Comment by guax

> minus of course the "compensation" for the years in which US companies were kept out of the country

I don’t want to sound like I’m running coverage for the Americans, but wasn’t a lot of that infrastructure built by foreign multinationals and then expropriated by Chávez in 2007?

> "And all that as official doctrine"

The Donroe Doctrine.

https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3mbjv2l5otf25

I think a lot of people don't understand the difference between geopolitical control and economic control.

Being explicit, I'm saying that having access to a resource doesn't mean you get to sell it to whoever you like.

Nobody from Latin America is surprised, the US has been a bully state since the cold war.

The official doctrine yesterday was they were killing Americans with drug trafficking. That didn't even get mentioned today.

> the plan is

There is no plan. Again.

Machado is standing by. But she’s a woman so Trump has ruled her out.

[flagged]

The 34 crimes are these:

- falsifying business records - 1st degree

- falsifying business records - 1st degree

- falsifying business records - 1st degree

...

- falsifying business records - 1st degree

https://www.scribd.com/document/737791944/Trump-verdict-shee...

He was charged 34 times for the same payment, multiple times per check, because they were entered as payment for lawyer instead of hush money for porn star.

"Falsifying business records" is a not a crime, unless it's done in the pursuit of another crime. The other crime was trying to influence the election (literally his job as a candidate). This is despite the fact that the books were cooked as payment to lawyer in 2017, after the election.

Alvin Bragg, the person who convicted Trump, specifically ran on prosecuting Trump.

It was entirely a political prosecution. If Trump had paid cash, he would have 10000x counts against him, one for each dollar bill.

34x of 4 years means he could have been convicted for a maximum of 134 years. One count for 4 years wasn't enough, they had to give him more time than some serial killers.

The judge specifically postponed the conviction after the election to see if he should receive prison terms or not. He absolutely would have had he lost.

[flagged]

> Consider that the POTUS is a 34x convicted criminal

To be fair, they were political persecutions and show trials just so that people like you could write that sentence and help the Democrat Party keep the presidency.

I’m not saying Trump is innocent in life, so don’t mistaken what I am saying for that. I am clearly and specifically saying that the 34 convictions are a joke and that only the gullible and the zealots buy into them.

There are different categories of crimes and violations.

You can call it "The penal code", "Common law", or "Crimes" (as opposed to violations).

And in almost all countries in the world the list is the same and has been for hundreds of years: Murder, robbery, theft, rape, battery and so on.

Do you think people walking the streets of Washington DC are less safe because of crimes such as those Trump was convicted of? Or are their main concern murder, robbery, theft, rape, battery and such?

Edit: Of course my comment nets a hacker down vote instead of a discussion, but for example Nordic countries make a difference between "crimes" and "illegal things" in their laws. And so do South American countries.

The United States has the "felonies" category, which is very comparable. But they also include victimless and non-serious crimes such as tax evasion and copyright infringement.

The policy that led to a collapse in oil production in a petro state? The policy that led to an economic collapse so severe that 20% of the population has emigrated? That's the policy you call defensible?

Chavez actually did quite well in the early years. I'm not sure he nationalized oil but took greater amounts of the revenue in tax and used it for positive things for the people. It went downhill after a while with many of the problems common to communist policy though.

In the eyes of the US, the expropriation of American assets in Venezuela [0] and then selling them to Russian [1], Chinese [2], and Indian [3] interests was theft.

Russian-US relations are tense for the same reasons due to the saga of Sakhalin-I's nationalization from Exxon [4] following the 2022 Invasion of Ukraine and Russia's sale of Exxon's stake to Japanese [5] and Indian [6] interests.

The previous administration also stopped Saudi and UAE from invading Qatar in 2017 [7] due to Rex Tillerson's personal interests with Exxon's stake in Qatar's energy infra [8]

That said, assuming the US doesn't attempt a Venezuelan version of de-Baathification [9], this should be a fairly standard transfer of power - US-Venezuela relations only really tanked when Maduro came to power and hard pivoted Eastward, as even under Chavez American business operations continued and the relationship wasn't severely tense. And from the sounds of it, the faction backing Delcy Rodriguez chose to give Maduro up and (reading between the lines) roll back nationalization in return for staying in power.

Almost everything in political science can be modeled using Tsebelis's Veto Player model, Mesquita's Selectorate Theory, Kuran's Revolutionary Threshold, and the Agency Problem.

