Which country will Trump strike next?

You lather, rinse, moisturize, repeat and repeat. But it never feels like enough. It's not your products. It's your water. Hard water leaves a mineral residue that clogs pores and dries out hair. Culligan water softeners remove damaging minerals, revitalizing brittle hair and dry skin. Upgrade your shower and skincare routine with Culligan. Water you love. This is a Global Player original podcast. I will say this about Greenland. We need Greenland.

from a national security situation. It's so strategic. Right now Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place. We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security. And Denmark is not going to be able to do it, I can tell you. Nicolas Maduro, formerly president of Venezuela, hasn't even stood trial yet, though he is in New York. But already, President Trump is speculating about who...

might be next, apparently punch drunk on his Venezuelan success. So where does the American flag get planted next? Colombia? Cuba? Greenland? Panama? Canada? The list goes on and on, and it might be fanciful to talk in those terms. But right now, is it really? Welcome to the newsagents.

The News Agents. It's John. It's Lewis. And it was something slightly mesmerising, watching the pictures being fed in of Maduro... his arse being pushed into a prison van as he is taken to a courthouse to be arraigned on charges of drug trafficking and the rest of it and being a narco terrorist when Three days ago, he was in the presidential palace in Caracas, a world leader.

on the world stage didn't think we'd get what arse in so early into the new year you know you could use a culo of course the old spanish equivalent yes culo being handed to him Well, very good. You see, you're just showing off your Spanish. I'm just, I'm just, I'm in Emily's chair, so I'm just sort of being inhabited by her spirit. Her linguistic abilities. And he is on trial.

And, you know, that is remarkable in itself and should kind of detain us hugely. But it's hard not to look over the horizon and think, well, what on earth is next? And as we heard in that clip there, Donald Trump opining on why... America needs to plant the stars and stripes on Greenland and that Denmark can't be trusted to have it. And you think, is this a joke or is this actually...

Deadly, deadly serious. Events over the past, well, since Saturday, have been dizzying. Even by sort of Trumpian standards, they've been dizzying. The entire world has been shocked.

by what happened and not just by what happened as we talked about in our special episode on saturday there is a pedigree and there is a lineage for american presidents getting involved and removing even removing by force leaders or trying to leaders of countries in latin or south america but how trump has described it and what he is suggesting they will do next it feels to me is different not least because and i've been thinking so much about that

astounding press conference on Saturday. When we recorded on Saturday, we'd just watched it, but, you know, him being flanked by Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, and sort of American military top brass, and Pete Hegseth, the aptly named Secretary of War. And... I was thinking so much about it in the sense that what I think the world sort of expected to hear from Trump was for him to say, look, we've done this.

maduro is a bad guy he was a bad guy he's a narco terrorist you know this has happened before it happened with noriega in panama under president bush in 1989 we've taken people out and now it's up to the venezuelans decide what happens but he wasn't saying that and he hasn't said that since he said that the us will be running venezuela he said that

It is quite explicitly about oil. And also, even though since then, Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, has been trying to sort of take some of that back a little bit in terms of saying, no, we're not going to be running it, we're going to be coercing it. It does feel to me that... What has emerged over the last 48 hours is remarkable in that what we've seen is not so much regime change.

i.e. an American president coming in, saying there's going to be elections, we're going to move to a democracy. But instead, what Trump appears to be saying is they're going to run it via coercion. They're basically leaving the vice president who is now... President Rodriguez in place, but only so long as she does what they want. And if she doesn't do what they want, then they'll just go in again and take her out.

and replace it with somebody different. And this is what is, again, so remarkable. I made the comparison on Saturday with the invasion of Iraq in 2003, where they got rid of Saddam Hussein. And I said then, you know, and look what happened afterwards. It was absolute frigging chaos. I mean, there are similarities.

between 2003 and the bold adventure that we can you know depose a leader and then impose democracy but Donald Trump is not talking about imposing democracy Donald Trump is not talking about free and fair elections the difference here is that it may have been misplaced kind of ideas of democracy and spreading democracy to the Arab world. Here, Donald Trump doesn't mind there being a hard leader, a hard man, although it's a woman in this case, Delcy Rodriguez. What he wants is it to be his person.

