Venezuela Update

[rsemmes]

There still is. Just one set for the rest of the world and another set of exceptions for the superpowers.

This is not a new development and has always been the case. So surprise is unwarranted.

But to be fair, a new line was crossed, that being an explicit operation to capture a sitting President. One can argue about his legitimacy but in practice he is still the head of state.

It looks like a lot like what I was saying about Ukraine and History.

 

[rsemmes]

The fact alone that you can twist good and evil

Maybe, a twisted sense of good and evil.

Edit
"I do not even consider the moral implications of this to see that it is objectively a good thing". A very personal POV of good and evil.

 

[rsemmes]

Hasn't Trump stated that he will turn Venezuela into a puppet state?

Gunboat diplomacy and oil for US companies... I love the smell of "principles" in the New Year.

 

[rsemmes]

now

Now, really?

 

[rsemmes]

I’m sympathetic to moral narratives of good and evil, but most real world outcomes are better explained by individual predispositions interacting with incentive structures.

Anyone who thinks Trump tried to depose Maduro to fight “evil” or that Putin is fighting in Ukraine for the good of Russia, misunderstands how power actually operates.

Where benefits exist, they’re incidental.

Interests, not principles.

But I thought everyone here already read History books... Even if sitting on a very high horse.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Since apparently this interests so many people here and elsewhere, I thought I'd make the case for why this action does in fact preserve and strengthen the notion of a rules based order and international law:

[
OAR = Operation Absolute Resolve
RBO = Rules Based Order
IL = International Law
CHA = Covert Hostile Action
]

1. Covert vs Overt - Criticism of OAR stems from its overt nature.
   1. Coups, espionage, sabotage, cyber warfare, influence campaigns, are all CHA. A coup may often contain elements of foreign involvement.
   2. They are not considered contrary to the RBO/IL.
   3. Because they are not easily associated with one actor. Because of plausible deniability.
      
      
2. Overt action is preferred by public.
   1. Because humans like to know things.
   2. Therefore it can assumed better (within OPSEC environment)
   3. Would you argue RBO/IL compliance changes just by knowing things?
      1. Is this quantum RBO/IL?
         
         
3. CHA are constantly taking place.
   1. Even friendly nations spy on each other.
      
      
4. No deniability for OAR.
   1. Nor would anyone benefit from denying it.
      
      
5. It sends a message that CHA will not be tolerated.
   1. Deterring CHA means potentially fewer hostile actions.
   2. In turn increasing compliance with RBO/IL.
      
      
6. One Overt action to prevent countless CHA.
   1. Many more CHA by Venezuela and its allies are prevented with one single action.
   2. Better one clean and precise action to many imprecise CHA.
      
      
7. Respecting elections is RBO.
   1. The recognized (by USA and EU) government of Venezuela is Machado-led.
   2. The US did not kidnap anyone it and the RBO/IL community consider Venezuela's legitimate leader.
   3. This action deters violating RBO/IL through disrespect of election results and cancellation of democracy.
   4. Democracy is not part of RBO/IL. But if you pretend to be democratic you have to respect the norms.

 

[rsemmes]

Big_Zucchini was talking about the people....

There was a democracy in Iran, UK (the British Empire) and US got the Shah there (a dictator). That counts as "good" for you? Then they had the Revolution (I also read that that US was tired of him and helped Khomeini) and Iraq invaded Iran, supported by US and by us, western democracies. "Good", again? Now we have this regime, not the one US wants, so "evil", right?
Now, do we know how happy the people of Iran could be nowadays without the British Empire intervention? No, we don't, but that was never a consideration.

Let's move to Iraq now. (Oil, see the coincidence?)
There was a dictatorship there, supported by US, then US invaded the country. There was killing before, there was killing in the invasion and in the civil/religious war created by the invasion. (Like in Libya. Oil, again. "Good", again?) Do we know if that regime could had turned into something better without the invasion? No, we only know of all the evil (maybe you are unhappy with the use of that word here) after the invasion. How "good" was all that for the people of Iraq? Irrelevant, because the people of Iraq was never a consideration.

The people of Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Panama (...) or Venezuela is not something to be consider. US interests is the only consideration.
(Good or evil was not a consideration either, not even you version of it.)

