The United States has captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and flown him out of the country in a stunning military operation that plucked a sitting leader from office following months of escalating Trump administration pressure on the oil-rich South American nation.
The de facto outcome is the same. A coup would have been staged regardless. The Republicans add a kidnapping for flair / to look good in the eyes of their supporters. In the end the outcome is neocolonialism / American corporate access to resources regardless. The overall geopolitical strategy remains indistinguishable.
I fully believe that you can write fan fiction for evil dems that will take you to whatever arbitrary ending this situation happens to have.
It’s a prodigious stretch to argue that “the outcome is the same” at this point, though. Especially since there is every justification for a solution without Maduro in power that isn’t an illegitimate coup. Because… you know, Maduro did not have legitimacy in the first pace, arguably.
But hey, who cares about details like what was actually happening or what people actually said or did, right? If you squint hard enough it all blurs together sufficiently to keep posting simplistic crap online.
Let’s not get lost in the weeds here. Trump has said that the US is “going to run” Venezuela until a safe proper and judicious transition can occur. Who will power be transferred to? Almost certainly Machado who has already verbalized her willingness to be a Trump/US vassal. This outcome would have happened under a democratic government also, +/- capturing Maduro. It’s not like the US has not captured heads of state to install their puppets before (Panama, as one of many examples).
Venezuela has 20% of global oil and has been selling 65 to 80% of its supply to China over the past several years. It nationalized its oil reserves decades ago which is typically considered a grave sin from the Western perspective (as Iran learned in the 50s). If we’re honestly reflecting on how America handles a situation like this, especially when it’s happened in their own hemisphere, it’s obvious that the elected political party has little impact on this geopolitical outcome.
See, unlike people willing to retroactively support their preferred choices I am making zero assumptions about what’s going to happen.
What Trump says is going to happen and what happens don’t necessarily line up, and there is zero indication that under a different US regime the outcome would be anywhere close to Maduro being deposed. That ship seemed to have very thoroughly sailed at the time of the election.
And certainly, CERTAINLY not this way. Not by kidnapping Maduro by force and hoping that somehow the internal opposition groups are spooked enough to put forward zero resistance to an opposition government as a US puppet. Even if that is nominally implemented at any point, that’s a whole bunch of new ships that need sailing.
So no, not at all the same, not at all an outcome you would have expected from a dem government and not at all something consistent with US geopolitical stances in the past what? thirty, forty years?
The one thing I’ve learned today is that cosplay online leftists will say pretty much anything and that I’m pretty sure any even vaguely left of center leader in the Americas is currently re-reading their emergency protocols. Including those in Canada. And certainly in Greenland.
The US has an imperial neocolonial legacy of overthrowing governments for access to natural resources. This is consistent with that legacy. Surely we can agree on that much, if we’re living in the same reality.
That geopolitical strategy persists regardless of which political party is in power. It may not have played out exactly in this way but the outcome of a US friendly government being installed so that US companies can access local resources has recurred so often it’s the most predictable part of the US foreign policy playbook.
I think you’re primarily addressing the capture of Maduro. While that’s not always a component of the US approach to ovethrowing a government, it’s relatively immaterial to the outcome of installing a US puppet and gaining access to local resources. The US can achieve that with or without theatrics though we know Trump will almost always choose the theatrical option.
My argument is the outcome would be the same regardless of political party. You’re arguing that the particulars would be different with the Dems - sure. But the outcome, from a US national interest and geopolitical perspective, is the same.
No, that’s not a remotely acceptable representation of what happened today, of the policies and strategies at play or the history of the situation. At all.
Does the US have a history of intervening in foreign regimes? Sure. For access to natural resources? Definitely. Except in Latin America the Monroe doctrine had been phased out since the Cold War, and whatever version of it got implemented as the “War on Terror” in the Middle East was patently a disaster and very much a contentious issue that was not widely bipartisan in the first place.
This is a “neocolonial legacy” spanning all political sides in the same way France suddenly deciding to invade Vietnam in 2026 would be a continuation of a colonial legacy. Which is to say only in the most superficial, entirely ahistorical reading possible.
Which is, incidentally, why Maduro was currently in power when he very likely had stolen the election, was actively disputed and actively hostile to every party in the US political spectrum. Not because the US was setting up a coup, but because they were… not doing that despite some pressure, internally and externally, to do so.
And in turn it’s presumably why Trump is out there saying he has no intention to give the country over to Machado and nobody knows what the fuck is going on.
So no, the outcome wouldn’t be the same, the process wouldn’t be the same. The geopolitical view underpinning the situation wouldn’t have been the same (in that this is bucking a trend that started in what? the 80s?) and it’s not all part of the same, bipartisan approach to geopolitics. If you squint any harder to make it seem that way you may pop out an eyeball.
