This ship is a known blockade runner. "The ship has frequently carried oil from countries under U.S. sanctions, and its tracking data shows multiple recent trips to Iran and Venezuela"
Right. The official reason given for seizing the M/V Skipper was sanctions violation, not a blockade. I don't know whether this was the real reason but as of today other vessels are still sailing in and out of Venezuelan ports without interference. There is no blockade.
The vessel is registered in Guyana so I guess they can complain if they think the seizure was illegitimate.
> "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"
The US pressures countries to deregister ships on US sanctions lists. The ship had previously been registered in Panama.
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 official reason given for seizing the M/V Skipper was sanctions violation, not a blockade.
“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.
Further context: it's owned by a sanctioned Russian oligarch,
> "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."
Interesting that I read elsewhere that most Venezuelan oil goes to China due to the sanctions. Would be nice to see them put a carrier group down there to guard their shipments...
China doesn’t have the infrastructure or logistics to wage a far from home operation against a similar power country (let alone the USA). They might get there in a decade or two, but right now there isn’t much they can do besides provide material support.
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 could sell on credit submarines, drones, and so on to Venezuela, along with some training. They could even make it into a war by proxy, but asymmetrical by the Chinese themselves? They have too much to lose to do that these days.
Lol what a joke. It would take a Chinese SSN about a month just to make the transit. By the time they reached the op area it would be almost time to turn around and go home.
Regardless of legal issues and whether it would be stupid or not, China still lacks an effective blue water navy capable of projecting sustained power in the Caribbean Sea. They just can't do it in any meaningful way. They're expanding fast and might be able to do it in a few years but not today.
Nah. Chinese submarines aren't that quiet so if there were any in the area then the US Navy would have them localized already and there's no sign of that. And Chinese subs lack the persistence to stick around without support for long. The reality is there are zero Chinese subs anywhere near Venezuela.
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:
> Interesting that I read elsewhere that most Venezuelan oil goes to China due to the sanctions.
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.
> Would be nice to see them put a carrier group down there to guard their shipments...
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.
> China also doesn't have the capabilities to extract the super heavy and poor quality Venezuelan crude
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.
I specifically meant that it wouldn't be worth it for China to do any kind of large scale oil extraction in Venezuela even if the US let them. Most of the oil in Venezuela is really hard to extract profitably.
Without US expertise and investment the oil in Venezuela will tend to stay in the ground.
Whoever replaces Maduro will still be corrupt.
Americans think they are fighting the good fight but it will turn out like Iraq: the spice will flow and the Chinese know it.
Never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake.
Hello, I am from overseas. Can someone please explain to me why would they do that? What is the goal, what is the plan, what is the intent? Thanks for any comments, I am utterly confused.
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".
> I do think that stopping trade in USD is the biggest reason
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.
> Thats not true. ~85%+ of global oil trade is in USD
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.
It was spelled out in the recently published National Security Strategy [1]:
> 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.
While seizing oil supplies and using them to corruptly reward cronies of Trump’s is probably part of it, a bigger part of it is just to have a war, both to provide a legal and propaganda cover for domestic repression (a war with Venezuela —due to a completely fictitious invasion by Venezuela—is already part of the pretext for that since Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act on that basis in March) and to provide an electoral rally-around-the-flag effect.
I have also seen people believe that those boats have drugs, it's wild. I mean if they had drugs we would gather proof and hold trials instead of just murder, murder, murder.
I am looking at the map and confused. How can these small boats reach US? Venezuela is over 900 nautical miles away from US, assuming 40 knots it can take 24 hours. Do they have enough fuel? Why strike boats on the Pacific Ocean? One cannot reach the Pacific from Venezuela unless via Panama canal.
I'm not going to assume they are drugs, I'm not that weird. I'm confident our military could figure it out and share the evidence, though. They should be competent enough.
I get it. If you are travelling in a high speed boat with 55 gallon drums then you get executed, for the crime of travelling in a high speed boat with 55 gallon drums.
Thanks. I just saw at BBC that it was "for a very good reason". I just thought that I'm missing some context. I guess all that's left to say is to wish you a great day.
I suspect they want to gain access to Venezuelan oil reserves to make energy cheaper, reduce prices, and win elections. Or grift off it for personal wealth. Or both.