 

[Big_Zucchini]

There was a democracy in Iran, UK (the British Empire) and US got the Shah there (a dictator). That counts as "good" for you? Then they had the Revolution (I also read that that US was tired of him and helped Khomeini) and Iraq invaded Iran, supported by US and by us, western democracies. "Good", again? Now we have this regime, not the one US wants, so "evil", right?
Now, do we know how happy the people of Iran could be nowadays without the British Empire intervention? No, we don't, but that was never a consideration.

Whether or not the US and UK wanted a change of government in Iran was up to them. I know the revolution succeeded so the people wanted it at that time.
I also know it was monumentally stupid to support a theocratic ruler in a country like Iran. And I know that things have changed since then and the people are no longer supportive of a theocratic rule.
So yes, a revolution in Iran in 2026 is objectively good and beneficial to everyone.

Let's move to Iraq now. (Oil, see the coincidence?)
There was a dictatorship there, supported by US, then US invaded the country. There was killing before, there was killing in the invasion and in the civil/religious war created by the invasion. (Like in Libya. Oil, again. "Good", again?) Do we know if that regime could had turned into something better without the invasion? No, we only know of all the evil (maybe you are unhappy with the use of that word here) after the invasion. How "good" was all that for the people of Iraq? Irrelevant, because the people of Iraq was never a consideration.

I do not think the Iraq war was a good idea. I did not think going as far as toppling that Saddam Hussein guy was a good idea because he was the only Sunni counterweight to Shiite Iran.
Iraq only produced more terror regimes since then so I do not think they deserve any nation building help in that regard.
But if they suddenly developed some more western aligned pro-humanistic anti-war mentality then sure it'd be good if they could revolt against the current Shiite rule.
I mean we do have JDAMs to spare even if we're just doing it for the fun.

US interests is the only consideration.

Then why are you bringing up morals into this? If you agree with me that it's purely from a strategic calculus, then why are you bringing all this up?

 

[rsemmes]

Whether or not the US and UK wanted a change of government in Iran was up to them. I know the revolution succeeded so the people wanted it at that time.
I also know it was monumentally stupid to support a theocratic ruler in a country like Iran. And I know that things have changed since then and the people are no longer supportive of a theocratic rule.
So yes, a revolution in Iran in 2026 is objectively good and beneficial to everyone.



I do not think the Iraq war was a good idea. I did not think going as far as toppling that Saddam Hussein guy was a good idea because he was the only Sunni counterweight to Shiite Iran.
Iraq only produced more terror regimes since then so I do not think they deserve any nation building help in that regard.
But if they suddenly developed some more western aligned pro-humanistic anti-war mentality then sure it'd be good if they could revolt against the current Shiite rule.
I mean we do have JDAMs to spare even if we're just doing it for the fun.



Then why are you bringing up morals into this? If you agree with me that it's purely from a strategic calculus, then why are you bringing all this up?

"Moral or not, this is a major blow to hostile force projection."
You brought morals, good and evil. But your point is clear now: There is neither good nor evil. (I am just callous about it.)

"Whether or not the US and UK wanted a change of government in Iran was up to them."
Nor Law.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

"Moral or not, this is a major blow to hostile force projection."
You brought morals, good and evil. But your point is clear now: There is neither good nor evil. (I am just callous about it.)

Ok I see the problem now. You thought the phrase "moral or not" means some moral argument. It does not. What it means is that I exclude morality when making the argument.
You can think of it as an abbreviation of "moral or not moral, does not matter. The issue is not related to it".

 

[crest]

Oh man you're right! China definitely didn't plan to invade Taiwan but now that this thing happened it's basically obligated to!

People who honestly claim Russia invaded Ukraine because someone else did something remotely comparable and they felt a higher calling to balance and cancel any hypocrisy really needs to get themselves checked.


The fact alone that you can twist good and evil, means that either you don't care about international law, or you'd really just rather Maduro stay in power.
Because any sane take would necessarily involve a key element of dictators = bad.

It's not a point about intent it's a point about opportunity and diplomatic or legal cover. No one is saying china wouldn't do it anyways eventually, they may do it earlier and if they do it will be easier for nations not to exited about a war with china to avoid there prior defence commitments as presidents have been set.. also domestically it helps sell a war.


