Venezuela – socialist paradise on the verge of collapse

[Cheesy]

ok so send them food it's really that easy and the people of Venezuela don't have to add civil war to their hunger

This doesn't actually do anything to improve things for them in the long-term though. They'll still have the same corrupt regime with the same failing economy. It's the equivalent to trying to address systemic poverty with charity instead of addressing the root problems.

And it also rewards despotic and demagogic behaviour from the government. I don't see why there shouldn't support for the vast numbers of people in Venezuela who clearly don't want Maduro in charge anymore. And there can be a middle-ground between completely ignoring the conflict and inciting a civil war. Even if I understand the hesitance about how it'll pan out when you've got psychopathic cnuts like Bolton involved.

 

[Cheesy]

The response should be to end sanctions, send food and butt the feck out.

Okay, but sending food doesn't actually improve their long-term prospects. It's charitable but doesn't do anything to address the root problems being faced by people in Venezuela.

 

[Eboue]

Okay, but sending food doesn't actually improve their long-term prospects. It's charitable but doesn't do anything to address the root problems being faced by people in Venezuela.

Neither does intervention by fascists and war criminals.

 

[Cheesy]

that's not the part we're against, though we are, it's the literal wars and genocides that come with US intervention that top the list

But as I've said not every single conflict the US (or any country for that matter) has been involved in can be grouped into one convenient list. Yes, they've committed a ton of atrocities. Yes, they're cnuts. That doesn't mean that this current situation needs to escalate into an all-out war.

Again, I understand the reluctance. And absolutely think that any response needs to be measured and careful. And I'll agree half the cnuts involved aren't exactly responsible diplomats. By the same token though I see nothing wrong with aid for Venezuela though if they've got a decent chance of getting in an alright alternative to Maduro. And I'll still argue that excusing the continuation of a despotic regime that's seeing ordinary people starve with the assumption that things can only get worse is a remarkably conservative viewpoint.

 

[Silva]

This doesn't actually do anything to improve things for them in the long-term though. They'll still have the same corrupt regime with the same failing economy. It's the equivalent to trying to address systemic poverty with charity instead of addressing the root problems.

And it also rewards despotic and demagogic behaviour from the government. I don't see why there shouldn't support for the vast numbers of people in Venezuela who clearly don't want Maduro in charge anymore. And there can be a middle-ground between completely ignoring the conflict and inciting a civil war. Even if I understand the hesitance about how it'll pan out when you've got psychopathic cnuts like Bolton involved.

Okay, but sending food doesn't actually improve their long-term prospects. It's charitable but doesn't do anything to address the root problems being faced by people in Venezuela.

You don't agree with this yourself you're just arguing for the sake of it now. Unless you're also okay with Russia giving Arron Banks money to campaign for Brexit since millions of Brits had serious issues with remaining in the EU.

 

[Silva]

But as I've said not every single conflict the US (or any country for that matter) has been involved in can be grouped into one convenient list. Yes, they've committed a ton of atrocities. Yes, they're cnuts. That doesn't mean that this current situation needs to escalate into an all-out war.

Again, I understand the reluctance. And absolutely think that any response needs to be measured and careful. And I'll agree half the cnuts involved aren't exactly responsible diplomats. By the same token though I see nothing wrong with aid for Venezuela though if they've got a decent chance of getting in an alright alternative to Maduro. And I'll still argue that excusing the continuation of a despotic regime that's seeing ordinary people starve with the assumption that things can only get worse is a remarkably conservative viewpoint.

It's not just the US. It's the same people who backed the worst atrocities in South America in recent decades. These people should be in jail or dead not sending 5000 troops to Columbia. I don't know how to fix Venezuela, but I sure as feck know these people are only capable of bringing death and destruction.

 

[Cheesy]

Neither does intervention by fascists and war criminals.

It's not as if the only solution for Venezuela is all-out war. Again, any optimism over Maduro's potential removal needs to be tempered but the fact the US have cnuts of their own involved here doesn't somehow undermine the idea that Venezuela should have options which can help them remove their current government.

 

[Eboue]

It's not as if the only solution for Venezuela is all-out war. Again, any optimism over Maduro's potential removal needs to be tempered but the fact the US have cnuts of their own involved here doesn't somehow undermine the idea that Venezuela should have options which can help them remove their current government.