I had no particular desier to see Maduro remain in power indefinitely, but holy hell is the notion of looking at the Trump blitzkrieg play out and go “Harris would have been doing the same, just nicer” a massive, epoch-defining missing of the point. It’d be funny if it wasn’t horrifying.
From what I can parse, it seems that you feel this would not have happened under a government led by the Democratic party which is myopic and idealistic from my vantage point.
The US has proven time and time again (regardless of whether it’s a Republican or Democrat in power) their willingness to engage in this type of geopolitics. Leveraging hard power to achieve goals in their national interest. The geopolitics of empire. It was in their national interest to take control of Venezuela and they did. That’s the point. If the point you’re trying to make is that only Trump would do this, well, I’d direct you again to the countless examples of imperialism in US history. The rest is all noise, is it not?
Semi-genuine question, had you heard of Venezuela before today?
Like, in your view, had the successive US leaders just decided to ignore Maduro (and Chávez before him) for the past 25 years out of… what? Not having noticed they had a ton of oil? Venezuela nationalized their oil in the 70s, pivoted to China in the 00s. They stole the election while Biden was still in office. Chávez changed the Constitution when Clinton was in office, FFS.
Apparently Trump’s key differentiating attribute now is efficiency, because it seems in your broad strokes, the-rest-is-noise worldview the Dems were just about to throw a sack over Maduro’s head, they had just been procrastinating about it for a decade or two.
This is, sincerely, a profoundly stupid conversation we’re having. They really do let people just say things on the Internet.
I should also add that there was an attempted coup in 2002. The opposition claimed that it had not collaborated with the US but…well I’ll let the historical record and obvious imperialistic incentives speak for themselves. It only lasted 47 hours.
This is a very unusual way to look at history. You have to look at geopolitical decisions based on where the pieces are on the board today, not 30 years ago. The US was a unipolar hegimon 30 years ago. That is not the case today. There was no need leverage their hard power this way at that time. But circumstances are different now.
Trump and his administration may have accelerated the transition to a multipolar world order but the rise of China alone meant it was coming regardless of US foreign policy action.
My argument is that this has been in the back pocket and, if/when the time came, it would have been executed regardless of who was president. Its a particularly easy one to execute since, as you’ve said, there are questions to the legitimacy of Maduro as leader so they can replay the go to narrative of being liberators.
The de facto outcome is the same. A coup would have been staged regardless. The Republicans add a kidnapping for flair / to look good in the eyes of their supporters. In the end the outcome is neocolonialism / American corporate access to resources regardless. The overall geopolitical strategy remains indistinguishable.
I fully believe that you can write fan fiction for evil dems that will take you to whatever arbitrary ending this situation happens to have.
It’s a prodigious stretch to argue that “the outcome is the same” at this point, though. Especially since there is every justification for a solution without Maduro in power that isn’t an illegitimate coup. Because… you know, Maduro did not have legitimacy in the first pace, arguably.
But hey, who cares about details like what was actually happening or what people actually said or did, right? If you squint hard enough it all blurs together sufficiently to keep posting simplistic crap online.
Let’s not get lost in the weeds here. Trump has said that the US is “going to run” Venezuela until a safe proper and judicious transition can occur. Who will power be transferred to? Almost certainly Machado who has already verbalized her willingness to be a Trump/US vassal. This outcome would have happened under a democratic government also, +/- capturing Maduro. It’s not like the US has not captured heads of state to install their puppets before (Panama, as one of many examples).
Venezuela has 20% of global oil and has been selling 65 to 80% of its supply to China over the past several years. It nationalized its oil reserves decades ago which is typically considered a grave sin from the Western perspective (as Iran learned in the 50s). If we’re honestly reflecting on how America handles a situation like this, especially when it’s happened in their own hemisphere, it’s obvious that the elected political party has little impact on this geopolitical outcome.
See, unlike people willing to retroactively support their preferred choices I am making zero assumptions about what’s going to happen.
What Trump says is going to happen and what happens don’t necessarily line up, and there is zero indication that under a different US regime the outcome would be anywhere close to Maduro being deposed. That ship seemed to have very thoroughly sailed at the time of the election.
And certainly, CERTAINLY not this way. Not by kidnapping Maduro by force and hoping that somehow the internal opposition groups are spooked enough to put forward zero resistance to an opposition government as a US puppet. Even if that is nominally implemented at any point, that’s a whole bunch of new ships that need sailing.
So no, not at all the same, not at all an outcome you would have expected from a dem government and not at all something consistent with US geopolitical stances in the past what? thirty, forty years?
