Deteriorating Situation in Venezuela

[Ludicus]

There seems to be a revolution in progress. China hasn't "warned the US" it's simply stated that it would oppose foreign intervention and wants a peaceful resolution within Venezuela.

China hasn't "warned the US" it's simply stated that it would oppose foreign intervention and wants a peaceful resolution within Venezuela

Sure. "Warns" or "oppose". It's a figure of speech. A fact remains, this morning Guterres said the relationship between the US, Russia and China was worryingly out of kilter. China's Foreign Ministry called on the US to stay out of the crisis, while Russia warned the U.S. against any military intervention in Venezuela.

There seems to be a revolution in progress

Let's wait and see. Top Venezuela military brass vow to back Maduro amid unrest
Edit,

Venezuela seized American oil.

What?

[Yayattasa]

I do think if this continues major sanctions will hit Venezuela from the EU and US.

Humanitarian sanctions, at least this time? Because Venezuela can't buy food or medicine due to sanctions and interventionism.

[Vanoi]

Humanitarian sanctions, at least this time? Because Venezuela can't buy food or medicine due to sanctions and interventionism.

They can't buy medicine or food in Venezuela due to the economic disaster caused by Maduro.

Any new sanctions would hit Venezuela's oil industry. Crippling the economy completely and likley leading to the country collapsing.

[95thrifleman]

There's not one single indication that the US is planning to conduct regime change in Venezuela. Instead of a poor one-liner why not offer an alternative? What do you think should be done?

Nothing.

It is an internal issue, let the people of Venezuela deal with it.

[dogukan]

I used to be torn over the Venezuelan issue. Not anymore. To me, Maduro is just like those other populist authoritarians. Left or right means nothing in real politics for the MOST PART, and certainly in this case.
The methods, rhetoric, polarization and way of transforming the institutions are identical.

I see Venezuela as another version of Turkey. Of course there are many other dynamics, as the US influence in Latin America is a different issue and there is often no major ethnic-nationalist conflicts over there.

I do not even think Maduro is a sane/sensible person driven by a political ideal even. I think his mentality is no different than a religious nutjob. Perhaps he is narcisistic. I don't know.

Now when judging this issue, the most important factor is how one fairly balances this phenomena:

* Venezuela took a radical stance to create an alternative political system going against the established order of the US-based global regime. For this, it got an extremely harsh, unfair treatment which choked its economy so that the US can deliver a message. The balance is here. How much of the blame should go on this American aggression and how much should go to the uncompromising nature of the Venezuelan politics.

A more sensible analysis would be to look into the economic policies of Venezuela to trace their
1) Sensibility : Were they after a sustainable model, trying to diversify the economy but got choked by US sanctions? Or were they already pushing an unnecessary fantasy?
2) Sincerity: The outcome of their system by now is already drowning in corruption, polarization politics and a desire to destroy the opposition. I know that in the 2000s, along with increasing oil prices, they REALLY did significantly improve the Venezuelan living standards. In fact, today's rebellious middle class youth is largely a product of that particular period. But were they always fair and trying to distribute? Or the corruption/clientalism was invisible because their economy was simply soaring with oil prices?


I believe one has to answer these questions for themselves before deciding on this matter.
I know for a fact how living in a regime like this works. Erdoğan is the same. He has popular support, he chokes the opposition. He does get elected in the end, but he goes towards there through using all the power he collected. And there is no end to it. Would I have wanted Erdoğan to be knocked out today? Yes, for countless personal reasons. But I would not think it would be totally fair.
I am also unsure about the nature of the "opposition" over there. Latin American puppets of the USA were not good to anybody themselves. They were equally authoritarian and even more bloody. Whenever I delve into latin american politics, I am always astonished by the extreme anti-left vs anti-american rhetoric there. The anti-left in Latin America has a uniquely violent/bloody outlook. The paramilitaries are still there. And we can clearly see the mentality that can come out of it as in the case of Bolsonaro.
IF, I know more about the leadership of the latin american opposition, and that they were actual proper democratic liberals. Then I COULD actually back a somewhat hard reaction, even though I am against it by principle.