Zero of those options should involve John Bolton, Donald Trump, Mike Pompeo, or Elliot Abrams. ZERO

 

[Cheesy]

You don't agree with this yourself you're just arguing for the sake of it now. Unless you're also okay with Russia giving Arron Banks money to campaign for Brexit since millions of Brits had serious issues with remaining in the EU.

I'm struggling to see the analogy here. I don't think it's an unfair point to suggest that aid isn't necessarily going to improve Venezuela's fortunes in the long-term unless you don't believe Maduro is the problem at all. It's helpful in the short-term but does nothing to address their ailing economy or the corrupt government who run it.

 

[Cheesy]

Zero of those options should involve John Bolton, Donald Trump, Mike Pompeo, or Elliot Abrams. ZERO

In an ideal world, sure. But for now they're in charge and if Maduro's opposition want to remove him from power (an admirable goal) then they're obviously going to have to deal with whoever is in charge in the US. That's how geopolitics work.

I'd understand this line of argument more it was a situation similar to Cuba wherein the US are the primary factor in either destabilising or trying to destabilise their economy. But they've still traded with Venezuela extensively even though they obviously don't like the regime, and the collapse has been primarily down to internal factors as opposed to external. It's fairly obvious Venezuela don't want Maduro in charge and if they need some form of help from the US then they're going to accept that. Such help doesn't even need to be extensive and doesn't need to descend into war.

 

[Eboue]

I can't take this anymore. These are the same arguments used time after time and they almost always end in disaster. I think you have good intentions but if you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Silva]

I'm struggling to see the analogy here. I don't think it's an unfair point to suggest that aid isn't necessarily going to improve Venezuela's fortunes in the long-term unless you don't believe Maduro is the problem at all. It's helpful in the short-term but does nothing to address their ailing economy or the corrupt government who run it.

The analogy works fine, you're okay with intervention elsewhere when it fits your arbitrary standards (so am I tbf) but don't want in your backyard when similar but slightly lower standards apply. I don't think the level for intervention has been reached yet. Venezuela has a food shortage, send them food. No it won't make the country magically better but it'll made the people fed and, at the risk of being receptive here, it won't let the people who have literally backed genocides do it again.

 

[Charlie Foley]

Zero of those options should involve John Bolton, Donald Trump, Mike Pompeo, or Elliot Abrams. ZERO

Nothing ever should involve Elliot Abrams

 

[Cheesy]

The analogy works fine, you're okay with intervention elsewhere when it fits your arbitrary standards (so am I tbf) but don't want in your backyard when similar but slightly lower standards apply. I don't think the level for intervention has been reached yet. Venezuela has a food shortage, send them food. No it won't make the country magically better but it'll made the people fed and, at the risk of being receptive here, it won't let the people who have literally backed genocides do it again.

There's a difference between illegally funding a political campaign and trying to aid the people of a country who have expressed a fairly strong desire to get rid of a dictatorial leader who refuses to relinquish power as people continue to starve. Again I'm not sure the analogy works, even if I'll admit there's likely plenty of cases where I'm a hypocrite.

What do you think is most likely to lead to this situation escalating to genocide? Again there's a difference between providing some level of support (financial or political) for the opposition to a dictator and outright military intervention. This seems to involve basically equating every previous US intervention to this one. And places the US as being the primary actor in this situation as opposed to people in Venezuela.

 

[Silva]

Nothing ever should involve Elliot Abrams

the only thing he should be in is a list of people convicted at the hague

 

[Cheesy]

I can't take this anymore. These are the same arguments used time after time and they almost always end in disaster. I think you have good intentions but if you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you.

I'll admit I'm wary about what'll happen and I'll admit any optimism should be tempered. But I'll maintain it's fairly clear Venezuela don't want Maduro in charge and that there's nothing wrong with his opponents seeking some form of aid from the US, and that said aid doesn't exactly need to involve a full-scale military intervention or even military action at all. But I'll also agree you're intentions are good here and that your scepticism is incredibly well-justified.

 

[Silva]

There's a difference between illegally funding a political campaign and trying to aid the people of a country who have expressed a fairly strong desire to get rid of a dictatorial leader who refuses to relinquish power as people continue to starve. Again I'm not sure the analogy works, even if I'll admit there's likely plenty of cases where I'm a hypocrite.