Surely you can understand that the ability to enforce a law is stronger when the laws Infact have teeth and history of being regarded as important. Laws of course don't prevent people or states from acting they increase the risk of those action. Decreases the legitimacy the law and you decrease it's effectiveness.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

It's not a point about intent it's a point about opportunity and diplomatic or legal cover. No one is saying china wouldn't do it anyways eventually, they may do it earlier and if they do it will be easier for nations not to exited about a war with china to avoid there prior defence commitments as presidents have been set.. also domestically it helps sell a war.

So you're saying that countries should just reduce defense expenditure because of ............. ?

Surely you can understand that the ability to enforce a law is stronger when the laws Infact have teeth and history of being regarded as important. Laws of course don't prevent people or states from acting they increase the risk of those action. Decreases the legitimacy the law and you decrease it's effectiveness.

I already explained that the US technically did not violate any law in doing so. And I explained why it only reinforced the "rules based order".
Congress authorized this a couple weeks ago.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2001446844841234848

 

[rsemmes]

I already explained that the US technically did not violate any law in doing so. And I explained why it only reinforced the "rules based order".
Congress authorized this a couple weeks ago.

"Technically"? Is that some kind of "Yes it did but I like it"?
What Law exactly? International Law? What authority has US to kidnap (even if it call it "arrest") a foreign national in his own country? Who granted that authority?
That foreign national being a head of state (and me not being a lawyer)... "The ICJ has stated clearly that heads of state are immune for all acts performed during their time in power, including torture, genocide, and crimes against humanity." US doesn't recognizes the ICC, I guess it doesn't recognizes any international court that could interfere with its illegal acts. So, again, what law? Its own law granting itself universal jurisdiction, before or after the act? To do whatever it is going to do anyway? Is that a "law"?
"Stop quoting the law, we carry swords". That authority, that law?

Unilateral actions by a powerful nation does not reinforce the "rules based order". It destroys it. You explained nothing.

Looking at where you are posting from, I wonder if that has anything to do with your personal POV. "My country, right or wrong". You may think that you have to defend a certain position, but you seem to forget the second part: "If right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right".
The Palestinian State exists since 1948, with the Partition, that doesn't mean that you have to cover up Deir Yassin. British generals shouldn't be calling for impunity for the murder of British citizens (almost all of them Catholics) committed by the British Army on British soil, in NI. But that is what we, western democracies, do.
Two wrongs won't make a right even if you call it legal.

 

[crest]

So you're saying that countries should just reduce defense expenditure because of ............. ?



I already explained that the US technically did not violate any law in doing so. And I explained why it only reinforced the "rules based order".
Congress authorized this a couple weeks ago.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2001446844841234848

What I never said anything about reducing defence spending or about laws rendering armys irrelevant. Infact I believe I specifically stated laws are a deterrent so I don't know how you got that impression

And that explanation is is definitely a debatable point but I'll leave it at that since basically if your going to just declare any other governing bodies besides the u.s as irrelevant then there is no point discussing further. Tho the rules based order point is clearly wrong there was a simply no evidence that this action is strengthening that system. In fact to the contrary many governments are condemning it as illigal and a international system is build on consensus not one nations internal interpretation

 

[Big_Zucchini]

"Technically"? Is that some kind of "Yes it did but I like it"?

I was pretty clear about being very positive about this operation. I think it benefits everyone.

Unilateral actions by a powerful nation does not reinforce the "rules based order". It destroys it. You explained nothing.

I did. You just didn't read it. Because if you did, you'd counter my arguments and not make empty statements.

Looking at where you are posting from

If you have to resort to that then you have no logical argument.

I wonder if that has anything to do with your personal POV

Yes it is a known fact that only (((they))) talk about stuff (((they))) don't believe in.
Seriously are you being real here?

You may think that you have to defend a certain position, but you seem to forget the second part: "If right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right".

Written in ignorance of my actual "positions" and views. I'm willing to bet you and most people here will answer dead wrong if guessing my opinions on at least most subjects.

The Palestinian State exists since 1948, with the Partition, that doesn't mean that you have to cover up Deir Yassin. British generals shouldn't be calling for impunity for the murder of British citizens (almost all of them Catholics) committed by the British Army on British soil, in NI. But that is what we, western democracies, do.
Two wrongs won't make a right even if you call it legal.

I have literally no idea what you're talking about here.