I simply wish there was a mechanism of international intervention to guarantee fair/open institutions in a country.
But at this point, restoration of a functioning liberal system seems more important than the extreme polarization in the world completely removing the field of politics, politics thw way it should be, where people can get together and compromise and decide on their daily lives.

Nothing.

It is an internal issue, let the people of Venezuela deal with it.

While it sounds good as a principle, often, real life takes things in a different way. Ultimately, you might realize that you are in a political arena where both sides are out there to annihilate each other. And no one is at fault for that.
Dominating political paradigms of opposing parties can be extremely at odds.

Imagine a country.
40% secularists.
60% Islamists.

No way these can compromise. One party by its belief wants to Islamize the whole world. It is a belief that is unnegotiable. It is in every moment of DAILY life. Anything you or the other one does in daily life impacts the other. How will we raise out children? What will our schools teach? What institutions will be located in the central district of our town?

What if the Islamists get democratically elected and enforce themselves to transform the rest of the society.

No matter how much we struggle for democracy, I believe that on the long-run, there is often a war of annihilation. This is simply embedded in humanity. Few societies are lucky enough to be not stuck in this dilemma.

[Vanoi]

Nothing.

It is an internal issue, let the people of Venezuela deal with it.

Go tell Columbia it's an internal issue. This 'internal issue" of Venezuelas is causing refugees to flee the country of which Columbia itself hosts over a million.

Do nothing is not an option. I simply think you don't have an real alternative to offer.

[95thrifleman]

Go tell Columbia it's an internal issue. This 'internal issue" of Venezuelas is causing refugees to flee the country of which Columbia itself hosts over a million.

Do nothing is not an option. I simply think you don't have an real alternative to offer.

Nothing IS a real alternative.

We've been screwing up half the bloody world intervening in nation's internal struggles and making it worse.

[Vanoi]

Nothing IS a real alternative.

We've been screwing up half the bloody world intervening in nation's internal struggles and making it worse.

No it's actually not. The humanitarian situation has to be addressed alone and the situation has an affect on its neighbors and others around whenever you honestly like it or not.

"We've"? Do you mean the West? America? For every time the West has intervened in another country's problems and screwed up I can find times when the West did nothing and it still got worst to the point of dragging other countries into the issue anyways.

[Love Mountain]

There seems to be a revolution in progress. China hasn't "warned the US" it's simply stated that it would oppose foreign intervention and wants a peaceful resolution within Venezuela. The spokesman equivocated and stopped short of doing so when asked if China actually supported the current president: only the two leaders of the Brotherhood of Dictators, Putin and Erdoğan, have actually shouted ¡Viva Maduro! seeing him rightly as a fellow capo in trouble. "Strategic bombers" have been obsolete for 50 years all the same and Putin is unlikely to have Russia strap on a suicide vest in order to try to keep him in power. It's not like they need the oil.

They're not obsolete... You do realize that these are simply launch platforms right? They're never going to be within range of anything that can hurt them. The main reason for the existence of Tu-160s is because it's part of Russia's nuclear triad, along with SSBNs, and Strategic Missile Troops. The Tu-160s sent to Venezuela were sent there as a symbolic move and perhaps as a sign that Russia is interested in building a military base in Venezuela. A military airbase in Venezuela is a big deal, especially since there is only 3-4 thousand kilometers of distance to USA. That's not a big reactionary window. An airbase in Venezuela would rapidly increase Russia's retaliation or even first strike capability against the United States.