Yeah the difference here is just perspective. I'm sure a Russian could equally say illegally declaring yourself president and using American money and resources to topple a president is vastly different to giving someone money to run a small referendum campaign alongside a much bigger British campaign for the same result! The Brits wanted it after all.

What do you think is most likely to lead to this situation escalating to genocide? Again there's a difference between providing some level of support (financial or political) for the opposition to a dictator and outright military intervention. This seems to involve basically equating every previous US intervention to this one. And places the US as being the primary actor in this situation as opposed to people in Venezuela.

What makes you think the exact same people who fecked south america in the 80s and are currently sucking bolsonaros crusty dick will be any better this time round?

 

[Cheesy]

What makes you think the exact same people who fecked south america in the 80s and are currently sucking bolsonaros crusty dick will be any better this time round?

This doesn't answer the question. And again seems to assume the only options are either full-scale military intervention or no involvement in the issue whatsoever. In what respect is there likely to be a genocide here?

 

[Silva]

This doesn't answer the question. And again seems to assume the only options are either full-scale military intervention or no involvement in the issue whatsoever. In what respect is there likely to be a genocide here?

you realise America didn't invade in the 80s right? They did what they're doing now, they funded American friendly politicians to take over through coups, violence and civil wars. That's the playbook here. They didn't bring in Kofi Annan, they brought in those same war criminals to oversee the relationship with the Venezuelan opposition. Why would you expect them to do anything differently when these people are on the record as saying they did the right thing then? Why would you expect it to end differently this time?

 

[Javi]

@PedroMendez since you seem fairly informed what do you think other countries should do about this mess?

 

[PedroMendez]

@PedroMendez since you seem fairly informed what do you think other countries should do about this mess?

Its a Venezuelan crisis and should be look at like that. I am generally against any kind of military intervention; especially because the Venezuelans aren't even asking for it. Currently this scenario is also unlikely, so constantly dragging the US at the centre of any analysis tells you more about the people, who do that, and little about the problem (you don't do that).

At this point the Maduro government is a criminal racket. They use 100% of their resources to stay in power and abandoned any program that goes beyond that. In return for loyalty people who control guns get control over scarce resources. If a cartel would run a country, it would look quite similar to how Maduro is currently running Venezuela. Its certainly prudent to limit the looting by limiting any member of the regime to transfer their wealth outside of Venezuela. In reality thats quite difficult, too late and it will only have limited impact. I also agree with keeping strong pressure on the regime in the context of a multilateral effort, let by other Latin American states. Other countries shouldn't recognise Maduro&the fake assembly as legitimate government bodies, while recognising Guaido helps to keep him save. Diplomacy sounds nice, but the current regime will never accept anything meaningful, because it would be their end. There is no compromise that can be achieved.
The question about meaningful economic sanctions is hard to answer without hindsight. They will hurt normal people and its difficult to predict how it plays out.
As a counterfactual: In 2005/06, Bush could have followed up on his rhetoric and threw the economic kitchen-sink at Chavez. It would have been very painful for normal Venezuelan's, but it might have also ended Chavismo in 2013 with his death (or even earlier). Looking back, that doesn't sound all too bad, because the current suffering is far worse than anything that would have happened. At the same time, I would have considered it crazy and irresponsible at the time. There are also enough examples, where sanctions simply failed to achieve anything, especially when the goals are very ambitious.
The balance between pros and cons certainly changed. Most people are already close to rock-bottom and the group of people, who benefit from the trade with the US is small; nonetheless its impossible to predict all consequences of these actions. One thing, that the Venezuelan crisis taught me is, that things can always get worse. One positive about the current US sanctions is, that they don't start immediately and can be reversed the second that Maduro is out the door.

At the end of the day its a Venezuelan crisis and the capabilities for positive change of of outside actors is limited. Thats not a particularly satisfying answer considering the enormous amount of human suffering, but its the truth.

 

[Ubik]

Saying "send food" is all well and good, but Maduro has been refusing aid from other countries.

 

[Javi]

@PedroMendez thanks, appreciate it.

 

[carvajal]

An interview with Maduro by a well-known Spanish investigative journalist.
He is politically oriented to the left but at least He asks good questions.
I'm sorry, it's in Spanish and I do not know how to find it in English, but if you understand something...
Its from a year ago.He got a second interview that will be tonight in TV.
@4bars surely you know him.If not,he has good reports about Catalonia but you'll like

 

[berbatrick]

 

[Cheesy]

you realise America didn't invade in the 80s right? They did what they're doing now, they funded American friendly politicians to take over through coups, violence and civil wars. That's the playbook here. They didn't bring in Kofi Annan, they brought in those same war criminals to oversee the relationship with the Venezuelan opposition. Why would you expect them to do anything differently when these people are on the record as saying they did the right thing then? Why would you expect it to end differently this time?

