While it's true that so far they only removed Maduro, removing a sitting president and his wife is a show of power, it's a "we do whatever we want". What is stopping the US to remove the next person, and continue doing so until as they find someone that they like? Or to organize an up-rising or a coup? The writing is on the wall.
This already likely was a coup. They knew exactly where Maduro was and were able to get in and out, with no air defense issues, no alarm issues, and all presumably with just a small commando group. This isn't like grabbing Osama who was relatively alone on a compound - this is the current President of a country, who was already probably quite paranoid, and who now was under active threat and certainly behaving accordingly. Doing all that as an outsider is basically impossible, so they must have had substantial amounts of insider help, which is essentially the definition of a coup.
And the media is already reporting that 'somehow' all of his inner circle seem to have survived.
To be fair, an illegitimate president, who was being protected with forces from a foreign (to them) govt. A LOT of people in and from Venezuela wanted Maduro out. The dancing in the streets are a pretty big indicator of this. And it's quite probable there were insiders involved that helped this operation happen.
That just shows that popular will is not a justification for something. If the popular will was self destructive would a powerful entity be justified in giving them what they desire?
The popular will is the woman the majority voted for. Trump already said she will not be allowed to run the country, that the US will and that we will help them develop, read steal, their oil.
> This looks a lot like when the U.S. & Israel were running dry on interceptors last year, and made a deal with the Iranians to pretend to blow up Fordow in exchange for ceasing hostilities.
Do you have a citation for this? (Genuinely curious)
And it appears they did so with assistance from within the government, at least with assistance from the military. That's why the operation went so smoothly. It seems like it was unusually easy, precisely because it was.
Any details/sources on this? I thought it was strange that the airspace seemed almost entirely uncontested. Scrambling fighters take a while of course (particularly if unmaintained and you're corrupt), but I had at least expected some ground-based air defences to be active. Maybe they were being blown up in the first few videos that surfaced? Unless they were disabled by other means, that's another catastrophic display of the Russian systems.
In addition, USAF/USN have been flying ELINT platforms (e.g. RC-135s) off the coast for months now.
So even without the cooperation of any of the Venezuelan military, it's possible the mission was:
1. Precision long-range strikes on air defense radars around Caracas (and possibly assets)
2. Closer SEAD with F-35s to clear a path
3. SOAR Delta Force infiltration with tactical air suppression
4. CAP from F-35s to intercept any scrambled fighters
5. Exfiltration along same route
If the intelligence was good (location of air defenses and Maduro), it's entirely possible the above just went off cleanly.
See: Desert Storm air campaign. Having capable anti-air assets doesn't matter when your enemy has access to more timely intelligence and the means to do something with it.
Update from Reuters: ‘"We're going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition," Trump told reporters. […] "We can't take a chance at somebody else takes over Venezuela that doesn't have the good of the Venezuelan people in mind. We've had decades of that. We're not going to let that happen."’
I'd like to stress that Trump not only said this during the conference from his luxury resort, but repeated and belabored the point several times that the United States would be taking over Venezuela.
He's trying to hide the impact his failed economic policies are having. He can't let the 16 Nobel Prize winning economists who warned him that he'd crash the economy "win."
Medieval kings were considered the embodiment of the government, but that didn't make them autocratic. Indeed, they were not only bound by a thicket of obligations and customs, but authority itself is only legitimate when it is just, a view that is traditional; it is modern legal positivism that roots authority in fiat, making it inherently tyrannical.
> Indeed, they were not only bound by a thicket of obligations and customs, but authority itself is only legitimate when it is just, a view that is traditional;
Ultimately they were bound not by tradition, but by the reality that they may lose their heads, often at the hands of a competing relative, but also at the hands of starving subjects.
Not yet. Once the anger metastasizes into a new wholly anti-american government, new targets will emerge.
Trump is far from universally loved, but just imagine what the US would become if an outside nation swooped in and captured him. 100% of the american people would be screaming for blood.
I'd be concerned about exactly what price would be asked. No one country spends their cash and soldiers to "liberate" for free. I've turned down free gifts before because I knew they came with strings attached.
People say that, but the sight of say Russian/Mexican/Chinese/Canadian troops parachuting onto the whitehouse lawn to abduct a sitting president, no doubt killing many in the process, would be such an afront that domestic politics wouldnt matter.
