resulting declaration is that the US is “in charge” of Venezuela, whatever that means, even though this apprehension did leave behind most of Maduro’s associates, military loyalists, and allies in place and in power. One worthwhile question, do the people of Venezuela even know that we claim to be in charge of their nation?  

It is reasonable to say most of those US military assets are still in place. In the Gulf well in control of what comes in or out of Venezuela. With the Trump Administration at least passively threatening Mexico, Columbia, even Cuba. Lest we forget, ongoing target practice of any boat determined to be carrying drugs, or whatever else, with any hint at all of the destination being the US. 

Authority and Constitutional questions notwithstanding, what we are seeing is a new round of aggression in an effort to alter current conditions in and south of the Gulf. 

Up north another round of instability, this time over Greenland. The Trump administration has threatened our closest allies over it, and most recently backed down after insulting that same audience. Retaliatory tariffs with increasing punishment the further we go, then suddenly more “framework” of yet some other yet to be determined deal. All of this over opposition to Trump’s Art of the Deal “buy of Greenland.” At one point military action was not ruled out, until later it suddenly was. 

Some other time we’ll discuss what tariffs really are, what they do, and who ends up paying. A small preview, it is not who you think and not what you are being told. 

Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, UK, the Netherlands and Finland are making the most noise, understandably so, but are now the Trump Administration’s adversaries. Interesting list begging multiple questions. But a little context first, two of the longest military engagements in US history, Afghanistan and Iraq, saw these same nations send forces standing side-by-side with our troops, and in support of this nation. 

What were emergency EU meetings on how to deal with Trump’s actions and rhetoric, has resulted in a slight reset to unknown conclusions. It is worth noting most of these nations are already conducting “joint military exercises” to assist Greenland. Solidarity with Denmark and by extension Greenland is established in the face of Trump’s ambitions, so far Trump’s threats have not broken that. 

Really evaluate that if you will, with Trump threatening then not threatening Greenland that means in the crosshairs are now military assets from these other nations. 

Alongside the concern for the people of Greenland, roughly 57,000 people who did nothing to deserve this aggression, we now have serious consequences for where this is going. The potential of a NATO nation attacking another NATO nation. Somewhere, Putin is getting one hell of a laugh out of this. Respect for international law and nation sovereignty is right out the window. 

A reference to history, when was the last time the US threatened to point a weapon at a European nation soldier? Upsetting question, I agree. 

Going a bit deeper here… 

Motivations are worth discussing with questions. Much like Venezuela is shaping up to be about oil profit enrichment and personal regional influence, it looks like Greenland may be all about the exact same thing but this time rare earth minerals. 

We already know that Venezuela has the largest oil reserves on the planet, surpassing Saudi Arabia, Iran, Canada, and Iraq. And that happens to be the top 5, in that order, with most sources in agreement. You have to go down to the #8 or #9 on the list, depending on source, to find the United States. 

Understand that extracting oil and producing oil products shakes up that list.  

What to know about Venezuela oil reserves. It is considered heavy and extra-heavy sour crude as types. That means it is very dense. Think of it as very sticky and thick, having parts that are near solid with others being more liquid, and ultimately it has a higher sulfur content. That means it is very difficult to extract and move in a pipeline. Specialized extraction processes are required and usually deploy diluents as well just to get this type of oil into a pipeline for eventual export and/or refinement. 

Venezuela does not handle this well on their own, what is in place is aged and running nowhere near capacity. All things considered, Maduro and predecessors did seize equipment that was owned by various foreign companies (including the US) and did not maintain it. Before we grabbed Maduro, extraction and processing capability was running at a fraction.  

Because of all this difficulty for this type of oil, it usually ends up refined into heavier end use applications. Such as asphalt paving, diesel, fuel oils (think power plants, factory use, larger engines usually marine,) etc. This type rarely, if ever, ends up refined to the point of ending up at your local fuel station. 

Back to motivations, we also know that early money from the sale of Venezuelan oil under the Trump Administration is ending up in “US controlled” accounts at banks in Qatar.

