Miscellaneous News

CMP said:

Indifferent isn't the right word for it. They're just selective about where and when to fight with something extremely valuable to gain that outweighs the risks. Resisting the US in its own back yard on this Venezuela thing is not the right time or place. There is almost nothing to gain and it is on the other side of the world. Moreover, the Venezuelan government and people themselves are completely unable and unwilling to resist. It would be a different story if they had the willpower of the Yemenis, Afghanis, etc. Latin Americans simply don't have that kind of will.

Click to expand...

MortyandRick said:

That's all fine and good. But when Myanmar had a coup and US led groups burned chinese factories.

Why can't china try to do the same thing? I still feel it was a real wasted opportunity to shoot down a few US helicopters

At least increase the cost for the US. If China didn't know about it, then they need to work on their intelligence gathering

Click to expand...

Don’t Settle for Maduro 2.0​

The dictator’s cronies are still in power and vowing to resist the U.S.​

Randomuser said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Don’t Settle for Maduro 2.0​

The dictator’s cronies are still in power and vowing to resist the U.S.​

As Sunday dawned in Caracas and Washington, a new reality was also apparent a day after the U.S. snatched dictator Nicolás Maduro in a daring raid (see nearby). To wit, the dictator’s cronies are still running Venezuela, and they don’t seem ready to give it up. Is President Trump willing to settle for Maduro 2.0?

Delcy Rodríguez, the former vice president, is now the acting president. Like Mr. Maduro, she’s been sanctioned by the U.S. and European Union. After Mr. Maduro’s capture Saturday, she issued defiant public remarks. She’s a hard-line socialist well known for her close ties to Cuban intelligence.

Ms. Rodríguez's brother, Jorge Rodríguez, remains in charge of the National Assembly. Also still in power is the notorious interior minister, Diosdado Cabello. He declared in Caracas that the U.S. had only partially succeeded in its mission and that the Chavista revolution will continue.

Does this worry the Trump Administration? Not that it is showing. Mr. Trump boasted Saturday that Ms. Rodríguez will do what the U.S. wants, or else. He threatened a “second wave” of military intervention if she doesn’t.

But Mr. Trump didn’t say anything about holding new elections as a U.S. goal. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Sunday that elections will need to be held eventually, though he didn’t seem to think it’s all that urgent. Mr. Rubio seemed confident that the U.S. embargo on Venezuelan oil exports will squeeze the regime enough that it will buckle to U.S. demands.

“We want drug trafficking to stop. We want no more gang members to come our way. We don’t want to see the Iranian and, by the way, Cuban presence in the past. We want the oil industry in that country not to go to the benefit of pirates and adversaries of the United States, but for the benefit of the people,” Mr. Rubio said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

Those are important goals, but Mr. Rubio’s implication is that the Maduro apparat can stick around if they heed these demands. This is a risky bet, especially since the regime’s new leaders rely so much on aid from Cuba, Russia, China and Iran. It’s unlikely these people will turn into pro-American democrats.

All the more so since the U.S. military left Venezuela at the end of the Maduro operation. Mr. Rubio said Sunday it was unrealistic to take more risks in the raid to decapitate more of the regime, which is fair enough.

But despite Mr. Trump’s vow that the U.S. will “run the country,” there is no one on the ground to do so. This may mollify MAGA critics who fear he is imitating George W. Bush’s occupation of Iraq. But it reduces the U.S. ability to persuade the regime.

Much depends on whether the Maduro crowd fear a second U.S. military strike. Even more depends on whether the Trump Administration is willing to push for new elections. The U.S. needn’t back any candidate. But a democratic government of the kind that won the 2024 election, only to have it stolen by Mr. Maduro, would be a more durable ally.

The Trump Administration talks about its foreign-policy “realism.” But if Maduro 2.0 remains in defiant power in six months, its gamble on his henchmen won’t look very realistic.

Click to expand...

CMP said:

Indifferent isn't the right word for it. They're just selective about where and when to fight with something extremely valuable to gain that outweighs the risks. Resisting the US in its own back yard on this Venezuela thing is not the right time or place. There is almost nothing to gain and it is on the other side of the world. Moreover, the Venezuelan government and people themselves are completely unable and unwilling to resist. It would be a different story if they had the willpower of the Yemenis, Afghanis, etc. Latin Americans simply don't have that kind of will.

Click to expand...

TPenglake said:

People who keep fantasizing that China should do this and that in terms of hard power geopolitics forget that it took decades for the US to build up its global military strike and logistic capabilities, not to mention the sheer luck that it was largely untouched by WW2 outside of Pearl Harbor. In comparison, China only debuted its first truly modern aircraft last year, its naivety to think they can develop the same capacity for adventuring as the US in a matter of months.

Also, compared to the Soviet Union that supported governments and armed groups all over the world, at least those entities were motivated by socialism and willing to put up a struggle. In our post-Cold War world, most of the global south is still rife with corruption and weak feelings of nationhood, thus creating a small elite class and largely apathetic populations that are only really out for themselves and thus unwilling to resist. Which therefore means any money or weapons China throws at them, might as well be thrown in a blackhole, the only exception here seems to be Pakistan.

So what if people are mocking China's inaction as an example of how it isn't a superpower? When did China ever posit itself as one? The US is the only one that's still wrapped up in the idea of a global ideaological struggle. China is playing the only game that matters, which is boosting the quality of life and technological progress of the Chinese nation. Less we forget, that was how the last Cold War was decided. The US and Soviet Union made endless chess moves against eachother, but one country was a land of plenty and oppurtunity, and the other had its citizens line up at 5 in the morning for something as basic as bread. That's a historical fact, as such I would argue the recent big development in the Sino-US Cold War isn't Maduro's kidnapping, but rather the "kill line" going viral on Chinese social media. America can pull of these impressive military operations, all the while its roads are falling apart and people are one missed payment away from homelessness.

Plus, might makes right, but just because doing something is right doesn't make it smart. The US has Maduro, but now what? All this stuff about how they're going to administer Venezuela, which will require boots on the ground and also other actions in Latin America, they'll be busy for years to come remaking their own backyard in their own image.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In that regard, since when has a distracted US ever been a bad thing for China?

Click to expand...

TPenglake said:

People who keep fantasizing that China should do this and that in terms of hard power geopolitics forget that it took decades for the US to build up its global military strike and logistic capabilities, not to mention the sheer luck that it was largely untouched by WW2 outside of Pearl Harbor. In comparison, China only debuted its first truly modern aircraft last year, its naivety to think they can develop the same capacity for adventuring as the US in a matter of months.

Also, compared to the Soviet Union that supported governments and armed groups all over the world, at least those entities were motivated by socialism and willing to put up a struggle. In our post-Cold War world, most of the global south is still rife with corruption and weak feelings of nationhood, thus creating a small elite class and largely apathetic populations that are only really out for themselves and thus unwilling to resist. Which therefore means any money or weapons China throws at them, might as well be thrown in a blackhole, the only exception here seems to be Pakistan.

Click to expand...

FairAndUnbiased said:

I said it before and I'll say it again: only fascism and socialism are ideologically powerful enough for not just individuals but states to eat grass and fight.

All the other libshit ideologies are weak.

I must point out that DPP is embracing a textbook fascist ideology: embracing nationalism, a manufactured history of grievance, a false and exclusionary national identity, and a policy of open xenophobia.

Click to expand...

CMP said:

Citations please. Both of China's admission and of Pakistan jamming it. Thanks!

Click to expand...