What I never said anything about reducing defence spending or about laws rendering armys irrelevant. Infact I believe I specifically stated laws are a deterrent so I don't know how you got that impression

And that explanation is is definitely a debatable point but I'll leave it at that since basically if your going to just declare any other governing bodies besides the u.s as irrelevant then there is no point discussing further. Tho the rules based order point is clearly wrong there was a simply no evidence that this action is strengthening that system. In fact to the contrary many governments are condemning it as illigal and a international system is build on consensus not one nations internal interpretation

I think you misunderstand how international law works.

There is no set of international laws that applies to all nations and has the full system of investigation and enforcement and such.

There instead are treaties that each nation can individually accept. The full acceptance of a treaty is ratification, which is the passing of the text of the treaty as a local law. Meaning if the US signs some treaty banning landmines, then Congress has to pass it and then it becomes LOCAL law. Meaning the American judicial system is now an enforcer of a local law.

A common example is the ICC International Criminal Court. Which in fact only has jurisdiction over a few nations. In a world of ~200 nations, only 60 ratified it. So it does not have jurisdiction over most of the world.

So if a nation broke some international law, then by extension it broke a local law, and its leaders are prosecuted by the local judicial system. Meaning the reverse also applies. If you cannot find a local contradictory law, that means no relevant international law was adopted/ratified. So it wasn't broken because it doesn't apply.

Another common example is the UN charter. But most people don't know that there are many laws in the charter, that it is not actively enforced, and that laws are sometimes in conflict.
For example laws of armed conflict often come in conflict with various laws regarding human rights and related mechanisms, so the case is often debatable and not clear cut.

 

[rsemmes]

Written in ignorance of my actual "positions" and views.

Exactly my point, I can only guess based on your posts. As I see a strongly biased position, I wonder if there is some other factor that is influencing that position.
So, Russian invading Ukraine is reinforcing the "rules based order" because the Russian Duma decided something.
(I disagree.)

I think it benefits everyone.

No, it benefits your side. Another guess, but you clearly stated that is not going to benefit China.

 

[crest]

I was pretty clear about being very positive about this operation. I think it benefits everyone.

I did. You just didn't read it. Because if you did, you'd counter my arguments and not make empty statements.


If you have to resort to that then you have no logical argument.



Yes it is a known fact that only (((they))) talk about stuff (((they))) don't believe in.
Seriously are you being real here?



Written in ignorance of my actual "positions" and views. I'm willing to bet you and most people here will answer dead wrong if guessing my opinions on at least most subjects.


I have literally no idea what you're talking about here.


I think you misunderstand how international law works.

There is no set of international laws that applies to all nations and has the full system of investigation and enforcement and such.

There instead are treaties that each nation can individually accept. The full acceptance of a treaty is ratification, which is the passing of the text of the treaty as a local law. Meaning if the US signs some treaty banning landmines, then Congress has to pass it and then it becomes LOCAL law. Meaning the American judicial system is now an enforcer of a local law.

A common example is the ICC International Criminal Court. Which in fact only has jurisdiction over a few nations. In a world of ~200 nations, only 60 ratified it. So it does not have jurisdiction over most of the world.

So if a nation broke some international law, then by extension it broke a local law, and its leaders are prosecuted by the local judicial system. Meaning the reverse also applies. If you cannot find a local contradictory law, that means no relevant international law was adopted/ratified. So it wasn't broken because it doesn't apply.

Another common example is the UN charter. But most people don't know that there are many laws in the charter, that it is not actively enforced, and that laws are sometimes in conflict.
For example laws of armed conflict often come in conflict with various laws regarding human rights and related mechanisms, so the case is often debatable and not clear cut.

I get the technical part of it I'm talking the actual participation in the system, that is dependent on good faith and a level of trust between nations that it will be adhered to and reliability for states. Remove this and you remove it as a asset considering the system is by and large a benefit to the u.s there is questions to ask about is this worth the cost? Also relivent is the u.s actions more broadly and ow they also affect this calculation by other nations. Im also quite sure you actually understand these points and don't know why you try to argue like it's not either what I'm talking about or relivent. Also sovereignty trumps international law within the acknowledged boarded of that state. This is not what I'm talking about I'm taking about the effects of breaking a system were countries by and large adhere to a comment set of laws outside there state boarders because it provides stability and reliability themselves and the negative effects of breaking such a system especially if frankly speaking your nation that has objectively the most to lose by doing so. Or worse yet you allow another nation to take the mantle of responsibility in providing stability and the benefits bestows upon that nation.
Is simply stating that it's not relivent and acting accordingly likely to cause reciprocal actions by other states. Or cause a lack of faith in other accepted norms of action by that state? In short deeply affect the state's influence and reliability as seen internationally. And therefor it's ability benefit from international cooperation? Or indeed have states not actively be working against it due to lack of trust in it's motives?

