Moridin920 posted:

I mean it's a little weird that you say ah here is an ideal solution that doesn't involve us invasion but now let me tell you all the reasons it won't work... I feel like you're about to say 'the people want justice not peace, and that's why really the only choice is US invasion.'

I might be a bit paranoid though!

uninterrupted posted:

Claims of whataboutism are, themselves, whataboutism.

Also none of that looks like a government source.

Also unsurprising that the pro-US-armed invasion side is using the same defense of segregation used by the US for decades.

Kavros posted:

The first sentence of this is already an odessey of pure oof, but the third sentence is a remarkable followup by making sure that some shades of Russia's historically beloved whataboutism from even the cold war (pointing right back to race relations in the US) is included as an overtime bonus.

This is Greatest Hits territory.

M. Discordia posted:

Donald Trump isn't the permanent god-king of the U.S. (unlike Venezuela we do still have elections here that, while not perfect, do contain the realistic possibility of someone other than the incumbent winning). What about an intervention led by a Bernie Sanders administration? What about the socialist government of Mexico? Is there anyone at all who has a moral claim to oppose Venezuela's serial killer dictatorship or is the idea of a country where the government performs literally no functions besides mass grave construction just that appealing to some members of the anti-humanity bloc?

fnox posted:

An important piece of context for those hoping for an endogenous leftist uprising: that already happened, you’re looking at it. The current situation is like the 90s was in Venezuela only 10 times worse.

I think a crucial part of historical context that is what leads to my pessimism regarding a deal that would result in Maduro’s exit is that the Venezuelan people have had to endure almost 30 years of nothing but political turmoil. They’ve lost faith in politicians doing anything right.

Helsing posted:

Actually you seem to have excessive faith in some of the world's most despicable politicians doing the right thing on your behalf.

fnox posted:

You seem to have no faith in the west whatsoever, I have no faith whatsoever in Venezuela’s politicians be them right or left. What would be the middle point here? Someone like AMLO intervening in this conflict?

fnox posted:

You seem to have no faith in the west whatsoever,

Majorian posted:

Why should anyone have faith in the West's ability to helpfully intervene in this situation?

420 Gank Mid posted:

The middle point would be an unstable dysfunctional government that will eventually be toppled by US military intervention or CIA coup and replaced with something more repressive to extract more wealth from Venezuela on a stable schedule.


Who could have thought that in a stalemate the imperial superpower would win?

fnox posted:

Because the alternative is about as poo poo and it’s already been tried, we both know things are not gonna get better this way, so I’d rather take the coin toss. It could go well, or it could end up worse. Would you rather die of the disease or of the cure?

Bringing things back to a flawed democracy is not a hard bar to clear. Just bringing sense back to the madness will go a long way.

Mozi posted:

Nobody is supporting a military intervention.

Majorian posted:

There were an awful lot of genuinely well-intentioned Iraqi expats who made similar arguments in favor of invading Iraq. You can claim that circumstances are different in Venezuela, and who knows, maybe you're right - I doubt it, but hey, anything's possible. But in any case, you're not going to get very many leftists worldwide to support an intervention from the U.S.; we've seen this movie before, and we don't like how it ends.

fnox posted:

You seem to have no faith in the west whatsoever, I have no faith whatsoever in Venezuela’s politicians be them right or left. What would be the middle point here? Someone like AMLO intervening in this conflict?

fnox posted:

No, of course they will never back the US. Just don't back Maduro anymore.

fnox posted:

And Maduro knows the handbook, meaning he'll be even less likely to negotiate with the US directly. That part will have to be filled in by another party, likely, South American countries who are currently holding Venezuelan refugees.

quote:

On July 7, the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced the reestablishment of talks between representatives of the government of President Nicolas Maduro and the Venezuelan opposition on the Caribbean island of Barbados. There are reports of a six point agenda: elections within a year, a new National Electoral Council, whether Maduro can be a candidate, abolishment of the National Constituent Assembly, reincorporation of Chavismo to the AN, and the lifting of sanctions.

In an apparent effort to appease the radical opposition before announcing resumption of talks, National Assembly President Juan Guaidó announced on Twitter that Venezuela is ready to return to the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (TIAR). This move allows radicals to see the Barbados round of negotiations as a hoop to jump through before “requesting” military intervention (to get a feel for this line of thinking, see this Twitter thread from Miami-based Venezuelan journalist Ibeyise Pacheco). Nevertheless, as analysts explain the TIAR is closely tied to the UN Security Council in which Russia and China have veto power. What is more, the Venezuelan situation does not neatly fit the provisions of the agreement.

Maduro met with 43 pro-government National Assembly deputies to discuss their reincorporation into the legislative body. This could provide a challenge to the opposition. Given the number of opposition deputies that have been arrested, are in exile or on the run inside of Venezuela, their majority is tenuous.

