Chris Barrow

It looks like they won't be able to if the US is indeed controlling the oil supply, as the White House says it is. China will find another supplier, probably a more expensive one. There's been reports of maybe Iranian oil, but it's a disruption for Beijing more than a proper economic blow, because Venezuelan oil only made up of quite a small percentage of China's oil imports. What it does do, though...

It effectively severs a partnership that had been getting closer and closer for many years now. China had been pouring lots of money into Venezuela in exchange for this oil, and that displeased the White House. Marco Rubio has explicitly said that America's adversaries were operating in the Western Hemisphere, in Latin America, where the US should be calling the shots.

Voitte nähdä, että näiden lisääntyneiden rauhoitukset sopimusten rauhoituksista, joiden kautta rauhoitukset käsittelevät sanktionneista öljyä, kuten Ruotsissa, Iranissa ja muissa amerikkalaisissa. Tämä on jotain, jota Yhdysvallat ottaa erittäin huonosti. Kuten kaikki nämä geopoliittiset rauhoitukset, paljon tuntuu rauhoituksista Beijingin ja Washingtonin välillä. Öljyryhmät itse asiassa, luulettavasti, ovat olleet olleet sanoneet, että he voivat ottaa osaa.

The oil companies, they might not want to invest in this setup. Well, they've not said anything publicly. We know that the US Energy Secretary is meeting with them this week. The White House is very keen to get them on board. But they're going to want security guarantees. They're going to want guarantees of political stability. We still don't really know who's running things in Venezuela right now. These companies were kicked out in the late 2000s under Hugo Chavez when the oil industry was fully nationalized. They lost billions in assets there.

They're going to want guarantees on returns for the billions and billions they're going to have to invest and the many, many years it's going to take to rebuild this industry that's fallen into disuse. Donald Trump says 18 months. Experts say it's going to take a lot longer than that. And then there's the question of where are these profits going to go? Because these oil companies are going to be ultimately accountable to their shareholders much more than they will be to the people of Venezuela.

Sitten on kysymys, että Venäjällä pitäisi ostaa amerikkojen tehtävien tuotteita, koska he voisivat tehdä niitä. Voiko se toimia? Se on Amerikan ensimmäinen poliisi, jota Yhdysvallat on hyvin yksinkertaisesti käsitellyt. Tietysti tiedämme niin pieniä konkreettisia asioita tässä. On vahva mahdollisuus, että poliisi on edelleen tehty, koska yhdessä Yhdysvallat sanoo, että amerikkalaiset yritykset ovat oikeassa käsitellä venäjällä öljy-industriaa.

but at the same time it will be paying Venezuela for this oil. It's still very much up in the air where this money is going to go, who this investment is going to come from and crucially when it's going to happen.

Nick Marsh there. And it's not just Venezuela that the US has in its sights. The US Secretary of State Marco Rubio says he'll hold talks with Denmark next week about the future of Greenland. Donald Trump recently said he was considering using the military to take it by force. Denmark, which has control over Greenland's foreign and defence policy, has warned that any attack could see the end of the NATO military alliance. So why does President Trump want the territory? A question for our diplomatic correspondent James Landell.

No, jos katsot maan, niin Arktikki on tärkeä geopoliittinen maatilanne. Ja kun maatilanne kääntyy, Trump kertoo, että maatilanne on rauhoittumassa russien ja chinesien kaupojen kanssa. Mutta se ei ole vain turvallisuudessa. Greenland on myös pakkannut valitettavissa luonnonmuutoksissa, joilla on öljy ja kriittiset mineralit, joita amerikkalaiset haluavat.

Ja uusi Yhdysvallan valtion turvallisuusstrategia käsittelee myös Trumpin uskoa, että Yhdysvallat pitäisi voida vahvistaa, mitä hän kutsuu väestön hemisfeeriin. Ja se tarkoittaa sydäntä sekä sydäntä. Joten mitä presidentin vaihtoehtoja on? No, Yhdysvallat voivat vahvistaa capital nuke, vaikka Denmarkissa ei ole kauhean mitään sääntöjä.

Olemme puhumassa poliittisesta teatterista. Voi olla, että yksi poliittinen johtaja voisi mennä nukkumaan ja sanoa, että Greenland on nyt Yhdysvallojen oma. Ei ole vahvistusta, jota heidän pitäisi vahvistaa. Ei ole paikallista, jota heidän pitäisi vahvistaa.

European leaders warned this week that any military action would fundamentally damage the transatlantic alliance. But today Mr Trump hit back, saying he doubted his NATO allies would be there for the US if it really needed them. We will always be there for NATO, he said, even if they won't be there for us.

So if military action is less likely, what else? Well, the US could buy Greenland, something the White House says is actively being considered. America's top diplomat says he'll discuss options with Danish officials next week.

A third option would be to offer the people of Greenland a special association agreement where the US would control their defence and they in return would get economic support. As for a fourth option, well, the US already has an airbase in Greenland. It could simply send thousands more troops under an existing military deal. But for now, the US seems to want this arctic snowscape for its own, whatever the cost.

James Landell. For more on this story you can go on YouTube, search for BBC News and click on the logo and then choose podcasts and global news podcast. There you'll find more analysis on whether President Trump would use military force to take control of Greenland. And there's a new story available every weekday. So what does all of this mean for America's role in the world and for everyone else? I asked our international editor Jeremy Bowen for his assessment.

Hän oli vastuullinen noin 10 henkilöä, jotka olivat valmistuneet. Hän haastoi noin 20 yksilöä, jotka olivat haastattuja. Hän eläi moraalisessa kärsivässä. CIA's worst ever traitor has died at the age of 84.

New data published in the British Medical Journal suggests that people who stop taking weight loss jabs can put the pounds back on around four times faster than if they'd been dieting and exercising. The research from the University of Oxford was led by Professor Susan Jebb. She's been speaking to our health reporter Jim Reid.

What this research has shown is these drugs are really helpful in losing weight, but they're not a silver bullet. They're not a magic solution forevermore. When people stop the treatment, the weight goes back on surprisingly quickly. So you really need to think about these as part of a much longer term strategy to help you control your weight. One of the messages that came through is that people on these kind of drugs are going to need more support to come off them.

Whilst people were taking these weight loss medications, those people who also had a good behavioural support programme, helping them to reset their diet and physical activity, actually were much more successful and they lost four and a half kilos more weight than those people who didn't have that extra support.

Toivottavasti tuotantosuunnitelma, jossa he olivat käyttäneet taitoja, ei näyttänyt pysyä heitä vähemmistöön myöhemmin. Se tarkoittaa, että jos huolehtiminen pysyy, ihmiset tarvitsevat jotain muuta autta. Nyt en tiedä, mikä on paras vaihtoehto, mutta on paljon tutkimusta, jotta voimme antaa ihmisille avustusta, miten paremmin pysyä vähemmistöön myöhemmin.