US actions here almost certainly have the full backing of what they (probably rightfully) consider to be the legitimate Venezuelan government.
Surely we're all old enough to know that's an obvious lie. The US government probably doesn't know or care if Maduro is a dictator, they're just here for the oil.
It would be ridiculous to argue that the current regime has any genuine concerns or interest about democracy, drug trafficking (even just pardoned one), or the legitimacy of Venezuela's government.
Yes, because it makes sense to trust what the Trump admin tells you.
Oil might be one of the many excuses they give, but it's obviously a lie because there is nobody else in the world capable of profitably extracting Venezuelan crude at any meaningful scale.
If Putin came out in 2020 and said "I do not recognize Joe Biden as US president, he stole the election, Donald Trump was the real winner, so I am sanctioning America and seizing American LNG tankers" everyone would take that as a hostile action and even a casus belli.
Hardly true at this point.
>Will you also propose US seize Turkish or Russian freighters because Erdogan and Putin "won" elections under highly suspect circumstances?
Not sure why you're asking me this. I'm not proposing the US should seize Venezuelan freighters, I'm just saying they have a reasonable excuse if they choose to do so.
>If Putin came out in 2020 and said "I do not recognize Joe Biden as US president, he stole the election, Donald Trump was the real winner, so I am sanctioning America and seizing American LNG tankers" everyone would take that as a hostile action and even a casus belli.
Donald Trump probably wouldn't have, and perhaps many of his supporters :)
Countries not recognizing the current government of Venezuela as legitimate:
- US
- all 27 EU member countries
- UK, Canada, Australia
- Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay
- Israel, Japan, Morocco, South Korea
- Switzerland, Norway, Iceland
Bullshit that might have worked if Russia didn't proceed to claim de facto sovereignty over the rest of Ukraine.
It's also precisely the same logic the U.S. is using. Maduro is illegitimate. The legitimate, elected goverment in exile wants Maduro toppled. Herego, this shit.
There are good reasons to believe that Edmundo González won the elections in Venezuela, there are no good reasons to believe anything similar about illegally occupied territories in Ukraine.
China has been sinking Philippine boats in Philippine territorial waters [1].
There are good reasons to be outraged about this. But it's continuing a precedent China and Russia set, presumably assuming the West wouldn't follow.
We'll never know now will we?
That's the reason you believe the boats weren't carrying drugs?
Accusation: Venezuela is using Nigeria as a means to launder sanctioned oil.
The great powers (China, Russia and America) have each, at this point, explicitly rejected this principle. More broadly, internationa law does contain broad exemptions for piracy.
But if we're using that as a justification, are we admitting the US has turned pirate then?
UNCLOS provides that “all states have universal jurisdiction on the high seas to seize pirate ships and aircraft, or a ship or aircraft taken by piracy and under the control of pirates, and arrest the persons and seize the property on board” [1].
> if we're using that as a justification, are we admitting the US has turned pirate then?
No, because the seizure was not “committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft” [2]. Under UNCLOS states can’t be pirates.
(Again, this is academic. China has been blowing off UNCLOS judgements in the South China Sea for years.)
[1] https://www.un.org/depts/los/piracy/piracy_legal_framework.h...
[2] https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unc...
> We want to ensure that the Western Hemisphere remains reasonably stable and well-governed enough to prevent and discourage mass migration to the United States; we want a Hemisphere whose governments cooperate with us against narco-terrorists, cartels, and other transnational criminal organizations; we want a Hemisphere that remains free of hostile foreign incursion or ownership of key assets, and that supports critical supply chains; and we want to ensure our continued access to key strategic locations. In other words, we will assert and enforce a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine.
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-N...Venezuela has oil. Wants to sell them in Chinese Yuan, because America bad.
America ensures the world's waters stay safe for commerce as long as all countries continue to do business in dollars.
When they don't, America is forced to remind them.