[0] - https://www.theguardian.com/business/2007/may/02/oilandpetro...

[1] - https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/venezuela-approves-1...

[2] - https://www.spglobal.com/energy/en/news-research/latest-news...

[3] - https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/indias-ongc-says-oil...

[4] - https://www.upstreamonline.com/production/russia-takes-contr...

[5] - https://www.japex.co.jp/en/business/oilgas/sakhalin1/

[6] - https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/indias-ongc-moves-cl...

[7] - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/8/1/rex-tillerson-stoppe...

[8] - https://www.qatarenergylng.qa/english/AboutUs/Corporate-Stru...

[9] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Ba%27athification

This is all irrelevant - it's completely unacceptable for the US President to send the military into another without Congressional approval, and to kidnap a leader at all (especially without a declaration or war or UN authorization).

Completely irrelevant what “some Venezuelans might” want and literally can be used to justify anything if you accept it as a premise.

For example:

Not taking sides here, just trying to steelman: some Americans might want to sell their relatives into sex trafficking.

Can you qualify “some Venezuelans” in any meaningful way?

This framing implies that the US administration considered US or Venezuelan public opinion before taking this action.

We have no evidence of that.

Some Taiwanese will welcome china,

Some ukrainians welcomed russia,

some polish will welcome russia,

some estonians will welcome russia

etc etc etc.

Look, you don't just regime change, It didn't work in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan. It only really kinda worked in Kosovo, but even then it was touch and go, require lots of troop time and a load of money and ongoing international police.

“We will be greeted as liberators”

Has not come to fruition for previous US regime change operations.

This kidnapping operation doesn’t give insight one way or the other into the will of the Venezuelan people. It, in fact, completely disregards it.

This is exactly what Putin said about Ukrainians living in the Donbas.

Some of the Austrians Wanted Hitler to annex them!

if we’re going to steelman we have to acknowledge that many venezualans liked him too.

we can’t simultaneously say we don’t like corruption of socialist governments while literally bombing another nation and imprisoning political enemies just so we can have its oil for our cronies.

Trump said Machado doesn't have support to be leader and endorsed Maduro's VP as willing to work with the US. It seems unlikely the Venezuelan people are going to see any benefits here. They will get more of the same.

Trumps approval rating isn't great either but I doubt many people would see that as justification for another country kidnapping him in the middle of night to charge him with "has an army with machine guns" before taking American oil

On top of that, I don't think the common Venezuelan laborer was getting much benefit out of the Maduro regime capturing the oil wealth. From the point of view of the less fortunate, there isn't much difference between a Venezuelan elite enriching themselves off the local oil vs an American elite enriching themselves off the local oil.

How about not going there at all for whatever reason, under any circumstances. And there are bigger issues at stake, no amount of drugs "made in Venezuela" inhaled by Americans can kill them as much as one North Korean Nuke.

I'm surprised no lesson the US learnt from similar overthrows in the past, but again this is Trump. The country can get so unstable that by the time Marco start giving out "legitimate" orders, there will be 30 different groups fighting and killing each other. True unchecked anarchy. So what's then? Boots on ground. Are we still in the spirit of sacrificing 150,000 American soldiers in the name of freedom, like we did in Iraq? When we kicked out Russians from Middle East we were not aware they kept islam jihadists at bay, then Al Quaida came to live and we all now how it ended.

but why put yourself in a false dichotomy?

It will not. Chavismo did not end with the death of Hugo Chávez. Nor will it end with the kidnapping of Nicolás Maduro.

Every time the puppet president fails to meet targets, they are executed by missile strike?

It should be one of the Trump kids to run it. Whichever one knows the most spanish. «¿Como hacer país muy bueno?»

And Republicans won’t see a problem with that.

The joke about joining the US military to protect a billionaires oil investments is now just publicly stated government policy apparently.

Why is this downvoted? He never misses a chance to say its a good thing that the military is being used on the American population. The recent ruling against the use of the National Guard comes at a time when Kavanaugh is just upset that his name is going down in history for the term Kavanaugh Stops

Hehe. Ok. This is not a funny thread but that is funny.

