Comment by nospice
3 days ago
I don't understand what you're saying here. First, yep, countries act in self-interest. There's no war in the history of the planet that was started out of the kindness of one's heart. That doesn't mean that the outcome of a self-interested intervention can't be just or good for the country in the long haul. I don't know how this one will pan out, but I suspect that the interests of the US and of the citizens of Venezuela are aligned much more closely than, say, in the Middle East.
Second, you're portraying US as a malicious actor operating in a vacuum. The reality is that there's a fierce competition between superpowers to broaden their spheres of influence and ultimately control the world. There's no future in which a relatively small, resource-rich, and politically dysfunctional country is left to its own devices. The choice is between Russia, China, and the US. Venezuela was more or less one of the Russian client states, and that status quo was maintained through undemocratic means, including mass murder of political opponents using the military gear provided by RU. Now, the US is going to try its hand, probably in a far less brutal way.
The US regime hates Maduro because he kept Venezuelan oil nationalized so it can be benefit the Venezuelan people rather than foreign shareholders of oil companies. Although US sanctions intended to choke their economy and bring about regime change have made that difficult in practice.
The interests of the US imperialists and the Venezuelan people therefore could not be more diametrically opposed.
Nobody was benefiting from the oil nationalization, least of all the Venezuelan people. All their oil engineers left! You can't walk around Doral, Fl; Katy, Tx; or Alpharetta, Ga without tripping over young venezuelans with petroleum engineering degrees who have fled the poverty and repression of Maduro's Venezuela.
All this guessing is based on historical examples of results of US involvement in Americas, I presume?
I'm playing devil's advocate as a non-interventionist but Panama was considered successful.
Grenada as well. One of the more successful countries in the Antilles.
> I don't understand what you're saying here.
You clearly did, US is acting out of pure self interest and pretending otherwise.
> Second, you're portraying US as a malicious actor operating in a vacuum
Invading a foreign nation, stealing their resources and imprisoning thier leader is a malicious act, no matter how you slice it.
Just because there are other competitors or good "may" come out of it (so you say), doesn't justify it.
The mental gymnastics by Americans to position themselves as "liberators", while bombing other countries and stealing their territory / resources is stunning.
reality has been a rules based order where states voluntary agreements with each other, not spheres of influence.
this is a change to how russia wants the world to work
It is very much about spheres of influence. Look at China and ports in Africa. And Russia trying to mingle in militias and whatnot. The US is losing a huge amount of influence currently, due to how they treat former allies in Europe and currently due to inept leadership playing a losing game. Russia same. Russia couldn't even defend its border, if Europe collectively decided to invade, to make them finally shut up. But Russia got nukes. It might soon just be an oversized North Korea, if it continues getting decimated in Ukraine. The only winner currently is China, who is catching up with the US in influence and military fast.
So, the taken is, as China and Russia are very evil, it's OK if the US is evil (but just a bit less than the other actors).
I though they (the US?) were aiming to be better. Like, the "great" in MAGA wasn't like in "great empire". /s
I believe the argument is, this can simultaneously be a bad thing yet the best achievable outcome within the current reality.
In other words, the point is that the hypothetical good choice is not actually on the menu.
I will note a similarity to the US political situation with respect to people who, rather than choose the lesser of two evils, opt not to vote entirely.
Nevertheless, that doesn't mean humanity shouldn't strive for better.