His person doing his bidding in Venezuela so that America can be the beneficiary of the oil coming out of the ground and it will be America. making money out of Venezuelan oil. Nothing to do with drugs at all, as we were saying then. And so what you're getting is not any move...

towards a new democracy because if you were going towards a new democracy you would have had mario carina machado who won the nobel peace prize who was seen the leader of the opposition and a conservative right winger who would be the person naturally to be imposed, or you would have had Edmundo Gonzalez, who was widely seen to have won.

last year's election or 18 months ago's election in Venezuela, instead of which Donald Trump has obviously rung up the deputy president, said, right, you can be president as long as you do my bidding in Venezuela. You could say. if you're being generous, that the Trump administration is learning from

those comparisons with 2003. You could say that the problem with 2003 and the military adventures under the Bush administration and others as well, is that you're trying, almost that your ambitions are too grand, that you're trying to impose... of democracy where none exists. The Maduro regime has been there for 12 years. It was preceded by the Chavez regime before that. This is a regime where...

All the sort of organs of the state, the judiciary, the civil service, you know, it's based on graft. It's based on corruption. This regime has sort of been long established and just remove it, potentially risk chaos. And you could say that that is better than what happened in 2003 and elsewhere when you basically try and impose a democracy, hope for the best, and imagine that civil society and democratic society is going to evolve and that is not going to happen. That said...

It is an extraordinary sight to see an American president basically say, which is what he has said and hinted at, that so long as the officials of the regime as it currently exists, because that regime... That administration, save for Maduro, is still there. As I say, the vice president is now the president. The defence minister is still there. All of that administrative state still remains. Basically, what Trump has been saying is, if you do what we want and you allow us to coerce you...

We'll allow you to stay in place. And not only that, we'll send our oil companies in. We'll start to get the oil out of the ground. We'll start to make money. And you can have a bit of that money as well. Again, as we were saying on Saturday, some of this stuff.

has always kind of happened and the American state has kind of manipulated and offered these sort of bribes and a bit of graft and worked with regimes that they didn't like. But to see it so transparently out in the open from via sort of basically... early 20th century or late 19th century gunboat diplomacy is a sight to see yes and this is why it is so

different from other examples. Some people are saying it is the reassertion of the Monroe Doctrine, which was, you know, 200 years ago when the colonies of Spain and Portugal were being kind of kicked out of Latin America and America wanted...

to stop Europe from reasserting itself in that part of the world and said, look, this is our backyard. Donald Trump is doing more than that. He's doing much more than that. He's doing, I can kick anybody out. I can have anything I like. And so... when we talk about what's happened in venezuela we've also got to consider what could happen in

Panama, which Donald Trump has already spoken about because he thinks there's too many Chinese interests there and he wants to see Panama kicked out. He's also talked about Colombia and we can hear him now on Air Force One talking about what should happen there. We have a very sick neighbor. It's not a neighbor, but it's close to a neighbor. And that's Venezuela. It's very sick. Colombia is very sick, too, run by a sick man who likes making cocaine and selling it to the United States.

And he's not going to be doing it very long, let me tell you. What does that mean? He's not going to be doing it very long. He's not doing it very long. He has... cocaine mills and cocaine factories, he's not going to be doing it very well. So there will be an operation by the U.S. in the world? It sounds good to me. So there you have it. Yeah.