Then the hook is thoroughly in your cheek, if you haven't swallowed it

Iraq was probably against Israel's interests. (Israel hates Iran, Iraq hated Iran. US taking out Iraq made Iran stronger which made Iran more threatening to Israel)

This operation is to secure oil so that an attack on Iran doesn't destabilise oil supplies to the USA and Israel.

What did Afghanistan have to do with Israel?

The psyops online is quite amusing and insane, painting this as a victory for Venezuela. And weirdly by pro-Israeli account on Reddit.

By now my radar assumes Israel is somehow connected like many other events we've witnessed in the past. Venezuelas president was quite staunchly against Israel and it's interests, close with Iran too.

Israel is just an extension of the US in the middle east under the branding of Judaism. The desire is to weaken and eventually ignite the region in conflict. Already taking place between Saudi, UAE, Yemen etc. Weakening takes time.

About that

Ask women in Afghanistan how they were treated with Soviet presence vs. now.

If you ask women in Afghanistan you will hear different views. People in the cities had a better life during the American occupation but in rural Afghanistan women were often worse off than under the Taliban. The US propped up warlords, some of them real monsters, and those controlled a lot of the country side. There was no good side in Afghanistan and the US should have stayed out, instead of propping up one group of oppressors to try to defeat another.

Fair and just societies thrive in refugee camps after all

I don't think I understand what your point is? Are you implying that the US should have what? Stayed in Afghanistan forever? What solution would you have proposed there?

Stop with the super-conspiracy talk. Conspiracy, sure. Super-conspiracy? No.

My vote had absolutely zero impact on the election, and I haven't been able to vote for a person I actually liked, supported, and believed represented my interests in any national US election.

I'm mostly wouldn't like an external coup because it'd activate all my neighbors and we see a whole lot of violence in that struggle. I imagine I'd feel the same way if I lived in another country and some 3rd party deposed my government for arbitrary reasons.

I think Maduro almost certainly cheated. All history and our current geopolitical relationships indicate that does not matter to the US unless you oppose them.

Even pretending to follow international law when you don’t actually do so is, to some small degree, support for international law. What the US did is essentially state kidnapping of the sitting head of an another state. This is going to be vastly more stabilizing than Maduro cheating.

They didn't do it because of oil (well to take for ourselves). They did it because Venezuela has been cozying up way too much to Russia and China, and sending both of them a lot of oil.

Oh, I don't think the US should just topple all dictatorships!

If the US could press a button and have all dictatorships automatically become stable, liberal democracies, I'm pretty sure they would do that and we'd all be happy.

But the US cannot just topple the government of all dictatorships at once. If it tried that, it would just cause immense chaos, and all those countries would unite against the West.

The US has to ally with some dictatorships against other dictatorships, like it did with the USSR against the Nazis and how it does with Saudi Arabia against Iran.

Iran hates us since the Islamic Revolution (when we supported the Shah), and finances multiple terrorist groups such as Hesbollah, Hamas and the Houthis. Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship, but at least it's not a revisionist state (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionist_state) and has a more peaceful objective towards its neighbors.

If the US refused to ally with dictatorships, the only country in the entire Middle East that it could ally with is Israel. It would have to fight all other countries at once.

Why doesn't the US take Saudi Arabia's oil then?

I think you have some good points, but you take it too far. The UN charter is the way it is not because it's the optimal approach, but because non-democratic countries had too much power for it to be otherwise.

As an example, the American Revolution had support from France, the Netherlands, and Spain. Britain saw this as shocking interference in an internal matter, as did loyalists in America.

Personally, I think it was a good thing, helping a people determine their own fate. Applying the same measure here, I simultaneously think it's great Maduro is out, but that the manner of it is terrible. As well as being foolishly shortsighted, both for the US and the world more broadly.

My read of your argument: international law says don't intervene in foreign government, and by intervening we legitimize future violence.

I'm not sure this argument makes sense. Maduro stole an election to force his way to dictatorship, is widely blamed for running the country into mass poverty, and continues to hold onto power through threat of violence. The Venezuelan people don't have any recourse here.

Also, in your example of Ukraine you indicate that Russia frames the uprising as a "US coup", suggesting that the reality of whether there even was external involvement isn't so important.

Even so, if some nation tried to use this strike on Venezuela as further justification for violence wouldn't they be violating the same international law you cite anyway?