Question, any thoughts about transparency?  

While I want to make it clear that money does not belong to Trump, nor am I accusing him or his administration of taking it, the influence from that money does benefit Trump. The result is international trade and cash flow outside the US (and very suspiciously anyone watching.) We already know people at Vitol, traders who are buying then selling Venezuela oil, are donating to Trump. 

It all suggests that before the first taste of freedom is realized in Venezuela, the first election is held by and for their people, or even any sense of stability for those people in Venezuela that the first step was money is already being made outside of Venezuela on their oil. 

All of this means it is not a bridge too far to question if Greenland is about “Artic security” and “national security” or, is this about something similar to Venezuela. What we may be talking about is rare earth minerals. 

Speculating for a moment, Greenland could follow a similar path. By some means obtain control of the land by some means where these minerals rest, work with corporations to extract these very in demand minerals, open up international trade via US authority, potentially also use offshore accounts in key locations to ensure controls and influence with little to no oversight, and ultimately someone starts profiting. So long as contributions are made?

What is being reported of the possibilities with Greenland rare earth minerals suggests a bit of strategy, that being competition for the very market China dominates. 

Currently China has vast rare earth mineral deposits, has more than 60% of current world extraction of them and nearly 90% processing. These numbers vary by source and the obvious answer to the why is really knowing and market influence. Regardless of raw materials export or downstream products from rare earth minerals China exports this all over the world. Near monopoly control might be a bit much, but as of today China does excel in this market. 

The sort of minerals that end up as high-performance and heat-resistant magnets used in everything from EV cars, to wind turbines, to guided missiles and advanced fighter jets, up to applications in nuclear production facilities. Other uses of these minerals are what you would think. More modern battery types for virtually everything, but also specialized glass, complex alloys, fuel-cells, complex electronics and superconductors, fiber optics, laser applications, the list really does go on and on.  

Sources vary on this, naturally, but most agree that around 900 pounds of rare earth minerals ends up in every single F35 Fighter Jet and over 9,000 pounds is used in every Virginia-class submarine. Engines, motors and guidance, radar systems, targeting systems, materials for stealth technology. It is extensive and with that also costly. 

In short, demand for that supply is… a lot. 

Question, enough to make it the underlying motivations for Greenland? 

Going after Greenland, by deal or force does not matter, means altering markets and altering international trade lines. Profit made by few and perhaps new players, with the threat of US military assets used to make it all happen. Assuming of course, no deal, from whatever framework is being claimed. 

An important note, as it will take real investment in everything from facility to equipment to  transportation for more oil profit to be made from Venezuela. A similar condition is also true for Greenland with respect to rare earth minerals. There is very minimal existing infrastructure in Greenland to support anything like what China has accomplished to date. Roads, rail, power grid, even seaports are lacking to do something substantial right out of the gate. 

Question, some or more of this already worked out or is it more likely the enticement of getting in on the ground level, so to speak, is worth the risk? 

One potential conclusion

You might be inclined to say that the US taking Maduro from Venezuela had nothing to do with stability and freedom for the people of Venezuela and that means Greenland has nothing to do with strategy and the so-called “golden dome.” 

A slight alternative conclusion is that national security for the US and economic control for key players may have crossed lines.  A skeptic, such as me and I assume some of you, would say it is possible all could be true at the same time. 

Boil it down and you may find some political strategy playing out. National security in a general sense but via less reliance on nations like China for rare earth minerals, greater influence into how oil and oil based products move about the planet, and of course a little wealth and influence for “my friends.” 

Where this gets messy is a conversation on ranking all these potential motivations. 

It might be too easy to conclude additional international level influence obtained by, and money made from, oil and rare earth minerals markets benefitting key players must be at the top of that list. But, we should consider that we do not know who those players are. At least not entirely outside of speculation. If anything has been discussed in advance with whoever would be in the mix on these things, I doubt anyone is sitting on a story about that. 