Yeah, regime change in Colombia next. Yeah, why not? That would be a good idea. Cuba. Cuba. I mean, Cuba he's not that interested in because he thinks it will fall anyway. But Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State.

whose family originated from cuba fiercely anti-communist fiercely hostile to the cuban state would be delighted to see cuba so much weakened because heavily dependent on venezuela and you know cuba has said that 32 bodyguards i think who have been protecting maduro were killed in the operation to lift him by the u.s delta force so you know cuba's fate

is very dependent on Venezuela. Cuba must be feeling very, very vulnerable right now. Yeah, indeed. And I do think, actually, just as a sort of aside, an intriguing subplot of a lot of this stuff is the kind of...

prominence right now of floridian politics yes in the court of maga and in american politics you know floridian politics i think has seldom or have never been more important really in the psychology of a united states government you know obviously donald trump is from new york but has lived in florida for a long time telling that he

You know, he wasn't in the White House Situation Room at the weekend, which is where you might expect him to be. He was in Mar-a-Lago when he gave that press conference. Marco Rubio, like you say, John, Secretary of State from Florida. You know, an unusual... degree of interest as a result of the kind of genesis of that politics in Latin America, South America. American presidents have always been interested in it, but they have a particularly hawkish view, which to some extent emanates from...

Rubio and I think there's a very clear sense certainly in the reporting that I've read from Washington that this is very much partly Rubio's project that this is Rubio's baby and the success or failure of it will determine much about his political future potentially as well. Yes, I mean, it is worth a little diversion because we need to consider the global aspects of this, but into internal American politics and into internal Republican politics, because you have got Margot Rubio, who has...

put all his chips on the Venezuela operation. And you can be absolutely sure that if it goes to shit, Marco Rubio will be kicked out. of the State Department so fast, the blame will be hung around his neck and Donald Trump will have nothing more to do with Marco Rubio and his political future will, you know, will lay in ruins. On the other hand, you've got J.D. Vance, who wasn't.

at Mar-a-Lago this weekend, who seems to have kept a distance. I mean, yes, tweeted supportively, but has previously been very wary about the idea of trying to remove Maduro from power. and saying, well, my bet is that America first... doesn't mean interventionism like this. America first means minding our own business and just looking after America's interests. And so you've got the two potential front runners for the presidency in 2028.

Rubio and JD Vance with very different bets now. And presumably JD Vance kind of has got a vested interest in this operation, not succeeding. I've been thinking a lot about how, you know, if you're part of elite MAGA. and the psychology of Elite Maga, about how you reconcile America first with this very interesting novel sort of turn towards highly interventionist politics, right? Because...

Obviously, it is not something. It would have been unimaginable, I think, in Trump one, for sure. And even with all the speculation with the new incoming second Trump administration, I think this is at the maximal end.

of where people feared it might be or thought it might go and i think the difference that they come to is precisely in a way and this is what is sort of distinctive by comparison to the early 2000s or even before I think one of the differences is and the way they would justify it is to say that they would see no contradiction between an America first doctrine.

and the way in which they are imposing intervention. Because their problem, as much as anything, what did Trump always say about Iraq? Trump, number one, said, actually, he never used to argue so much against Iraq, so much as saying we should have taken all the oil.

That's what he said about Iraq, right? It wasn't so much that the principle was wrong or trying to oppose democracy was wrong. His problem was a more mercantilist one, which is simply, why do we spend all that money and not get any of the oil? And of course, American companies did.

profit from it but not in the way that trump clearly thought they would that is profoundly different to what we're seeing when trump is being completely open that he wants those oil resources and also right it is very clear as we're saying they are not talking in sort of grandiloquent language or idealistic tones

or with any greater philosophy of the imposition or the spreading of democracy. Obviously, a lot of this more mercenary stuff was lurking behind the Bush interventions, and indeed interventions we saw in the 1980s and before that as well. But I think it is true... to say that let's take the the bush era as a sort of contrast it is true to say that there were people in the bush administration who both

wanted the commercial interests of all of this sort of stuff and the raw geopolitics that came with it, but also genuinely had ideas and a sort of philosophy that they thought they could spread democracy around the world. Trump ain't interested in any of that. It is pure... strongman politics it is purely about how they see basically shoring up american power in an era

of other great rising powers, right? And so I think their justification for it, the way they sort of square the circle, is to say, we're not interested in all the airy-fairy stuff. We're not interested in spreading milk and honey around the world. We are purely interested in...