Obviously the US has a rough track record of replacing foreign governments (a much stronger argument against this kind of act IMO), but so far this mission has looked pretty ideal (rapid capture of Maduro, minimal casualties, US forces instead of funding some rebel group). There is opportunity for a good ending if we can steward a legitimate election for Venezuela, assist with restoration of key institutions (legal, police, oil), and we avoid any deals regarding oil that are viewed as unfair by the Venezuelans.

> The argument you make just plays in their hand

Who cares? What are they going to do about it?

> Because in your framing leaves open who gets to decide what it means to be democratically legitimized.

That was already the case. Our enemies don't care about the concept of hypocrisy. They aren't waiting for some moral high ground. They are going to do what they want to do regardless.

> You're argument opens the door for unlimited military intervention.

No it doesn't. If it is bad to invade somewhere, we can simply not do that. And we can judge this based on the situation and the consequences.

> International law clearly states that a sovereign nation has the right to self-rule, without external intervention. The UN Charter doesn't differentiate between democractic and non-democratic nations - it's up to the people of a nation to select their leadership.

I really wish people would accept that political realism is how the US really operates, rather than buying into the fantasy that there is some rules based order and quoting the UN Charter.

> The argument you make just plays in their hand.

Any argument made on this site by anyone here will have absolute no effect on the outcome in anyway. That has been the case for all of human history and will never change.

International law is not real.

Not to justify what happened here, but your argument would mean that the US would likely have remained a British colony given that French intervention on behalf of the colonies was a contributing factor to the success of the revolutionary war. It also would heavily imply that once the allied forces had beaten the Nazi's back behind German borders, that they should have stopped there. An extreme non-interventionist policy might be the best default policy, but it is implicitly an endorsement of might makes right as well. There are almost certainly times when a country should feel justified in intervening in another country's "regime change", but those times should be very carefully considered and (IMO) never ever viewed as a first or easy step, only a last (or nearly last) resort.

Ukraine was a US coup too, decades of involvement. Otherwise, either Russia wouldn't have invaded, or US wouldn't have been afraid to directly fight Russia over it. The sad reality is that countries in this situations will get captured or proxied by someone or another if they don't play things exactly right.

[flagged]

… including in the US

If that is you actual view of society, than you reject the concept of law itself. Just because people are able to act against the law (and get away with it) doesn't make law obsolete. In fact if they wouldn't act against it, there would be no reason to have a law.

Just sayin

Isn't that the case though? Where's the separation of powers or the rule of law in the US?

To be clear, I'm not favoring any kind of such action, just holding the honesty of the statement.

Socialism = tyranny? Wow. I guess you prefer the freedom of being bankrupted if you get injured, and getting taken by masked men from an unmarked van if you got some tan on your vacation, and then dropped to El Salvador.

At least he's honest, even if it's more like he lacks an effective filter. "bannana republics" and "bigger gun diplomacy" don't quite describe Trumps approach to foreign policy. One thing i can say about the operation is that it's a lot cheaper and less bloody then a ground invasion.

Someone should tell him Iran has loads of oil and China is getting it all...

If Europe is able to ramp up to match US aggressiveness..

Does Maduro still have access to enough money to make the bribe? If not, he won't be getting a pardon.

Yes, she has no democratic base since Maduro took power via election fraud. Watch the media to see if they just copy the feeds from the press agency, or that they will do the work they should actually be doing and put what-is-actually-going-on in focus.

The fourth estate xor corporate media.

source? all that is being reported is her asking for proof of life and him back

On the contrary, kidnapping the defacto leader of a nation is very much an act of war.

Of course not. There is no war in Ba Sing Se.

Mostly because the US has been boycotting them.

JFK tried to build up international institutions on the basis that "Those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside", but then both he and NSK got cancelled...

Name a leader he has anything positive to say about who isn't brutal dictator.

Must? its a choice. Even more of a choice when you're on top.

Trump might not have a choice not because they don't exist, but because he is incapable of understanding them. He's clear on not believing in win/win scenarios.

Trump has stated his admiration for Putin, Xi and Kim Jong Un.

"It's in your nature to destroy yourselves"

The people who actually experienced (either directly fighting in, or living through it) have already died or are rapidly dying out.

We have no concept of just how horrifying a world war would be.

> > If a strong majority of people actually believed in international law, it would be "real".