Any US actions wrt Venezuela almost certainly have the backing of what the US (probably rightfully) considers to be the legitimate government of Venezuela.
This seizure was absolutely legal under the UNCLOS, the US unquestionably has valid justification under international law to seize this (and any other) stateless vessel.
> Domestic laws of a country do not constitute valid justification for seizing another country's vessels under international law
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.
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.)
In theory they gave the flag state a perfectly valid casus belli, but the flag state isn't in a position to take on the US navy. It would be funny if the flag states or the owners tried to seize US owned property in some involved jurisdiction as compensation.
Sanctioned by who? The president who thinks his tech companies shouldn't be subject to European laws when they operate in Europe believes completely separate countries have to abide by his rules when doing business?
Can someone explain why US sanctions on Iranian oil would have any relevance to Venezuela? And why the US would have any right to enforce those sanctions by seizing some other countries tanker? Or is this the US just doing what it wants because nobody will tell it otherwise?
> Can someone explain why US sanctions on Iranian oil would have any relevance to Venezuela?
"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].
Oh, I think I know this one. Venezuela crude is really heavy and dirty, but a lot of refineries, including ones in Texas and I imagine Iran, are designed to mix it with some lighter crude to derive a decent gasoline yield. These refineries only work like this however, and have basically become dependent on dirty crude sources like Venezuela. The USA I think is dealing via Alberta tar sands, but maybe they decided to just steal the oil from Venezuela directly (Trump is unhinged like that).
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.
Non but superior firepower the US is reverting to might makes right for all to see. I can't wait for the response to "China seizes container ship leaving Taiwan loaded with illicit semiconductors to enforce its tariffs and export restrictions on trade with the 'rebelious province' by force".
The problem with that is that those ships leave from Taiwan’s east coast and the ryukyus with american military resources are in the way of China getting to the east coast of Taiwan (which is really another reason they want Taiwan along with developing some bases in the South China Sea, they are basically hemmed in with the current political arrangement).
"The move came just hours after Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado left the country on a boat, an escape that potentially gave the Trump administration an opening to take more aggressive action against the Maduro regime" [1].
> How is that comparable? That seems like a deliberate misrepresentation of the situation. Russian actions here almost certainly have the full backing of what they (probably rightfully) consider to be the legitimate Donestk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic governments.
Can you explain how exactly that is supposed to be a comparable situation? It's pretty widely accepted that Edmundo González won the legitimately held elections in Venezuela
Maduro is a corrupt dictator who holds sham elections, but that does not change the fact that he unfortunately is the president of the internationally recognized government. Will you also propose US seize Turkish or Russian freighters because Erdogan and Putin "won" elections under highly suspect circumstances?
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.
> but that does not change the fact that he unfortunately is the president of the internationally recognized government
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 :)
> Russian actions here almost certainly have the full backing of what they (probably rightfully) consider to be the legitimate Donestk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic governments
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.
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.
US would get the oil regardless of who they back, there's nobody else with the technical capabilities to extract at scale in Venezuela. This is a completely ridiculous argument.
No it's not, the current regime is very open about how excited they are about getting that oil and very hand wavy about everything else.
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.
I don't see how this reasoning would be at all applicable in that situation.
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.
Imagine saying vile things about Somalians for weeks and then turning into an actual Somalian pirate (EDIT: a small fraction of Somalians). What a farce.
I feel like associating piracy with Somalians like you just did is also bordering on "saying vile things about Somalia", presumably only a very small fraction of Somalians are pirates.
I agree and point taken. But I also did not state or imply that most Somalians are pirates. I was just repeating the common racist memes I see on Twitter as a parody of them.
Venezuela participates in a small portion of the illegal drug trade. US government officials have stated that they want Venezuela’s oil reserves. This is a transparent excuse for an oil grab.
So? And what about my point that fishermen don't move at 100 knots in speedboats filled with plastic wrapped packages they start dumping as soon as they're spotted?
How does Venezuela have so much oil and yet their population suffers tremendously?
Let me guess that is also somehow the fault of USA/capitalism/colonialism?
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/10/us/politics/oil-tanker-ve...
reply