american power and we are exercising it mercilessly for our own national interest and might is right we have the power to come into your country and remove your leader and to take some of your oil you'll get some oil as well i mean you'll get a bit wealthier but we'll get wealthier

as well. America. That's what we want. We want to be richer. And so we're going to take your oil. We couldn't have that oil possibly going into the hands of China or Russia, these countries that you've been flirting with. So we'll have it. A might is right with Donald Trump.

doing this. And I also think there's a sort of psychological thing that you've got to consider as well. Donald Trump sounded almost giddy with excitement when describing watching the operation unfold. I mean, I watched it literally like I was watching a television show. And if you would have seen the speed, the violence, you know, they say that, the speed, the violence. They use that term. Just, it was an amazing thing. Amazing.

job that these people did there's nobody else could have done anything like it if you look back at previous american operations they've often been met with failure the bay of pigs fiasco trying to release the uh you know american hostages from tehran when the Helicopters crashed into each other and Carter failed and lost the election largely as a result of that. This operation was superb in terms of the efficiency. And you can see Donald Trump thinking.

Look at this train set I've got to play with. I've got the full force of American weaponry at my disposal. Where do I go next? I quite fancy another one of these because the sugar rush that he was clearly on as a result of what's happened in Venezuela again could be applied to Greenland, to Panama, to Canada.

to Cuba, to Colombia. Part of me thinks I'm being absurd, saying that this is what might happen next. And there's another part of me that thinks, why is it absurd? It was absurd that he would do this in Venezuela. And we're not talking about...

And we're not talking or the American networks aren't talking about price inflation. They're not talking about the price. And, you know, there is a midterm election, which will be with us before we know it. And we know as well that Trump is terrified and will be terrified of appearing to be a lame duck and appearing to.

most American presidents turn towards foreign policy to a greater degree in their second term anyway, because they've got more freedom and more power in order to be able to do that, even if their party controls Congress. So all of these things, it feels to me, are pushing Trump, not least because right now he feels he's had a great success.

towards greater interventionism and look i think that again you can join the dots that we've seen over the course of the last year right so many connections i mean trump's basic thesis right which is not completely wrong basic thesis has always been i think he in his heart has a complete lack of comprehension as to why it is that america has all this economic power and all of this military power, but it doesn't wield it.

It doesn't always wield it in the maximal way that other great powers or other countries like Russia or China might do. And his interpretation of that is that we're being or other presidents have been weak and are weak. And I'm not weak. I'm going to do, as I say. And of course, it is true to say that American power is such that, like, let's say with tariffs, it is true to say that American economic power is so...

vast and so significant that it can impose these tariffs with relatively little pushback from, say, European powers or trading partners. It can exact and use its military in this way with relatively little pushback or consequence for itself.

from other powers because no one can compete with them. But the reason, of course, that other American presidents have generally been exercised more restraint, if sometimes exercise that power, of course, but exercise... more restraint is that they know that over the long term that there is a cost there is a cost to doing those things because yes america is powerful but it's not so powerful that it can resist over the very long term

all of the changes that you will bring about as a result of acting so unilaterally i.e frankly you just burn through your alliances and other countries orient themselves away from you because they cannot and will not

be able to rely on you in a way that they previously had but it seems at the moment that america knows that when there's a un security council resolution as there certainly will be that If it's the permanent members of the Security Council, Britain is not going to vote against America. France is not going to vote against America. Russia and China have their own interests and can see that... Frankly, if might is right and you've got your own spheres of influence, then.

you know, we're not too bothered about what happens to Venezuela as long as we still get access to their oil. And frankly, we don't really care whether we're paying America for their oil or Venezuela for their oil. You can see that the international community...