China in the meantime continues to diversify away from oil and doesn't mind taking risks that could cut supply. Venezuela's leadership has, for reasons well understood, fewer options.
America's number one export, as is every global empire's number one export is its currency. It's a gift and a curse.
Saddam's days were numbered when he began selling oil in Euros.
Gaddafi's days were numbered when he tried to sell oil in "gold dinars".
This is nonsense. We would still be going after Venezuela even if they did business in physical dollars the way Iran did for years.
This hasn't been a thing since the 1970s. Oil is priced and settled in multiple currencies today, including out of New York and London. America is a net oil exporter. And global oil trading volumes are insignificant compared with other dollar uses.
There are a lot of stupid reasons we're going to war with Venezuela. None of them have to do with dollar hegemony.
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/ire/focus/ecb.irebox201906...
What part isn't true? I never said most oil isn't traded in dollars. Just that it's priced and traded in currencies other than dollars on commodities desks in the United States.
In 2019, over 60% of all global trade was dollar denominated [1]. (58% today.) That's $27tn of dollar-denominated export invoices. Globally, oil exports are $1.3tn [2].
The petrodollar hypothesis held in the 1970s. It was becoming irrelevant with the 1980s' trade liberalisation. By 2019 [3] it had become totally irrelevant, both as a rational motivation and as a non-conspiratorial geopolitical talking point.
[1] https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/programs/geoeconomics-center...
[2] https://www.worldstopexports.com/worlds-top-oil-exports-coun...
[3] https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/The-US-Just-Became-A-N...
Just food for thought.
Never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake.
This would be a 4D chess move right off the edge of the game board and into a latrine.
China doesn't want to get involved in an oil war. It doesn't want to send its limited blue-water capabilities into America's backyard to get painted. It doesn't want to deal with oil supply chains against America's nuclear-powered fleet. And it doesn't want to risk Trump popping an aneurysm and disabling their ships, an attack to which all retaliation options carry material risks of nuclear escalation (in a way bombing boats on the other side of the world does not), and which would mean trashing China's and the global economy as the trade war turns blockade.
Essentially all of the existing infrastructure in Venezuela was built by Americans, and is crumbling.
While Venezuela has tremendous amounts of oil, most of it is not very easy to extract profitably.
They could build this. That's orthogonal to planting an oil-burning carrier group halfway around the world next to nuclear CVNs that could be reached from U.S. soil by Cessna 172s.
Oh yes, we completely agree. More to the point, the tens of billions of dollars they'd burn–at a minimum–on a pointless proxy war with the U.S. would be better spent continuing to reduce China's reliance on foreign oil.
Without US expertise and investment the oil in Venezuela will tend to stay in the ground.
Strangely, India does too.
The Nayara refinery (Russian stakeholder) is rather smaller at 390–400 kbd. There are a few other state owned and private refineries in the South that can process heavy crude cumulatively upto a million bpd.
You are right that the equipment was from US (Lummus Technology). However, due to sanctions, the Nayara refinery has begun retrofitting from eastern suppliers.
It is sad that both Venezuela and Iran (and now Russia) are all now under West-enforced oil sanctions. Makes life difficult for poor nations that don't have native oil supply. It is not possible to compete with EU for economic oil purchase in the global market
Their whole move to EVs is more about national security as it is about environment. Not having to get into wars about oil because you don’t need so much is it’s own freedom.
they can totally do asymmetrical actions:
- deploy submarines which could attack offenders
- rather fast develop large quantity of ocean attack drones (even Ukraine could do it with rather limited industrial capabilities)
While letting U.S. kit paint the submarines they'll presumably want to use on Taiwan.
> fast develop large quantity of ocean attack drones
This is plausible. (Still not worth it for Beijing. But doable.)
Also, my bet Maduro will still endure multiple months from now.
China would be stupid not to show some force
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-12-02/us-venezuela-global-a...
https://english.www.gov.cn/news/202505/10/content_WS681e8bd6... (chinese state media)
I guess this will show what "all-weather" is supposed to mean. It doesn't seem to include any military support and at least others are sceptical with respect to the current situations as well:
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/3335116/china-unlike...