Helsing posted:

I have no faith in a military invasion's ability to improve the situation in Venezuela but as I previously explained that's not specific to any one country, that's a more general problem with state building in general. There is no short term solution, at best there's various forms of harm reduction you might practice. An actual invasion that removes the government from power would lead to a civil war which would further destroy the economy and depress living standards even more. If it got bad enough it might lead to the de facto dissolution of the country. We're not talking the difference between one dictator and another, we're talking about the difference between a repressive state and a failed one.

The middle point is probably something extremely boring like unconditional aid and technical assistance which would inevitably help the government hold onto power but which would at least mitigate the suffering of the people. It wouldn't be morally satisfying to you in the way ousting Maduro would be but from the most strictly utilitarian terms it'd likely be the best outcome for the moment. Any resistance the government might initially put up toward such aid would be easier to overcome than the proposed alternative of a literal invasion: even if half or two thirds of every shipment goes directly to feathering the bed of some government functionary or local gang leader, that would still be a vastly better solution to the problem than a foreign power invading and occupying, and the US could easily afford to adsorb such losses. While this wouldn't solve every problem, and would actually create some new problems (hooking a country on foreign aid is not good for the local economy) it would be the fastest, most humane and most effective way to alleviate suffering, and then you could figure out the details of how to disengage later once the immediate crisis conditions have abated.

Of course this idea seems completely implausible to everyone because deep down we all recognize that any intervention that isn't predicated on using force to advance American state interests is a total none starter. The idea that America might creatively use its wealth to achieve a none military solution sounds insane because we all know American doesn't act out of humanitarian calculations. But perhaps as an exercise it is worth remembering that if someone actually cared about people's suffering and wanted to use the power of the American state to do something about it there would be way better ways to accomplish that goal than invading other countries.

Majorian posted:

Who on the left is actually backing Maduro, beyond a handful of people ironically pretending to support him online? It seems to me that the left's actual, genuine position worldwide on the issue is, "Hands off Venezuela." I'm not seeing much material support for him. And no, countries like Russia and China obviously don't count; neither are particularly leftist, and neither of their governments give a poo poo about what left-wing activists around the world say. We don't have any more control over them than we have over Trump's government.

fnox posted:

This doesn't help remove Maduro though, it's palliative care. It helps him continue using hunger as a mean of social control, only he wouldn't have to dig a deeper hole to be able to give out free food. It would have to come with the condition that Maduro steps down or at the very least agrees to a transition plan. I'm not sure if the Red Cross aid is helping at all, I think it's mostly targetted towards refugees.

He needs to agree to a deal. It's hard enough to get him to sit down and actually buy into what he's saying because he's done this many times before as a way to buy time. You need to hold something over him to bring him to the negotiating table.

fnox posted:

I don't think it's ironic, and there's a very vocal minority. Just in this thread there's actual Maduro supporters. I'd say most leftist outlets offer tacit support.

Some like Jeremy Corbyn who once explicitly supported Maduro have maybe done the right thing and just shut the gently caress up about it. But what really needs to exist is support for alternatives, not just radio silence. The negotiations that happened in Norway and that since moved to Sweden? Russia backs them now, they're moving again to Barbados. I don't know, maybe that could be an option to explore.

Majorian posted:

Who on the left is actually backing Maduro

M. Discordia posted:

Tesseraction posted:

I appreciate I'm jumping in long after many idiots have poisoned the well, but you suggested that supporting a proper leftist opposition would be the decent thing to do - do you know of a left-wing opposition to Maduro that's cropping up? I know Mr G is ostensibly as such but I feel his association with the shitheads in the Trump administration have shredded credibility there. I believe you're an ex-pat? What do your leftist friends there say?

Discendo Vox posted:

It's downright tragic that Omar's citing the same poo poo from de Zayas that got disproven in this thread six months ago.

Majorian posted:

The DSA statement is also in opposition to a U.S. intervention, not in support of Maduro; it makes that extremely clear in its text.

Discendo Vox posted:

It's downright tragic that Omar's citing the same poo poo from de Zayas that got disproven in this thread six months ago.

M. Discordia posted:

"We wish to affirm our solidarity and acknowledge our inspiration by the gains of the Bolivarian Revolution" is, of course, a clear statement of support for the Venezuelan regime

quote:

The "leftists don't support Maduro" thing is a ludicrous lie that no one believes, let alone in the context of a thread where hundreds of leftists have been defending Maduro. What is the purpose of articulating it?

Darth Walrus posted:

Looks like she tweeted it almost six months ago, though.

Majorian posted:

No, it really isn't. Expressing support for the gains made under Chavez, and solidarity with the impoverished people that the revolution benefited, is not at all the same thing as expressing support for Maduro or his government. Again, the statement makes this clear, and you would know this if you had taken the time to read it.