sort of just being kind of rather timid in its response and if you are columbia and you're panama you probably are quite fearful but the other way in which i think you can join the dots is to say that what we're seeing playing out now in the western hemisphere

in how he's treating America's backyard, so to speak, is exactly how his conception of the world has operated with regards to, say, Ukraine and Russia, right? We've talked about this so much over the course of the last year, right? Why does Trump...

act in the way that he does towards Ukraine? Why is his attitude so different to, I think, any American president in a post-war period? Because fundamentally, again, he doesn't have the kind of ideational, philosophical, kind of sentimental attachments to the

the idea of small nations and, you know, democratic nations defending themselves against others, being part of the Western Club, being part of NATO. He doesn't care about any of that stuff. He has no... conception of it he doesn't and i say he doesn't understand i don't mean that in just a pejorative way i mean that he just doesn't understand and he doesn't buy the idea

that these things benefit America in any way. And he certainly doesn't buy the idea why he should care. His view about Ukraine has always been If you don't want to be invaded, you should be bigger and you should be stronger. And if you're not, then you need to cut a deal.

The thing that Biden would have, obviously, by comparison, or any other Republican presidents as well, is that strategic sense that Russia is a bad guy, is a bad country, is deleterious to American interests. We've got to support this other country, but also a general support. the right of that nation to self-determination. Trump doesn't buy that, and we are seeing that play out again with Venezuela. His view is, and look, again, I'll say again, Maduro...

He's one of the most appalling dictators across the world. His regime was and is appalling. But he certainly doesn't care about the niceties. of a so-called rules-based order that he never bought or had any purchase with in the first place. Well, after the break, we'll look at what this means for Greenland, Denmark, a NATO member, and the support it's getting from its... strong allies like the UK. I'm Simon Marks. My American Week is next.

This is Jacob Goldstein from What's Your Problem? Business software is expensive. And when you buy software from lots of different companies, it's not only expensive, it gets confusing, slow to use, hard to integrate. Odoo solves that because all Odoo software is connected on a single affordable platform.

Save money without missing out on the features you need. Odoo has no hidden costs and no limit on features or data. Odoo has over 60 apps available for any needs your business might have, all at no additional charge. Everything from websites to sales to inventory to accounting, all linked and talking to each other. Check out Odoo at odoo.com. That's odoo.com.

The news agents. Well, let me be really clear about Greenland. The future of Greenland is for Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark. Denmark is a close European ally, a close NATO ally. And the future therefore has to be for Greenland, for the Kingdom of Denmark, and only.

for Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark, and we're absolutely clear about that. The Danish Prime Minister has told Trump to stop the threats about Greenland. Do you agree with her? Well, I stand with her, and she's right about the future of Greenland.

That was Keir Starmer being asked about Greenland and Donald Trump's comments. And this is an idle speculation, as we were saying at the very top of the show. Trump has been very clear in the wake of the Venezuela attack that Greenland, he believes and he sees as an integral part.

of America's long-term national security interests. He says that it's currently being dominated by Russia and China. It obviously lies in the Arctic Circle, which is an increasingly important global trade route with the melting of the Arctic.

ice and he believes again going back to our might is right thing we were just talking about he's very explicit which is to say his view is that Denmark as a small nation cannot protect it I think again he would see it not really understand why Denmark has got it it doesn't have the might it doesn't have the strength it doesn't have the military resources to defend it so it probably shouldn't have it in Trump's mind in the first place and then therefore he should take it and this

comes off the back as well over the weekend of a well-known MAGA influencer, the wife of Stephen Miller, who is, of course, the deputy chief of staff at the White House, tweeting out a map of Greenland. emblazoned with an American flag with just four letters in capital letters, just said, soon. So...