This doesn't answer the question I asked though, i.e. what's likely to lead to genocide in this current predicament. Guaido may not be perfect but there's little to suggest his reign, should it come about, would descend to that. Certainly it's hard to envisage how it'd be worse than what's happening right now. Especially when, as @Ubik stated above, Maduro doesn't seem to be interested in receiving food or aid which will help his people.

 

[berbatrick]

 

[CA_vampire]

At this point the Maduro government is a criminal racket. They use 100% of their resources to stay in power and abandoned any program that goes beyond that. In return for loyalty people who control guns get control over scarce resources. If a cartel would run a country, it would look quite similar to how Maduro is currently running Venezuela.

This is the truth.

It is also interesting to see which countries still support Maduro (Russia, China, Iran, etc). It's basically the countries where you end up in prison if you speak your mind...

https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/which-countries-support-maduro-guaido

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-47053701

 

[Cheesy]

This is the truth.

It is also interesting to see which countries still support Maduro (Russia, China, Iran, etc). It's basically the countries where you end up in prison if you speak your mind...

https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/which-countries-support-maduro-guaido

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-47053701

To be fair, that list is more down to geopolitics and who's typically supportive of the US/socialist or communist regimes typically as opposed to out of any moral conviction. There have been plenty of cases when the US have backed equally despotic regimes when it's suited them. Although that of course doesn't undermine the fact that Maduro should go.

 

[CA_vampire]

To be fair, that list is more down to geopolitics and who's typically supportive of the US/socialist or communist regimes typically as opposed to out of any moral conviction. There have been plenty of cases when the US have backed equally despotic regimes when it's suited them. Although that of course doesn't undermine the fact that Maduro should go.

Autocrats support each other for obvious reasons.

It has nothing to do with USA, or Canada, or Western Europe, or Australia. Having a functioning democracy is not something that happens often through the history, it is actually the exception. Even today, more people live under despotic regimes than under democratic regimes.

 

[berbatrick]

Autocrats support each other for obvious reasons.

I don't see Saudi Arabia, or any of the Gulf countries lining up behind Maduro, like you'd expect if the common factor was dictatorship. And a number of democratically elected leaders from Asia (afaik) have't said a word either way.

 

[Drifter]

 

[Adisa]

America openly instigating armed co flict for the billionth time.

 

[CA_vampire]

I don't see Saudi Arabia, or any of the Gulf countries lining up behind Maduro, like you'd expect if the common factor was dictatorship. And a number of democratically elected leaders from Asia (afaik) have't said a word either way.

So what? Historically, middle east countries and asian countries rarely say much about central/south american countries. Does this change the fact that only autocrats support Maduro? Do *all* the world's autocrats have to support him for people to realize what type of "leader" he is? If just one autocrat does not say anything, do you think that it changes the argument?

 

[4bars]

I haven't gone through the whole article, but I accept that food poverty exists in the US (as it does in the UK, Germany, France, or just about any other sizeable country you could think of). To counter, I would ask why millions of people are trying to get out of Venezuala, whilst at the same time millions are trying to get into the US (does hunger taste better in the US?).

I'm no fan of western imperialism, be it military or economic, but I imagine most people in Venezuela would accept any solution to their present predicament. Maduro just has to go, and I don't care how that comes about.

The funny thing is that it doesn't exist in Cuba. One of the few countries. Then we should discuss which are the indicators of a good government, shouldn't we?

 

[CA_vampire]

The funny thing is that it doesn't exist in Cuba. One of the few countries. Then we should discuss which are the indicators of a good government, shouldn't we?

And yet, I don't know of many people who are trying to get into Cuba, stay there forever and enjoy the food! I wonder why...

 

[4bars]

And yet, I don't know of many people who are trying to get into Cuba, stay there forever and enjoy the food! I wonder why...

Thats why I am saying that which would be the standards. US has food poverty, but less than venezuela. US better country/regime. Cuba doesnt have food poverty better country/regime, isn't it?

Of course not.