International law has always been BS, what works is fear of retribution by the offended party or retribution from the observers thinking they might be next and getting together to enact preventive measures

If international law had any effect people would believe in it. You're mixing cause/effect. This situation has been going on for years and the lack of response by international organizations makes people lose all confidence in them.

It is not an attitude. It is a statement of fact.

"International law" are voluntary agreements but countries remain sovereign. The only way to force something is to have bigger guns and/or more economic power than the other countries and, as it happens, the US are #1 on both.

Edit: The best protection we have against WWIII is not "international law", it's that the big guys can instantly nuke each others.

That's interesting because the post-WWII Western alliance system at large is largely born of the US military and economic might: most of those countries were invaded by the US and then helped economically by the US. Obviously a commom adversary (the communists) helped but it was, and still is "led" by the US for a reason.

The global order is based on strength, both military and economic strength. I am just stating the obvious here.

You and I are subject to the law. This is not voluntary and it will be enforced against us by the state.

On the other hand, countries are sovereign. They are not subject to "laws", and if they do it is on a voluntary basis. Ultimately it boils down to military and economic strength for a country to be able to stand its ground and do what it wants. We never left this behind, this has always been the case.

From the replies it seems that commenters believe that countries are subject to "laws" the same way that they are...

I’m wondering if the entire right wing has gone insane. Watching Elon Musk tweet a bunch of racist stuff for several days, followed by weird pro white ethnicity posts, followed by several fawning posts about how this attack was a good thing, is pretty shocking. But also the open hypocrisy of all of these everyday people in social media who have been saying they have not voted for more wars, now turn around completely and say that this war is OK is pretty shocking. And all of the other Republican politicians are either silent or basically claiming that the president has the full authority to do whatever he wants, is also pretty shocking.

I’m sure it is easy to say that this is what everyone should have expected, but I feel like the conduct has gone well past what people expected. The scary thing is I don’t think it will be easy to do something about this. Half the country thinks everything that is happening is completely justified and completely legal. And in practice that means it is effectively legal. So are there any remaining checks and balances that are functioning?

Welcome to the exact same feeling we had of Biden and his entire admin. Pop your bubble I voted for Biden.

Because that worked out so well for the people of Chile (under Pinochet). And Libya (post-Gaddafi). And Iran (1953 onwards). And Iraq (post-Saddam).

Whatever your (valid) criticisms of Maduro, it's important to remember that:

1. The US was intentionally starving Venezuela through sanctions. If conditions improve because the sanctions now get removed, it's not because Maduro is gone. It's because Venezuela's oppressor (the US) just stopped opressing (as much).

Let me put it this way. If I take all your people and put them into a ghetto in Warsaw and build a giant fence around it, letting nothing in or out. And I then decide to let food in once you've given me all your valuables or given up some leader and you now have something to eat, I'm still not the good guy because I later let food in after looting your people and I'm still responsible for starving you in the first place.

2. 20+ years ago the US would lie and say they're doing this to spread democracy and that the people would welcome them as liberators. This was the exact script for Afghanistan and Iraq. Even though it was all about oil they'd never say that. Now they don't even pretend. Trump has outright said that it's about oil and they're going to govern until a suitable puppet is put in place, who will let Western companies loot Venezuela's natural resources.

So good luck with the coming brutal dictatorship and kleptocracy your girlfriend and her countrymen are now celebrating.

Are you suggesting Maduro should be restored to power in Venezuela? Would that be good or bad for Venezuelan's (regardless of what happens with oil or anything else). Would you be willing to live in Venezuela under Maduro?

Tell that to the Chileans who endured Pinochet, Iranians who endured the Shah and the Ayatollah and likewise for Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Guatemala, etc.

All a puppet would've done was be a brutal dictator who suppressed and disappeared anyone who resisted while enabling Western companies to loot the natural resources and the local populace would see no benefit from that at all.

You might say that Cubans would be better off if Castro had been deposed. Is that because you'd expect the sanctions to be removed? If so, the problem is the sanctions. You're basically saying "you would've been better off if you let me install a puppet dictator and loot your natural resources because then at least I would've stopped intentionally starving you".

And if you can't see the problem with that statement, well, I'm not sure what to say.

This is not accurate.

Mosaddeq sought fairer royalties for oil from what is now BP but what was then the AIOC after decades of tension and a decrease in Iran's royalties (with increasing British revenues) in the 1940s, ultimately culminating in the nationalization of AIOC in 1951 [1].