What is so interesting about that is, as well, it's not just the might is right part of it. It's the other part of what we were talking about, about the economic opportunity. So, yeah, Greenland is strategically important because of where it lies in the Arctic Circle. But it's also thought... that Greenland has a huge amount of rare earth minerals there to be exploited. And Donald Trump...

wants to get his hands on that as well. So it's not just about national security. It is just like Venezuela. There is an awful lot of wealth there to be had. And Donald Trump thinks, well, America could have some of that as well. And so you marry the two arguments. You say national security... strategic important place. Oh.

and it's also got a lot of oil, a lot of wealth there, and we'd like to have some of that too. And it's about, as ever with Donald Trump, it's about real estate. Yeah. This is one thing I think that can be underestimated at the moment. We are, of course, heading into, or we're now in, the 250th anniversary year of the United States.

or from the Declaration of Independence. It's going to be a huge, huge moment, a bit like the bicentennial was in 1976 under Gerald Ford. There's lots of celebrations planned and so on, and Donald Trump inevitably is going to be at the centre with it. This is a man who is thinking about... his legacy he's looking back to an older period of american political life which has it has to be said as a country has been marked by you know frequent

expansionism the doctrine of manifest destiny the idea that america would stretch from the east from the atlantic to the pacific and beyond it has acquired lots of territory over the years and trump is going there thinking why can't we why shouldn't we have this that is an imperial

mindset it's a 19th century mindset of course the rejoinder to that is twofold first of all the Greenlanders by all accounts don't want it if anything they want independence from Denmark there's no indication that they want to be part of the United States but secondly

What's really weird, the really weird thing about this one is that, you know, with Venezuela and other countries in South Latin America, you could make an argument and say, look, this is deleterious to national security interests. You know, there's drug cartels. Cuba has been a problem for a long time. Russia's getting involved, you know, China, this, that or the other. What's weird about this is that Trump is setting up, he seems to want to set up a world of spheres of influence.

Greenland is already within its spheres of influence. It's part of NATO. It's part of NATO. It's part of Denmark. Basically, it is already completely within the American geopolitical orbit. Basically, America has had the best of both worlds with Greenland for a long time, which is that the Danes, because they're a close American ally, will basically do whatever the Americans want, militarily or scientifically or whatever.

happens to be but they don't have to pay for any of the upkeep and the resources and all of that sort of thing and actually governing the place right so this is more basic it is a more guttural thing with trump i think which is simply that he wants that territory and he basically wants his name written

all across it, even though it basically defies reason, it defies logic, and it defies, to be honest, any true geopolitical interest because he would basically, look, if they went for this, it would destroy the NATO alliance. You would have two NATO members.

going to basically war with each other, and it would put, it would basically permanently divide Europe from North America, Europe from the United States, and the countries in the world which would be rubbing their hands with glee would be Russia.

Well, let's add two other words to that. International and law. Where would it stand in international law? Where does the decapitation strategy in Venezuela stand in terms of... of international law and you know we played that clip of Keir Starmer talking about Greenland it was preceded when he was interviewed by Beth Rigby on Sky with Beth Rigby saying well do you think that America is in breach of international law

By taking Maduro like this, he couldn't really answer. Has US action in Venezuela violated international law? Well, the most important thing in Venezuela... is a transition to democracy, a peaceful transition. Now, that was our position before the weekend. It remains our position. And in relation to the illegitimate president of Venezuela...

there aren't going to be many tears shed. I do think the framework, the anchor has to be international law, as you'd expect me to say. The situation is complicated. It's even complicated today. And obviously the US will want to justify its actions. But has it violated international law? Well, the problem has to be international law. It's a complicated situation. The most important thing at the moment is that peaceful transition.

to democracy. Yes, but... well we uphold international law we believe in upholding international law does this uphold international law well it's a very complicated situation i mean yeah it's this is obviously nightmarish for them in all sorts of ways there is a disingenuous sort of line that is being put out today which is that the UK isn't going to come to a position on whether or not it's broken international law

That's just not true in a sense that government departments will make that assessment. They will as a matter of legality and law, for all sorts of different administrative reasons, whether it's to do with trade, whether it's in terms of the Foreign Office, they will be making that assessment. Whether they make that public or not is a different question.

