Trump signals more Latin American invasions could be next after capturing Maduro

The Unthinkable Question: From Caracas to Calgary?

The Shocking Proposal: From “America First” to “Canada Next”?

The Absurd Yet Terrifying Scenario of a U.S. Invasion of Canada

By Eddie Hardie 🍁 Integrity Canada

In a stunning political analysis that has sent shockwaves through international circles, a provocative and disturbing question is being whispered in the halls of power: Could the United States, under a potential second Trump administration, seriously consider invading Canada for its vast natural resources, mirroring interventions in oil-rich nations like Venezuela?

This isn’t a plot from a dystopian novel—it’s a scenario being debated by geopolitical analysts who point to a pattern of expansionist rhetoric and resource-focused foreign policy.

A Pointed Comparison: “The historical precedent is clear. The U.S. has a long, controversial history of involving itself in the affairs of resource-rich sovereign nations, often under the banner of democracy or national security,” notes Dr. Elena Moreau, a geopolitical historian. “The leap from regime-change operations in Caracas to entertaining similar actions against Ottawa is shorter than most comfortable, stable democracies would like to admit.”

And in a twist that sounds ripped from a dystopian thriller, a fringe but vocal movement within Canada is openly calling for the unthinkable: a U.S.-led annexation of their own country. Fueled by deep-seated resentment toward Ottawa and infatuation with Trump-era politics, these groups are weaving a narrative so explosive and absurd that it demands examination. Could a potential second Trump administration exploit this internal Canadian rift, using Venezuela-style resource logic to justify moving north?

The recent Sky News analysis, “The real reason Venezuela matters,” lays bare the cynical calculus: with 304 billion barrels of oil, Venezuela’s sovereignty becomes a target. Canada, sitting on the world’s third-largest proven oil reserves at approximately 170 billion barrels, suddenly looks less like a neighbor and more like a strategic reserve in the eyes of an “America First” resource doctrine. The leap from Caracas to Calgary is not geographical—it’s ideological.

What makes this scenario uniquely volatile is the existence of a supposed fifth column. Publications like Canuck 🍁Post are publishing manifestos that read like invitation letters to an invader. One article, “THE GREAT CANADIAN DECEPTION,” paints a picture of a nation “enslaved” by “corrupt elites,” offering Canadians a vile choice: “Revolution or Annexation.” This isn’t just political criticism; it’s a scandalous betrayal of national sovereignty, arguing that freedom must be delivered by a foreign power.

A Geopolitical Expert Weighs In: “This is the ultimate hybrid warfare scenario,” explains Dr. Lena Vance, a professor of international security. “It’s not just about troops at the border. It’s about weaponizing domestic discontent, amplifying a minority’s grievances to create a pretext for intervention. The goal is to make annexation look like a liberation, a ‘special operation’ requested by the people themselves. It’s a page straight from the 21st-century playbook for undermining democracies.”

The “Maple MAGA” Factor: Cultivating Chaos from Within

Central to this bizarre drama is the figure of Mark Carney, Priminister of Canada. To his supporters, he is a respected economist and admirable political leader. To the so-called “Maple MAGA” movement, he is public enemy number one.

A hysterical warning titled “An Urgent Warning from MAPLE MAGA to President Trump” brands Carney as a “Woke Corruption Kingpin.” The article begs Trump not to “stain [his] legacy” by even shaking Carney’s hand. This framing is strategic and dangerous. It seeks to personalize the conflict and paint Canada’s establishment as a cabal of corrupt globalists, thus legitimizing extreme action against them.

In an invasion scenario, Carney would not face a spy-movie fate of kidnapping or assassination. The modern method is more insidious: he would be legally targeted. Under a broadened use of sanctions or charges of “corruption” or “financial terrorism,” he could be barred from international travel, have assets frozen, and be subjected to a global smear campaign. The objective is to make an example of him, demonstrating that any Canadian leader who opposes the new order will be destroyed—not by a bullet, but by lawfare and propaganda.

Former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro In Custody at New York

Good Morningggg… Maduro’s Family

Blueprint for Invasion? From Venezuela to the Great White North

So, what would this nightmare scenario look like? It would not be a conventional “hot war” with tanks rolling across the 49th parallel on day one. Instead, analysts project a more sinister, gradual process familiar from other theaters:

1. The Manufacturing of a Crisis: It would begin with a fabricated or exaggerated national security threat. This could be a claim of Canadian environmental policies “strangling” U.S. energy independence, unfounded accusations of harboring terrorists, or sensational reports of a migrant crisis at the world’s longest undefended border. The media machine would amplify this into a full-blown existential threat, creating a pretext for action.

2. Economic Coercion and “Freedom” Rhetoric: Next would come severe trade tariffs on Canadian lumber, automotive, and agricultural products, crippling the Canadian economy. This would be paired with fiery speeches framing the action as “liberating” Alberta’s energy sector from the “tyranny” of Ottawa’s climate regulations or “freeing” its resources for North American prosperity. The language would be ripe with words like “fair share,” “security,” and “taking back what’s ours.”

3. The Targeting of Figures Like Mark Carney: A key, scandalous element would be the personal targeting of influential Canadians. Mark Carney, the former Governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England and a prominent voice on climate finance, would be a prime target. Rather than kidnapping or assassination—acts of outright war—the playbook suggests a campaign of character assassination. He would be labeled a “globalist puppet,” a “climate radical” sabotaging the energy industry, and likely face sanctions or specious legal charges to discredit him and intimidate other dissenting voices.