The one thing I’ve learned today is that cosplay online leftists will say pretty much anything and that I’m pretty sure any even vaguely left of center leader in the Americas is currently re-reading their emergency protocols. Including those in Canada. And certainly in Greenland.
The US has an imperial neocolonial legacy of overthrowing governments for access to natural resources. This is consistent with that legacy. Surely we can agree on that much, if we’re living in the same reality.
That geopolitical strategy persists regardless of which political party is in power. It may not have played out exactly in this way but the outcome of a US friendly government being installed so that US companies can access local resources has recurred so often it’s the most predictable part of the US foreign policy playbook.
I think you’re primarily addressing the capture of Maduro. While that’s not always a component of the US approach to ovethrowing a government, it’s relatively immaterial to the outcome of installing a US puppet and gaining access to local resources. The US can achieve that with or without theatrics though we know Trump will almost always choose the theatrical option.
My argument is the outcome would be the same regardless of political party. You’re arguing that the particulars would be different with the Dems - sure. But the outcome, from a US national interest and geopolitical perspective, is the same.
No, that’s not a remotely acceptable representation of what happened today, of the policies and strategies at play or the history of the situation. At all.
Does the US have a history of intervening in foreign regimes? Sure. For access to natural resources? Definitely. Except in Latin America the Monroe doctrine had been phased out since the Cold War, and whatever version of it got implemented as the “War on Terror” in the Middle East was patently a disaster and very much a contentious issue that was not widely bipartisan in the first place.
This is a “neocolonial legacy” spanning all political sides in the same way France suddenly deciding to invade Vietnam in 2026 would be a continuation of a colonial legacy. Which is to say only in the most superficial, entirely ahistorical reading possible.
Which is, incidentally, why Maduro was currently in power when he very likely had stolen the election, was actively disputed and actively hostile to every party in the US political spectrum. Not because the US was setting up a coup, but because they were… not doing that despite some pressure, internally and externally, to do so.
And in turn it’s presumably why Trump is out there saying he has no intention to give the country over to Machado and nobody knows what the fuck is going on.
So no, the outcome wouldn’t be the same, the process wouldn’t be the same. The geopolitical view underpinning the situation wouldn’t have been the same (in that this is bucking a trend that started in what? the 80s?) and it’s not all part of the same, bipartisan approach to geopolitics. If you squint any harder to make it seem that way you may pop out an eyeball.
I had no particular desier to see Maduro remain in power indefinitely, but holy hell is the notion of looking at the Trump blitzkrieg play out and go “Harris would have been doing the same, just nicer” a massive, epoch-defining missing of the point. It’d be funny if it wasn’t horrifying.
From what I can parse, it seems that you feel this would not have happened under a government led by the Democratic party which is myopic and idealistic from my vantage point.
The US has proven time and time again (regardless of whether it’s a Republican or Democrat in power) their willingness to engage in this type of geopolitics. Leveraging hard power to achieve goals in their national interest. The geopolitics of empire. It was in their national interest to take control of Venezuela and they did. That’s the point. If the point you’re trying to make is that only Trump would do this, well, I’d direct you again to the countless examples of imperialism in US history. The rest is all noise, is it not?
Semi-genuine question, had you heard of Venezuela before today?
Like, in your view, had the successive US leaders just decided to ignore Maduro (and Chávez before him) for the past 25 years out of… what? Not having noticed they had a ton of oil? Venezuela nationalized their oil in the 70s, pivoted to China in the 00s. They stole the election while Biden was still in office. Chávez changed the Constitution when Clinton was in office, FFS.
Apparently Trump’s key differentiating attribute now is efficiency, because it seems in your broad strokes, the-rest-is-noise worldview the Dems were just about to throw a sack over Maduro’s head, they had just been procrastinating about it for a decade or two.
This is, sincerely, a profoundly stupid conversation we’re having. They really do let people just say things on the Internet.
I should also add that there was an attempted coup in 2002. The opposition claimed that it had not collaborated with the US but…well I’ll let the historical record and obvious imperialistic incentives speak for themselves. It only lasted 47 hours.
This is a very unusual way to look at history. You have to look at geopolitical decisions based on where the pieces are on the board today, not 30 years ago. The US was a unipolar hegimon 30 years ago. That is not the case today. There was no need leverage their hard power this way at that time. But circumstances are different now.
Trump and his administration may have accelerated the transition to a multipolar world order but the rise of China alone meant it was coming regardless of US foreign policy action.
My argument is that this has been in the back pocket and, if/when the time came, it would have been executed regardless of who was president. Its a particularly easy one to execute since, as you’ve said, there are questions to the legitimacy of Maduro as leader so they can replay the go to narrative of being liberators.