I would not be screaming for blood. It is the world order he wants, and perhaps the only possible lesson in why we shouldn’t give him that world order.
Capture might not be the aim. The coming decades will see anonymous effective asymmetric warfare with USA infrastructure and the USA political establishment as prime targets. That's the big concern.
Huh... they better build some readily-available hyper-powerful infrastructure, pronto, or that next election could hand power to folks that don't have the best interest of the country in mind:
Trump is Russia's guy. There is no way I'd be screaming for revenge over a horrifying complicated nightmare becoming even more toxic, even more complicated, and even more nightmarish. If anyone comes and gets Trump it ain't Russia: he is already theirs, and acting in such a way as to further all their aims and all their narratives.
While it's true that so far they only removed Maduro, removing a sitting president and his wife is a show of power, it's a "we do whatever we want". What is stopping the US to remove the next person, and continue doing so until as they find someone that they like? Or to organize an up-rising or a coup? The writing is on the wall.
This already likely was a coup. They knew exactly where Maduro was and were able to get in and out, with no air defense issues, no alarm issues, and all presumably with just a small commando group. This isn't like grabbing Osama who was relatively alone on a compound - this is the current President of a country, who was already probably quite paranoid, and who now was under active threat and certainly behaving accordingly. Doing all that as an outsider is basically impossible, so they must have had substantial amounts of insider help, which is essentially the definition of a coup.
And the media is already reporting that 'somehow' all of his inner circle seem to have survived.
They blew up the air defences and reportedly had help from a CIA informant, but there's nothing to indicate that it was a coup.
5 replies →
To be fair, an illegitimate president, who was being protected with forces from a foreign (to them) govt. A LOT of people in and from Venezuela wanted Maduro out. The dancing in the streets are a pretty big indicator of this. And it's quite probable there were insiders involved that helped this operation happen.
Venezuela was a functioning democracy until a short number of years ago, when Maduro stole the election through clear and blatant fraud.
Not every country is Iraq or Afghanistan. At least here it's fairly clear that removing Maduro reflects the popular will of Venezuelans.
One could easily ask the same question about the US. With congress having abdicated it raises the legitimate question of exactly what the US is now.
141 replies →
History is filled with countries that wanted their leader gone, but rejected foreign influence.
I think most Venezuelans want freedom, prosperity, peace, and sovereignty.
I’m not sure in what order.
1 reply →
It's still military interference in a soverign nation to effect regime change.
10 replies →
That just shows that popular will is not a justification for something. If the popular will was self destructive would a powerful entity be justified in giving them what they desire?
1 reply →
Eh, Saddam Hussein wasn't terribly popular. History is full of awful people being toppled and situations further degrading. Sometimes horrifically.
62 replies →
The popular will is the woman the majority voted for. Trump already said she will not be allowed to run the country, that the US will and that we will help them develop, read steal, their oil.
1 reply →
[flagged]
1 reply →
[dead]
[flagged]
> This looks a lot like when the U.S. & Israel were running dry on interceptors last year, and made a deal with the Iranians to pretend to blow up Fordow in exchange for ceasing hostilities.
Do you have a citation for this? (Genuinely curious)
6 replies →
Honestly can't tell if troll or schizo.
3 replies →
And it appears they did so with assistance from within the government, at least with assistance from the military. That's why the operation went so smoothly. It seems like it was unusually easy, precisely because it was.
Any details/sources on this? I thought it was strange that the airspace seemed almost entirely uncontested. Scrambling fighters take a while of course (particularly if unmaintained and you're corrupt), but I had at least expected some ground-based air defences to be active. Maybe they were being blown up in the first few videos that surfaced? Unless they were disabled by other means, that's another catastrophic display of the Russian systems.
Caracas was definitely hit in preparation for the operation, and I'd assume air defenses and assets within scramble range were the primary targets.
Example footage that seems to track with BBC confirmed Caracas strike locations: https://x.com/sentdefender/status/2007340229536239646
The US had previously positioned a lot of USAF and Army air assets in Puerto Rico and on offshore platforms: https://www.twz.com/news-features/cv-22b-osprey-mc-130j-comm...
Those appear to have been used: https://x.com/sentdefender/status/2007339573156950095
In addition, USAF/USN have been flying ELINT platforms (e.g. RC-135s) off the coast for months now.