Also, I always find bizarre the comparison Cuba vs US when you should compare them with the other Caribbean islands and center american countries of similar size. Cuba topples them in most of developement indicators like education, healthcare, newborn deaths, life expectancy...at easy

But is as comunist regime and sentences like "I don't know of many people who are trying to get into Cuba", makes me chuckle when I see so many people trying to go to Haiti, El salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica. Those capitalist paradises. I guarantee that they would rather prefer to live in Cuba, but if they need to gamble, they would rather risk to get a better prize like Mexico/US/Canada. But again not comparable

And back to the topic. Venezuela is in tatters, and most to blame is Maduro, but not recognizing that the west policies accentuated his shit policies is being naive or hidden this part because it suits your political ideology

Saying that, the guy has to go, but I am sure US intervention, specially military, will leave the country even worse, as always happened

 

[4bars]

An interview with Maduro by a well-known Spanish investigative journalist.
He is politically oriented to the left but at least He asks good questions.
I'm sorry, it's in Spanish and I do not know how to find it in English, but if you understand something...
Its from a year ago.He got a second interview that will be tonight in TV.
@4bars surely you know him.If not,he has good reports about Catalonia but you'll like

I have seen his journalism. It looks good compared with any kind of mainstream media in Spain, because is non existent. He touches good topics but because they are controversial and because he likes a bit to be the centre of attention and he lacks deepness on his analsis (sometimes is because people involved don't collaborate and they do the show anyways. two good things is that all parties involved are never happy 100% (meaning he has sort of objectivity) and he brings political topics to the mass media (what should be done more often)

About Catalonia reports, I keep my opinion to myself. I am obviously biased

 

[Steerpike]

Thats why I am saying that which would be the standards. US has food poverty, but less than venezuela. US better country/regime. Cuba doesnt have food poverty better country/regime, isn't it?

Of course not.

Also, I always find bizarre the comparison Cuba vs US when you should compare them with the other Caribbean islands and center american countries of similar size. Cuba topples them in most of developement indicators like education, healthcare, newborn deaths, life expectancy...at easy

But is as comunist regime and sentences like "I don't know of many people who are trying to get into Cuba", makes me chuckle when I see so many people trying to go to Haiti, El salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica. Those capitalist paradises. I guarantee that they would rather prefer to live in Cuba, but if they need to gamble, they would rather risk to get a better prize like Mexico/US/Canada. But again not comparable

And back to the topic. Venezuela is in tatters, and most to blame is Maduro, but not recognizing that the west policies accentuated his shit policies is being naive or hidden this part because it suits your political ideology

Saying that, the guy has to go, but I am sure US intervention, specially military, will leave the country even worse, as always happened

You're surely not being serious with the point in bold?

There is a standing joke inside the country about the 'Maduro diet'. It is estimated that as much as 75% of the population has insufficient food, and that's despite the fact that about 10% of the population has already fled the country.

I'd say that the main problem in the US generally is overconsumption, but obviously there is a minority who are struggling to put food on the table (and some estimates put the number suffering from 'food insecurity' as high as 1 in 8 of the population - 12.5%). This is down to inequality which has always been an issue in the US.

As to Cuba, well it is hardly a gourmet's paradise either, and it does face challenges trying to feed its population. You might want to check this article out - https://borgenproject.org/food-crisis-in-cuba/

The west really is largely off the hook when it comes to the blame for the situation in Venezuela. For sure, US sanctions don't improve the situation for the people, but the US regards the regime in Venezuela as hostile (entirely understandable given that Hugo Chavez took every opportunity to blame the US for any and all of its ills, and Venezuela has been consistently inimical to US interests ever since he came to power - a position continued by his successor). As an oil rich country, the Chavez regime frittered away the wealth from the good years on social programs which were popular at the time, but increasingly funded by debt as both the oil price, and the amount produced by an inefficient state owned company, fell. The pursuit of hard left policies, including nationalisation and price controls, meant that enterprise and inward investment collapsed at a time when the economy badly needed to diversify.

South America generally has hardly been an advertisement for enlightened and competent governance down the years, but Venezuela is setting new benchmarks.

 

[SteveJ]

“Stop. Stop, Trump! Hold it right there! You are making mistakes that will leave your hands covered in blood and you will leave the presidency stained with blood,” Maduro warned during a combative interview with the Spanish journalist Jordi Évole.