It's possible China has built out its infrastructure in the past 5 years and can process this oil now, but in the 2010s the more common practice was for the Venezuelans to sell the oil to a Chinese intermediary that would transport it on a tanker to the Gulf Coast, where the American refineries capable of processing Venezuelan sour crude are located.
"Brokers in Singapore told The Wall Street Journal that a tanker called the Skipper was the vessel seized off Venezuela early Wednesday. The tanker, formerly called the Adisa, had been sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control for carrying Iranian crude" [1].
[1] https://www.wsj.com/world/americas/u-s-seizes-oil-tanker-off...
Most Venezuelan oil is very heavy and sour and needs to be mixed with lighter oil to be refined and they need access to restricted chemicals for the process. As it was explained to me a few months ago Iran provides lighter oil, solvents and materials for the refining and they take the heavier oil to sell it in the black market.
Sanctions aside the tanker was there for the taking by any government. Spoofing location and flying a false flag are enough to justify boarding and seizure by any country since it's a stateless ship likely involved in illegal activities.
In short yes, USA does it because it can and there's legal justification for it beyond "Trump oil, Trump bad lel", but as usual HN devolves to a potato when world events touch USA politics.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/world/americas/u-s-seizes-oil-tanker-off...
https://news.sky.com/story/venezuela-has-already-been-invade...
Spoiler alert: It wasn't
Trump tanker DWT: 310309
Sirius Star DWT: 318000
Sirius Star ... on 15 November 2008, becoming the largest ship ever captured by pirates.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/10/us/politics/oil-tanker-ve...
Are we blockading Venezuela? That would generally be considered an act of war.
The vessel is registered in Guyana so I guess they can complain if they think the seizure was illegitimate.
https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:41...
“Sanctions” imposed by one country on another limiting its trade with third countries are (if force is used to effect them) a (limited) blockade and absolutely an act of war.
> "The government of Guyana — which borders Venezuela — said in a statement Wednesday the ship was falsely flying the Guyanese flag, despite not being registered in the South American country"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-we-know-oil-tanker-the-ski...
(Context reminder: Guyana is the country Venezuela's Maduro threatened to invade in 2023).
(Also context: the sanctions on this ship's Russian owner date from 2022, and are about violating US sanctions on Iranian oil).
It feels a little sketchy to force countries to deregister ships in order to seize them, but they could have flown Venezuela's flag instead of taking the risk of being stateless instead.
> "The ship — known as Adisa in 2022 — is among the vessels controlled by sanctioned Russian oil magnate Viktor Artemov, the Treasury said in a statement[...] The tanker is controlled by Nigeria-based management company Thomarose Global Ventures LTD and owned by a firm linked to Artemov, according to publicly available data."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-we-know-oil-tanker-the-ski...
"It's OK when it's our guy."
stevenalowe•1mo ago
k310•1mo ago
jajuuka•1mo ago
JumpCrisscross•1mo ago
Under U.S. law, if they're smart, anti-piracy and anti-narcotics interdiction. They're not, so they're citing sanctions.
Practically, however, this is sort of the endgame to the spheres-of-influence narrative. China can ram Phillipine fishing boats. Russia can steal children. America can commandeer random shit in the Western hemisphere.
crest•1mo ago
seanmcdirmid•1mo ago
monerozcash•1mo ago
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea authorizes any state to interdict stateless vessels, which this was.
stevenalowe•1mo ago
monerozcash•1mo ago
Here's an actual industry source which captures the whole story in the headline https://www.lloydslist.com/LL1155836/Weve-just-seized-a-tank...
stevenalowe•1mo ago
I still don’t approve of it, but it does appear to be “legal”
monerozcash•1mo ago
It's really a good thing the US did this, one less dangerous stateless vessel at sea. Trump admin does lots of bad things, this is beyond reproach.