So even without the cooperation of any of the Venezuelan military, it's possible the mission was:
If the intelligence was good (location of air defenses and Maduro), it's entirely possible the above just went off cleanly.
See: Desert Storm air campaign. Having capable anti-air assets doesn't matter when your enemy has access to more timely intelligence and the means to do something with it.
"catastrophic display of the Russian systems." - that, or the Russians actually helped the Americans...
1 reply →
Thats what I'm most curious about right now, did they completely suppress Venezuela's air defenses or were they turned off?
It would not surprise me if it was a mix of both. (Portions of the military stood down, and the more loyal aspects were suppressed.)
https://theaviationist.com/2011/05/18/mh-47x/
Always soften the target before anything happens, no need to suppress when nothing is active.
Update from Reuters: ‘"We're going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition," Trump told reporters. […] "We can't take a chance at somebody else takes over Venezuela that doesn't have the good of the Venezuelan people in mind. We've had decades of that. We're not going to let that happen."’
I'd like to stress that Trump not only said this during the conference from his luxury resort, but repeated and belabored the point several times that the United States would be taking over Venezuela.
(edit - whoops)
Could you please re-edit this comment? I think you forgot a word towards the end.
1 reply →
Entirely unexpected. /s
"Trump says US will ‘run’ Venezuela until ‘judicious transition’ following capture of Maduro"
https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/venezuela-explosions-car...
That might be a while then, it will take some time to get that oil out.
He's trying to hide the impact his failed economic policies are having. He can't let the 16 Nobel Prize winning economists who warned him that he'd crash the economy "win."
https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rh1YcFoC...
Equating a person with the government or the nation is a common trait among autocrats. L'État, c'est moi.
Not quite...
Medieval kings were considered the embodiment of the government, but that didn't make them autocratic. Indeed, they were not only bound by a thicket of obligations and customs, but authority itself is only legitimate when it is just, a view that is traditional; it is modern legal positivism that roots authority in fiat, making it inherently tyrannical.
> Indeed, they were not only bound by a thicket of obligations and customs, but authority itself is only legitimate when it is just, a view that is traditional;
Ultimately they were bound not by tradition, but by the reality that they may lose their heads, often at the hands of a competing relative, but also at the hands of starving subjects.
Not yet. Once the anger metastasizes into a new wholly anti-american government, new targets will emerge.
Trump is far from universally loved, but just imagine what the US would become if an outside nation swooped in and captured him. 100% of the american people would be screaming for blood.
> 100% of the american people would be screaming for blood.
Absolutely not. I'd be out celebrating.
I'd be concerned about exactly what price would be asked. No one country spends their cash and soldiers to "liberate" for free. I've turned down free gifts before because I knew they came with strings attached.
People say that, but the sight of say Russian/Mexican/Chinese/Canadian troops parachuting onto the whitehouse lawn to abduct a sitting president, no doubt killing many in the process, would be such an afront that domestic politics wouldnt matter.
11 replies →
... and then President Vance maintaining the status quo would bring you back to reality.
9 replies →
> 100% of the american people would be screaming for blood.
Honestly, at this point, I wouldn't be one of them.
I would not be screaming for blood. It is the world order he wants, and perhaps the only possible lesson in why we shouldn’t give him that world order.
Most polls put it at 30%. (And 30% of those that could vote, didn't—so here we are.)
Capture might not be the aim. The coming decades will see anonymous effective asymmetric warfare with USA infrastructure and the USA political establishment as prime targets. That's the big concern.
Huh... they better build some readily-available hyper-powerful infrastructure, pronto, or that next election could hand power to folks that don't have the best interest of the country in mind:
https://thedreydossier.substack.com/p/trump-isnt-building-a-...
A new cold war effectively, but with the goal of cementing local power.
That is a very real risk. Action -> reaction.
Trump is Russia's guy. There is no way I'd be screaming for revenge over a horrifying complicated nightmare becoming even more toxic, even more complicated, and even more nightmarish. If anyone comes and gets Trump it ain't Russia: he is already theirs, and acting in such a way as to further all their aims and all their narratives.
Maybe, but from observing US politics from afar for a decade, 50% would be screaming for Trumps blood to lock in the win.