Another "benefit" I forgot to mention in my first comment is that Venezuela under Guaido will at least profit from the cooperation of the country's elite, which is currently undermining the efforts of the Maduro administration to save the economy. Most western journalists dismiss the claims of Caracas about Venezuelan magnates conspiring against the "popular regime" as either paranoid or insincere, but the truth is that several magnates, although Maduro is indeed exaggerating the impact of their activities, are indeed lobbying against the state, by exercising pressure upon international institutions or by using their resources and power to worsen the country's financial condition. The reason for this animosity is that the establishment traditionally cooperated with Chavez' conservative predecessors, so their interests were severely threatened, when the social-democratic party won the elections. Chavez punished them by reinforcing state interventionism in the economy and nationalising some foreign or native-invested industries, a move which further encouraged them to associate themselves with the opposition. That policy was hardly socialist, as the circle of Maduro and military officers gained most of the fruits, but it also alienated powerful families and interests. If the previous "regime" is restored, then they have legitimate hopes of recovering their sorely missed dominance in Venezuelan economy and politics. This could gradually stabilise Venezuela and slightly reduce corruption, but not in any remarkable level, capable of saving the society from the imminent humanitarian disaster.

This is interesting and key information indeed. Googling the issue lends credence to your claims. In particular, this article talks about the arrest of Banesco officials. Banesco is a private bank in Venezuela owned by Juan Carlos Escotet, the richest Venezuelan who lives in Spain. I wonder why? I am more interested on any sources of information you may have about how Venezuela's elite are divided between those who benefit from Maduro's rule, and those who oppose him. It'd be an interesting reading I imagine. The currency situation in Venezuela is yet another reminder of the Impossible Trinity and why economic principles are important. For a nice little reading, here's a paper on the topic, page 17.

According to Pew, the United States are mostly viewed positively, but that heavily depends on political affiliation, with the left being the most anti-American. I suppose the Venezuelan example confirms the rule of Latin America, where the right views Washington as the pillar of the current profitable system against the subverting efforts of USSR-funded communists, while the leftists consider the U.S. as the flagship of modern colonialism, with multinational corporations exploiting the local resources and workforce under the protection of puppet dictators. The fact that the American intelligence services were directly involved in the failed coup against Chavez didn't contribute to fixing the global power's shaky reputation. By the way, I really liked your article about the dubious reporting of Venezuelan domestic affairs from the mainstream media. In my opinion, the core of the problem is that the press is too eager to adopt a "patriotic stance" (by uncritically swallowing the claims of government officials from Europe and America), while it is also unacceptably dependent, due to insufficient budget or even genuine incompetence, on biased sources, more interested in promoting their agenda than fighting against propaganda.

Thank you for the kind words Abdul and I agree here. Here's an article from FT about the military's declaration of loyalty to Maduro. And I quote,

In a video posted on social media and broadcast on state TV, other senior military figures also backed Mr Maduro, who has led the country since 2013 but has come under intense pressure to resign since he started his second term as president this month after an election victory widely dismissed as a fraud.

Fraud's a bit of a strong word to use, no? I don't really blame FT here, this seems more like lazy reporting and lack of coverage, not a malicious propaganda peace but the results are the same. It does not seem like we'll be able to get objective coverage into Venezuela until this captures much more global attention. At that point, scrutiny is likely to motivate higher quality, and thus, more objective coverage. Otherwise we get articles like this. While I'm sure this is factual and important, the piece has a clear agenda to it. And who wrote it? Moises Naim, he is the former Minister of Trade and Industry for Venezuela and Executive Director of the World Bank. Served under President Carlos Anderes Perez. The same President that suffered a coup from who? Hugo Chavez. Can't imagine that Mr. Naim is the most objective commentator, yet the reputation of the Atlantic and the excellent quality with which the article is written is likely to convince myself and those who read it to accept the narrative Moises Naim is trying to paint. Whether that narrative is true or not, is not something I can determine.

[Mary The Quene]

No it's actually not. The humanitarian situation has to be addressed alone and the situation has an affect on its neighbors and others around whenever you honestly like it or not.

"We've"? Do you mean the West? America? For every time the West has intervened in another country's problems and screwed up I can find times when the West did nothing and it still got worst to the point of dragging other countries into the issue anyways.