But the idea that the UK has no idea is just clearly risible. I think, though, that clearly Venezuela and Greenland are of a different order of magnitude in terms of sort of UK security interests. You could obviously hear in Starmer. the different quite different tone with both because obviously with Greenland it being Danish territory the fact that this is even I mean that's a

That is clearly going to be a line in the sand for European leaders, including Starmer. Although it's so absurd even being talked, it shouldn't even be on the sand. I mean, the idea that this is sort of even on the table is so extraordinary that you can hear in Starmer's voice, he's really kind of unable to really articulate.

kind of what he's going to do and you're seeing this with like government ministers now every single day being asked these questions about whether or not they can or support what trump has done i mean i interviewed darren jones the chief secretary to the prime minister on my sunday show on lbc basically what should be quite a simple question

which is do we support the idea of the United States abducting any other foreign leaders around the world? And this was our exchange. Would you urge the United States government not to abduct any other foreign leaders? Look, I'm not going to answer hypothetical questions. You won't urge the United States government not to abduct other foreign leaders?

think the rules-based order matters and that people should comply with international law. When an operation... You're not making an assessment as to whether or not you think it has complied with international law. Because it's for the Americans to set up the basis of the legal basis on which they did the operation and then for...

international courts or the UN Security Council to take a view. I'm not trying to dodge the question. This is the way the rules-based order works. It's not for an individual state to judge. international law it's for the international order to work surely it's important on those who believe in the rules-based order to point to people who break the rules-based order and say you've broken it not just to dodge it because they're friends of ours

For sure. But we're not the international court. We're the UK government. We're supposed to be an important country. Yeah, we are.

You don't sound like an important country. You don't sound like you're speaking for an important country, Chief Secretary. You sound like you're speaking on behalf of a supplicant country who's afraid of a bigger country. I disagree with that assessment. We are following the proper process that any government would follow. If this were Russia, if this were China, if this was anywhere...

else in the world we would be the first out the traps first out the gate saying this is disgraceful we condemn it you know that i know that as i say we need to see the legal basis for the operation that was undertaken yeah There is no answer. It is nightmarish because the truth is, as I said at the end there, we both know that that would be the case, but there is obviously, and I understand this, that there is a real politic involved, which is that if...

Starmer and the other European leaders condemn Trump in this way. He will clearly be furious about it. He will not forget it. And we have got some big security acts from him at the moment, not least with Ukraine, which is still ongoing. And we are fearful of eviscerating his... any goodwill he has through this. We've got trade deals that haven't been finalised. Yes, exactly.

We are the sharp edge of this American hard power. But this is the point. So I understand that and I have some sympathy. What I have way less sympathy for, not just from the British government, but from European governments, not least because this has clearly been an issue for some time. I am really sick of...

hearing european liberals european government sort of leaders bleating about the rules-based order in so far as the rules-based order existed after the fall of the cold war it is clearly gone in the sense that the guarantor of that order, literally we used to call them the world policemen in the United States, currently and for the foreseeable future...

is not interested in policing that order. And if you have an order, you have to have a policeman. Now, as we talked about on Saturday, the extent to which that order even existed beyond basically America doing what it wants has always been a subject of much debate. Let's put it that way. But at the same time, clearly insofar as it ever existed, it does not exist at the moment. We are in a world now of unreconstituted hard power.

What matters is how much hard power both economic and military you have. So, for example, if we in Europe, we in Britain, if we want a seat at the table, if we want to make sure that Trump doesn't go after Greenland, we're going to have to start showing some... hard power and a willingness to deploy hard power. Now, we may conclude that actually we don't really have much hard power at the moment, that our military capability is too degraded. It is too weak.