Relations deteriorated. Britain isolated Iran through sanctions and oil embargoes. The US sided with Britain but initially rebuffed attempts at a coup, I believe initially under Truman but Eisenhower was also initially reluctant.

Britain did argue that nationalization of oil and other British interests in Iran was Soviet-led and made an argument to Eisenhower's SEcretary of State that a coup was in the interests of fighting communism, something the administration was likely more receptive to given the Truman doctrine and "containment". The Korean War was ongoing at the time.

So did Britain argue this was to fight commmunism? Yes. Was it really? No. It was about Britain's oil interests and colonial ambition. It was no more about fighting communism than invading Iraq in 2003 was about spreading democracy.

Fears of the USSR played a much bigger role in the 1979 Revolution where the US got their then ally, Saddam Hussein, to release the Ayatollah Khomenei from prison to try and make Iran fundamentalist rather than falling into the Soviet sphere of influence.

As for any election abnormalities, nobody cares about that. Like, at all. It's undeniable that Mossadeq was immensely popular in the early 1950s for his stance that Iranian oil should benefit Iranians, first and foremost, rather than a colonial power.

[1]: https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/iran-nationa...

That tabletmag.com article is a ridiculous work of fiction.

Well for starters he quite clearly stole the election so he is not even the legitimate President. Beyond this he faces indictment for a large number of crimes in the United States and has been extradited to face trial for them.

A country indicted a foreign leader for crimes their nation will not prosecute.

Just the other day, half of the Maduro supporters here on HN were expressing outrage over US interference regarding just this the same thing, in a reversal of principles and roles. What we are witnessing on this board is a raw demonstration of politics and power. Who or what principle you support merely depends on where folks sit.

Both sides of this debate make fair points-- what's regrettable is that so many participants seem unwilling or unable to recognize they are reflexively taking the position opposite the US, or Israel and lack any sounder organizing principle.

> If this is legitimized

Russia tried to do this to Zelensky and Bush Sr. did do it to Noriega in 1990.

yeah it feels like the sort of thing that will go sideways easily, I get the "optimistic" angle who doesn't love strong men being removed from power, but it seems more like a recipe for civil war that we're forced to be heavily involved in

will all of the military and paramilitary forces there suddenly become to compliant? will other nations try to turn it into a proxy war to drag the us down possibly as payback for Ukraine?

maybe everyone moves on I have no idea, I'd personally rather just not be involved

The sheer ignorance . To form such an opinion, with such confidence and literally the only grounding is a few women he/she has dated. We are living in an idiocracy.

Dude, theres not much point in arguing that. You see this kind of 5th column in the aftermath of most popular revolutions, from Iran to Chavez in Venezuela. A whole horde of folks who were part of the previous elites (or more likely, their functionaries) who decamp en masse to the US, where they proceed to spout unhinged propaganda ad infinitum.

A tell tale is how they tend to completely overlook (to the point of pretending it isnt happening) the role of economic sanctions, blockades & other forms of coercive pressure on the economies of those countries. Instead, putting it all down to local actions by local actors.

There won't be much mention of any of the social improvements & economic uplift which Chavez in particular was able to do, before the external economic pressures became overbearing.

When you can control the narrative on both sides of the equation to this extent, kidnapping the leader of a sovereign (until today) country seems almost normal.

Jeffery Sachs summed it up best a couple of hours ago. The US is not even pretending to be a constitutionally-governed state any more, and this is just 1 sign of that.

Afghanistan even has the same government again, which is even more ridiculous.

Some people just went open season on creative writing in here.

Which expert analyses were you expecting to find here?

One surrendered, for starters.

Why would it signal that? The loud and clear message would be "do not let American companies get involved in your infrastructure, government or any other system where government requirements would come into open conflict with their profits".

I believe Russia signed over those rights voluntarily on Ukrainian independence.

In this scenario, why should Venezuelans fighting against US occupiers be labeled as "proxies" for anyone.

Even if they are aided by others, they would still be fighting for THEIR freedom, in THEIR land.

(distinguishing the good guys from the baddies becomes easier, when you strip away the fluff)

That is why I specifically wrote the words "they won't go as far as direct US confrontation". I refer to China-sponsored guerilla warfare.