Why are you always so pro interventionist

Let the people of Venezuala solve it by themselves. Only thing we should do is help the refugees

[Love Mountain]

Why are you always so pro interventionist

Let the people of Venezuala solve it by themselves. Only thing we should do is help the refugees

We have the capability to prevent bloodshed. Things may come down to Maduro slaughtering opposition supporters if an insurgency appears. At that point, it may be simply better for everyone to intervene militarily. Gets rid of the violence and Maduro in one fell swoop. Hold elections, and go from there.

[Vanoi]

Why are you always so pro interventionist

Let the people of Venezuala solve it by themselves. Only thing we should do is help the refugees

Suki said it better than me. I'm sorry I don't believe in a head-in-the-sand foreign policy. I haven't advocated anything yet either other than Maduro should step down. A military intervention should be a complete last resort.

[Heathen Hammer]

We have the capability to prevent bloodshed. Things may come down to Maduro slaughtering opposition supporters if an insurgency appears. At that point, it may be simply better for everyone to intervene militarily. Gets rid of the violence and Maduro in one fell swoop. Hold elections, and go from there.

Because typically such "interventions" result with high civilian body count, and the regime that replaces them tends to be worse then the original one. Instead of hamfisted approach that US was demonstrating since Cold War, they should compromise and broker change with Russia and other countries that back Maduro, maybe convince them to pick someone less authoritarian and more fiscally literate.

[Love Mountain]

Because typically such "interventions" result with high civilian body count, and the regime that replaces them tends to be worse then the original one. Instead of hamfisted approach that US was demonstrating since Cold War, they should compromise and broker change with Russia and other countries that back Maduro, maybe convince them to pick someone less authoritarian and more fiscally literate.

Rwanda really benefited from no hard intervention. Or the hundreds of thousands in Syria, with millions displaced. Or the hundreds of thousands in Congo, C.A.R., Somalia, and Sudan. Absurd to ignore all of the death tolls that happened without the U.S. All I'm saying is that should things start heading for the worse, I'll be more than happy to see US forces intervene.

[Yayattasa]

Rwanda really benefited from no hard intervention. Or the hundreds of thousands in Syria, with millions displaced. Or the hundreds of thousands in Congo, C.A.R., Somalia, and Sudan. Absurd to ignore all of the death tolls that happened without the U.S. All I'm saying is that should things start heading for the worse, I'll be more than happy to see US forces intervene.

And where did exactly interventionism work last time? Serbia? You do not realize that both alternatives are bad, but one costs more lives. Inaction feels worse, of course, but interventionism causes more damages overall.

[Love Mountain]

And where did exactly interventionism work last time? Serbia? You do not realize that both alternatives are bad, but one costs more lives. Inaction feels worse, of course, but interventionism causes more damages overall.

You're comparing apples with oranges, and such talk is always a failure in regards to intervention. Not every intervention is the same. Although do tell, should we have let Milosevic massacre and displace millions of people without any repercussions?

You're also making a mistake that all interventions are bad or cause more damage overall. This is not so, especially when we consider the aim of a specific intervention. U.S. successfully contained Communism in Korea. How many people died when U.S. intervened in Haiti in 1994? How many civilians did we kill when we liberated Kuwait in 1991? Tell me, in Kosovo. How does the death toll and displacement from US air strikes compared to the hundreds of thousands of displaced and thousands killed by the Serbs? Would it have been better if we let the Serbs cleanse the entire region of Albanians? Hmm?

The biggest issue with US interventions isn't the casualties we cause or because all interventions are bad. The biggest issue is the inconsistent way in which they are applied and the constant lies about our goals. To this day, I have no idea what the security establishment was thinking when they approved the madness of the 2003 Iraq Invasion.

[Aexodus]

What?

I’m just saying. It’s understandable that America wants to take back the oil that was owned by American companies until Hugo Chavez seized it, which would have considerably harmed American GNP.