4. Limited “Police Action” and Annexation: The final, shocking phase might involve a “limited” military incursion under the guise of protecting U.S. assets or ensuring the “security” of oil infrastructure. Imagine U.S. “security advisors” or even military units moving into Fort McMurray, Alberta, to “prevent sabotage” or “ensure stable production.” The goal would be de facto control, not a full-scale occupation of Toronto or Vancouver.

Talarico Suggests Conflict of Interest Following Venezuela Strikes

Alternately,

The “Annexation for Freedom” Playbook: A Scenario of Subversion

If this plot moved from the fringe to reality, what would it look like? A full-scale hot war is economically and militarily illogical. The more likely, and more frightening, scenario is a slow-rolling, politically-driven takeover:

1. Amplification of Grievance: U.S.-aligned media would relentlessly amplify the messages of “Maple MAGA” and similar groups, presenting them as the true voice of the oppressed Canadian people. Stories of Canadian “poverty and despair” would be juxtaposed with American prosperity, all blamed on Ottawa’s “woke” policies.

2. The “Freedom Convoy” on Steroids: Political and financial support would flood into Canadian protest movements, turbocharging them into permanent, destabilizing unrest. The goal would be to create a palpable sense of chaos and governmental failure.

3. The “Humanitarian” Intervention: With a crisis manufactured, the pretext arrives. The U.S. could declare a need to “secure continental energy security” or “protect the democratic rights of Albertans” seeking freedom from Ottawa. Initial actions might be “peacekeeping” forces or “security advisors” sent to “protect” oil infrastructure in Alberta—a de facto occupation of the resource-rich heartland.

4. The Referendum Farce: In controlled areas, a hastily organized, Kremlin-style referendum would be held, asking leading questions like: “Do you support greater autonomy and a direct energy partnership with the United States?” The result, a foregone conclusion, would be used to legitimize a new, pliant regional government and the permanent stationing of U.S. assets.

New Year. New War

New Year. New War
byu/MinuteCollar5562 inthebulwark

The Shocking Precedents: This Is Not a Drill

To dismiss this as pure fantasy is to ignore a mountain of unsettling evidence and rhetoric:

• “America First” Resource Logic: The underlying doctrine prioritizes national access to resources above alliance loyalty. The resentment towards allies deemed “freeloaders” is a documented political sentiment.

• Historical Amnesia: The U.S. has a long, dark history of interventions in Latin America and beyond primarily to protect commercial and resource interests, from bananas to copper to oil. The 2003 invasion of Iraq, premised on false WMD claims, resulted in the swift securing of oil fields.

• The Strange Loyalty Test: In recent years, the U.S.-Canada relationship has faced bizarre stress tests, from threats to withdraw from NAFTA to the imposition of national security tariffs on Canadian steel. Each event proved that even America’s closest allies are not immune to transactional and aggressive treatment.

• Venezuela as the Template: The Sky News analysis underscores that Venezuela’s oil is the “real reason” it matters. If a country’s primary value is its resources, then Canada—peaceful, democratic, and allied—could be re-cast not as a partner, but as a resource hoarder standing in the way of American energy dominance.

John Oliver on Venezuela and Nicolás Maduro

Next On The Chopping Block?

Conclusion: A Nation’s Sovereignty in the Age of Fracture

The notion of the United States invading Canada remains, on its face, a terrifying absurdity. Yet, in an era where norms are shattered daily and alliances are treated as conditional business deals, the unthinkable must be contemplated. And the conditions for a softer, more cynical form of annexation-by-consent are being seeded in plain sight. It is a strategy that bypasses tanks in favor of tweets, swapping invasion forces for influencer campaigns.

The real danger is not a sudden D-Day in British Columbia, but the death by a thousand cuts of the bilateral relationship: the erosion of trust, the weaponization of interdependence, and the explicit framing of a neighbor’s natural wealth as an entitlement. As the case of Venezuela shows, when oil is in the equation, the rules of the game can change violently. Canada, with its vast, juicy reserves, would be wise to watch closely and prepare for a future where even a friend can become a target.

And the real, shocking vulnerability is not at the border—it’s in the fractured national psyche that a segment of the population can be convinced that their salvation lies in surrendering their country’s sovereignty. When the bonds of shared national identity are weakened by resentment and conspiracy, the door is opened for the unthinkable. As the Venezuelan template shows, where there is oil and political will, justifications can always be found. Canada’s greatest test may not be defending its border, but defending the very idea of itself from those within who have already decided to wave the white flag—and replace it with the Stars and Stripes.

‘Hour of freedom’: Venezuela’s opposition leader Machado hails Maduro’s capture, calls for a transition

Trump on Venezuelan oil: US will ensure supply, no problems with China. Trump stated that he has “very good relations” with Chinese President Xi and that there will be no problems with China. “They will get the oil. We will let people have the oil,” (4% of China’s oil import in 2025 from Venezuela)

Trump on Venezuelan oil: US will ensure supply, no problems with China. Trump stated that he has “very good relations” with Chinese President Xi and that there will be no problems with China. “They will get the oil. We will let people have the oil,” (4% of China’s oil import in 2025 from Venezuela)
byu/violentviolinz inSino