But if that's the case, us bleating about the decline of the rules-based order ain't going to get us very far. Let's be honest. The rules-based order, we in Europe have... done very well out of that order because what it basically meant is we outsourced our much of our security requirements and the policing of that order to the hegemonic power the united states

That was always risky because it relied on United States goodwill and a willingness to enforce that order. They no longer do. And therefore, there is no point in us. bleating and crying about it we need to wake up to the new realities the united states has changed we need to change with it you know in america you hear this phrase again and again by commentators

on the most minor change and they say this is an inflection point in something or other. I do think this is an inflection point. I think the weekend, the events and what it signifies. And the fact that America has so fundamentally changed. We've we've heard the language from Donald Trump for a year now in his second term about how he thinks differently about the world. We have seen real hard.

action this weekend with the removal, the kidnapping of a world leader taken to America, put on trial and America saying we now run Venezuela. we will be taking the oil and it will be to the benefit of the American people and the Venezuelan people. And the shamelessness of it and the unapologetic nature of it should make...

Europeans think, yes, we've got to stop bleating about this. We've got to recognise it. And with all the policy considerations that flow from that. Right, when we come back, we're going to be considering perhaps one of the... more unlikely theories about what is really determining who is going to be the next Venezuelan president. Stay with us. This is Jacob Goldstein from What's Your Problem?

Business software is expensive. And when you buy software from lots of different companies, it's not only expensive, it gets confusing, slow to use, hard to integrate. Odoo solves that. because all Odoo software is connected on a single affordable platform. Save money without missing out on the features you need. Odoo has no hidden costs and no limit on features or data.

Odoo has over 60 apps available for any needs your business might have, all at no additional charge. Everything from websites to sales to inventory to accounting, all linked and talking to each other. Check out Odoo at odoo.com. That's odoo.com. The News Agents.

Location of opposition leader Machado, and have you been in contact with her? No, we haven't. I think it would be very tough for her to be the leader. She doesn't have the support within or the respect within the country. She's a very nice woman, but she doesn't have the respect. So why is it?

that Donald Trump has turned against Maria Carina Machado, who won the Nobel Peace Prize, who clearly has the support of a majority of the Venezuelan people. If you look at... recent election results which were then fixed by maduro she is a conservative she likes donald trump she would be the obvious person to lead venezuela now but there is one big black mark against her

Yes, apparently Donald Trump believes that given that she won the Nobel Peace Prize last year, which, of course, Trump at least felt that he was himself very much in the running for. He feels that the respectful thing to have done, indeed the moral thing to have done, would be to give it to him. To refuse the prize and give it to him. Which, when you consider just how specific...

How peaceful he's acted over the course of the last few days. You know, it does seem entirely logical and rational. I can see where he's coming from. Yeah, apparently there's good reporting in the Washington Post saying that apparently Donald Trump thinks she committed the cardinal sin.

of accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. Who the hell does she think she is? Who the hell does she think she is? She's only fought against the Venezuelan dictatorship for all her adult life. Donald Trump's been doing that for 36 hours and look what he's done.

But it shows the world in which Donald Trump lives that he thinks that, you know, hang on, this is mine. I should have won this. And how dare you accept it? And therefore, you cannot be the next president of Venezuela, even though politically we're probably much closer aligned with anyone.

that's part of the regime there currently who is going to take control. It must be a nightmare to watch like an awards ceremony with him. If he's sat there watching like the Golden Globes or something, he'd just sort of think he should own. A bit like Emily, really. Yeah, exactly. One other trivial bit before we go.

trivia question for you oh yeah the judge who is hearing maduro's arraignment today right how old how old how old is the judge so this is either he must be either very young or very old so i don't know 12 or 95. Very close with the last answer. 92. 92? The judge who's hearing the Maduro arraignment is 92 years old. Maduro should say it's unfair. He can't hear me properly.

Honestly, you can't make some of this stuff up. There's hope for you, John, yeah. Exactly. You could be a judge, yeah. Justice Sopel. Justice Sopel. I'll be very young by that comparison. Yeah, well, indeed. A young whippersnapper at court. We'll see you tomorrow. Bye-bye. This has been a Global Player original production.