Technical legalities don't define the relationship between nations trust reliability and mutual interests do. Legalities merely serve to define how those things take place. Remove the reason the laws were agreed to and it's just paper no nation gives up it's sovereign interests because a lawyer found a loophole if that loophole runs counter to the intent of the agreement. And no nation has it's laws respected unless they also adhere to both them and the intended purpose or the enforce them with well force..but that gets prohibitively expensive and counter productive the farther you push the envelope.. I think it's fair to say the u.s is pushing that envelope of responsible state actor and trusted allie for much of the world right now

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Exactly my point, I can only guess based on your posts. As I see a strongly biased position, I wonder if there is some other factor that is influencing that position.

You can also ask questions.
For example "what is your position on X?". Which is really helpful if for any reason you think my position on things matters to the discussion.
Feel free.
And no, there is no factor causing me to speak against my opinion, because I speak my opinion. I'm guessing this is related to your "where you are from" remark.

So, Russian invading Ukraine is reinforcing the "rules based order" because the Russian Duma decided something.
(I disagree.)

No it isn't. But I don't see it contradicting it either. When exactly has humanity achieved a consensus against wars? 2025 was a peak year of conflicts, and Russia-Ukraine is just one of them. Our world order is that wars exist. And the rule is that if you want to have peace you arm up. And when someone's sprinting at you, be ready to shoot their kneecap.
An ancient law. Parabellum and all that.

No, it benefits your side. Another guess, but you clearly stated that is not going to benefit China.

You choose to define my side as the west. It's not wrong but not the full truth either. I'm a humanist. Means every country that adopts modern values, progresses to democracy, opens up and becomes safe to travel, is a good one in my books.
I just don't appreciate the fact that people feel oppressed in their own countries.
So when China gets their revolution, I'll become pro-China.

Still, my comments on this forum are mostly cold. Especially in the Middle East thread ironically I very rarely voice my personal opinion.

I get the technical part of it I'm talking the actual participation in the system, that is dependent on good faith and a level of trust between nations that it will be adhered to and reliability for states.

Did you know that Maduro lost the 2024 elections to Nobel Peace Prize winner Machado and that the democratic world's consensus is that he grabbed power illegitimately?
Consider this the enforcement of law and order.

Remove this and you remove it as a asset considering the system is by and large a benefit to the u.s there is questions to ask about is this worth the cost?

What's the cost the US is currently paying for this?
And if the Maduro heist didn't happen - would the US certainly not be paying that price?

Also relivent is the u.s actions more broadly and ow they also affect this calculation by other nations. Im also quite sure you actually understand these points and don't know why you try to argue like it's not either what I'm talking about or relivent. Also sovereignty trumps international law within the acknowledged boarded of that state. This

Because I think the entire talking point of breaking some law and effect on other nations and all is entirely baseless and such "consequences" are imagined.

Polls show that this opinion doesn't exist on the right, is divided on the center, and dominant in the left. And I know that political left opinion of foreign policy is diametrically opposed to real foreign policy, so that just reinforces my opinion.

No one has ever given an example of an actual cost.
"Oh but what happens next? Surely maybe China will think it wants to occupy Taiwan because it definitely never wanted to do that, and Russia will invade Ukraine because it didn't do that in 2022 it never happened it's a zio conspiracy".

Yeah I'm not gonna respect that.

This is not what I'm talking about I'm taking about the effects of breaking a system were countries by and large one a comment set of laws outside there state because it provides stability for all and the negative effects of breaking such a system especially if frankly speaking your nation that has objectively the most to lose by doing so

The rules based order is limited to a couple dozen western and democratic nations that are already peaceful and haven't started any unprovoked wars in decades.
Most comments on the topic reference Russia and China which are not part of the rules based order, and if they were then they'd obviously be its most egregious violators.

Or indeed simply stating that it's not relivent and acting accordingly is likely to cause reciprocal actions by other states

Not coincidentally, those most critical of the Maduro heist are also those least capable of actually doing anything about it.
Big part of the performative politics school of thought is that when you can only talk, you really can only talk. And not do anything.

 

[Feanor]

Thread locked pending moderator discussion.