At the same time, we have to question, with all this western hemisphere spilled into European nations instability, there must be some end game. 

Assuming for a moment that Trump’s threats of the US controlling Greenland is a necessary step to prevent Russia or China from doing so, we have another and perhaps far more serious question. Are we at the dawn of modern day imperialism in the quest for control over resources? 

Lessons we should already know

Historically speaking, Imperialism was always about control and dominance and never achieved with a smile and a kind word. The message for a given reason may seem principled, or may be threatening and violent, but in the end imperialism means people and resources controlled by some version of authoritarianism. 

It matters not if the method is seizing nations by military force, “buying” nations or territory (in whatever form,) or some other method of economic control the ultimate goal is, and always was, advantage for resource accumulations and control over people. 

History gives us plenty of examples, ancient to recent. 

Some of the darkest, violent, and bloody chapters of world history happen to have occurred in some way associated with imperialism. In all of its forms. Some combination of authoritarianism, expansion, “colonization,” empire over competition, the quest for control over people and resources was the goal. Accumulation, even if a historian gets nitpicky over terms. 

If one agrees that the US has every reason to “buy” Greenland, under threat of taking it by force anyway, then it becomes problematic to oppose a few other relatively recent events. 

Like Russia taking all of Ukraine, and wherever else that Putin wants to shield himself from ever increasing NATO expansion. And on a similar tone, Ukraine also has rare earth mineral deposits and the Trump Administration last year negotiated for those rights as a link to the military and financial support the US is giving to Ukraine. This is not unfamiliar territory.

And you may have issues opposing China wanting to take Taiwan, or anyone else, for any number of reasons but included has to be greater control and influence over the South China Sea and surrounding areas. This has been in a multipleway dispute for years now. 

Fundamentally though, you accept imperialism or you do not. 

It becomes hypocritical to support, or even quietly accept, your nation’s imperialization no matter how characterized but oppose others doing something very similar for their own interests. Back to history, on a long enough timeline all the world’s bullies send their youth to fight out the differences determined by the leaders of nations. 

A question, does Rubio saying “who is going to oppose us” become a might makes right license to apply control over foreign territory or at least resources from them? Is “peace through strength” becoming territorial and economic dominance from strength? If one subscribes to the mentality of zero-sum then for someone to win someone else has to lose. 

Don’t agree with the sentiment or questions, well then shuffle over to Ukraine and tell me all about it from that perspective. 

Perhaps the ultimate question from this conversation, does anyone think any of this is wise? 

History tells us this does not end well for people, and I am not talking about leaders of nations and central figures in various economies, but those like the people of Greenland concerned about their own future and of course the people of Venezuela whose condition has largely been unchanged. But I am also talking about you and me, and people like us. 

The people of Greenland now under threat with multiple nations poised for whatever action Trump decides to take. The people of Venezuela in a nation nowhere near stable. We can mention the people of Ukraine, who have suffered an invasion with massive loss of life over a period of years with no plausible end date. That peace deal did not really happen. Not much stability and arguably with a whole lot of hands in the mix that are not in those nations. 

And more awkwardly, I am thinking about members of our military who may have to point a weapon at the people of Greenland, the Denmark military, or that of France or UK, and several other nations who, again, used to be our allies. Similar in tone to that of Rubio, Hegseth’s military ambitions for “overwhelming violence” and “maximum lethality” this time may mean against nations we used to fight alongside. Whatever downplaying is occurring in recent days seems out of alignment with rhetoric from just days prior. 

Military action against Greenland is unlikely, but cannot rule out underlying ambitions from all the instability to date. 

We did not get to this point for no reason begging the question, why did we? 

My request for us all is to consider this conversation and questions asked. Less interested in the commentary from supporting networks for Republicans or solidly against them from competing coverage for Democrats. Be cautious with the rhetoric, especially from social media meme level thinking, and consider your own conclusions. Follow the money, and I suspect your opinions will end up different from what old mainstream ‘R and ‘D suggests.