Go tell Columbia it's an internal issue. This 'internal issue" of Venezuelas is causing refugees to flee the country of which Columbia itself hosts over a million.

Do nothing is not an option. I simply think you don't have an real alternative to offer.

Why doesn’t Columbia do something, or the rest of South America for that matter.

[Ludicus]

They can't buy medicine or food in Venezuela due to the economic disaster caused by Maduro.

Not exactly...not exactly. Venezuela: Overview of U.S. Sanctions
----
Venezuela's gold sector hit by US sanctions — Quartz

Even as Venezuela has descended further into economic crisis, its gold sector has remained surprisingly robust—until now. In the first nine months of this year, the country exported some 23.6 tons of the precious metal to Turkey, worth $900 million, to generate the hard currency it desperately needs. But new sanctions introduced by Donald Trump seek to stymie the industry—and turn up the pressure on president Nicolas Maduro’s authoritarian regime. It’s expected, the sanctions will make a significant impact on the country’s economy

new sanctions would hit Venezuela's oil industry. Crippling the economy completely and likley leading to the country collapsing

In fact, it is the US coup of grace to Venezuela. The sanctions that are already in place lead to many deaths and make an economic recovery practically impossible.

This 'internal issue" of Venezuelas is causing refugees to flee the country of which Columbia itself hosts over a million.

The US/western role in forced migration from the Middle East is not negligible...and some would say that one hundred years of US military intervention in Latin America/Caribbean created the migration crisis. In fact, the 1823 Monroe Doctrine set the stage for U.S. intervention throughout Central and South America. In doubt, ask the American Secretary of State (1890) Richard Olney. Curiously, Olney was talking about a territorial conflict between Venezuela and Great Britain,

Today the United States is practically sovereign on this continent and its fiat is law upon the subjects to which it confines its interposition….it is because its infinite resources combined with its isolated position render it master of the situation and practically invulnerable as against any or all other powers

For every time the West has intervened in another country's problems and screwed up I can find times when the West did nothing and it still got worst

As, for example...

[Love Mountain]

Nobody can dispute that American foreign policy has greatly damaged most if not all countries south of it's borders. What particuularly shocks me today, is that scholars and pundits glorify the Monroe Doctrine while ignoring the catastrophic effects of our policies in South America of the last several decades. I'm not against interventions or strong foreign policy... but it has to be to the benefit of all parties. The silly anti-commie attitudes that Americans has fueled decades of violence and conflict that has harmed everyone. America could do a lot by simply revising much of our policies in regards to substance control AKA War on Drugs.

[Vanoi]

Not exactly...not exactly. Venezuela: Overview of U.S. Sanctions
----
Venezuela's gold sector hit by US sanctions — Quartz

https://www.marketplace.org/2019/01/...ns-second-term

Abdul has made great posts detailing the corruption in Maduro's regime which has helped cripple the economy along with poor decisions like mentioned in that article.

Blaming Venezuela's economic on sanctions ignores the reality the economy even before US sanctions.

In fact, it is the US coup of grace to Venezuela. The sanctions that are already in place lead to many deaths and make an economic recovery practically impossible.

Maduro's own policies aren't helping either and even without sanctions his economy would still be .

The US/western role in forced migration from the Middle East is not negligible

Last time I checked Assad started his own war. Indiscriminately bombed, starved, and gassed many causing those refugees. Rebels have a role too but Assad caused many flee.

and some would say that one hundred years of US military intervention in Latin America/Caribbean created the migration crisis. In fact, the 1823 Monroe Doctrine set the stage for U.S. intervention throughout Central and South America. In doubt, ask the American Secretary of State (1890) Richard Olney. Curiously, Olney was talking about a territorial conflict between Venezuela and Great Britain,

I agree but Venezuela's problems are way more than Western meddling. I think you just don't want to admit they are more responsible in this situation.

As, for example...

Suki mentioned them.