La Crisis Venezolana: The Crisis in Venezuela

[Frievolk]

The good thing about politics is that if they refuse to recognize Maduro as president and also recognize Gauido as interim president, and they get a good proof Gauido wants them to intervene, then it's technically not infringing upon sovereignty of another nation.

It's very much "it's fine because we say it is" than being legally credible.

Not really. A Head of State can call for help when they need it. It's seen in poor taste (as it gives foreign countries a level of power over your country that you may not be able to get back) but it's still there. Gauido has shown to have a popular base. Not necessarily majority yet (but that will eventually come). If Gauido is spineless enough to call for help, the US has a blank cheque to cash in.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

It's very much "it's fine because we say it is" than being legally credible.

Not really. A Head of State can call for help when they need it. It's seen in poor taste (as it gives foreign countries a level of power over your country that you may not be able to get back) but it's still there. Gauido has shown to have a popular base. Not necessarily majority yet (but that will eventually come). If Gauido is spineless enough to call for help, the US has a blank cheque to cash in.

Asking for help against the Venezuelan military doesn't make someone "spineless", as they're still kissing Maduro's ass. I wouldn't support offensive intervention by the U.S. Military, but I wouldn't blame Gauido for asking for help.

[Zurkerx]

Not really. A Head of State can call for help when they need it. It's seen in poor taste (as it gives foreign countries a level of power over your country that you may not be able to get back) but it's still there. Gauido has shown to have a popular base. Not necessarily majority yet (but that will eventually come). If Gauido is spineless enough to call for help, the US has a blank cheque to cash in.

Asking for help against the Venezuelan military doesn't make someone "spineless", as they're still kissing Maduro's ass. I wouldn't support offensive intervention by the U.S. Military, but I wouldn't blame Gauido for asking for help.

I mean, we don't have to send the full might of the US Military in there; I'm sure Brazil and our CIA can do that themselves. The country is already unstable and instability will continue for quite sometime even if Gauido is placed into power (which seems likely).

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Asking for help against the Venezuelan military doesn't make someone "spineless", as they're still kissing Maduro's ass. I wouldn't support offensive intervention by the U.S. Military, but I wouldn't blame Gauido for asking for help.

I mean, we don't have to send the full might of the US Military in there; I'm sure Brazil and our CIA can do that themselves. The country is already unstable and instability will continue for quite sometime even if Gauido is placed into power (which seems likely).

I for the most part agree, but I would prefer if the CIA stays out of it. We should just impose more sanctions, and let the other Latin American countries sort it out.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

That's literally one of the two ways countries intervene in foreign politics since world war one made the "I'ma just occupy you, you can't do nothing about it" system moot. (The other is, of course, "Humanitarian intervention") so not really "a certain point of view"

Politics and diplomacy is just easy to bend like that.

Oh golly, I wrote my bachelor thesis on this subject.

There are actually three ways for a country to legally use force in another country: a UN Security Council Resolution to that effect (article 42 UN Charter), collective self-defence (article 51 UN Charter) or an intervention upon invitation from another state. Humanitarian intervention, while proposed by Britain, is very much illegal. Its successor, R2P (responsibility to protect) still requires a resolution from the Security Council to be enacted.

While Gauido could technically, as the recognised head of state, invite the US to intervene, such an intervention is shaky because 1) he doesn't hold actual power, and as such will not be recognised by the majority of States, and 2) a civil conflict is often seen as an internal matter in which a foreign nation can never intervene, not even upon invitation. The country needs to fight that out themselves, which is why most countries supply arms to foreign civil wars instead of deploying their armies.

So, whether intervening on behalf of Gauido is legal is still very much up for debate.

[Galloism]

That's literally one of the two ways countries intervene in foreign politics since world war one made the "I'ma just occupy you, you can't do nothing about it" system moot. (The other is, of course, "Humanitarian intervention") so not really "a certain point of view"

Politics and diplomacy is just easy to bend like that.

Oh golly, I wrote my bachelor thesis on this subject.

There are actually three ways for a country to legally use force in another country: a UN Security Council Resolution to that effect (article 42 UN Charter), collective self-defence (article 51 UN Charter) or an intervention upon invitation from another state. Humanitarian intervention, while proposed by Britain, is very much illegal. Its successor, R2P (responsibility to protect) still requires a resolution from the Security Council to be enacted.

While Gauido could technically, as the recognised head of state, invite the US to intervene, such an intervention is shaky because 1) he doesn't hold actual power, and as such will not be recognised by the majority of States, and 2) a civil conflict is often seen as an internal matter in which a foreign nation can never intervene, not even upon invitation. The country needs to fight that out themselves, which is why most countries supply arms to foreign civil wars instead of deploying their armies.

So, whether intervening on behalf of Gauido is legal is still very much up for debate.

Something something from a certain point of view.

[Adad Civilization]

To all of those in Venezuela reading this, stay safe.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Oh golly, I wrote my bachelor thesis on this subject.

There are actually three ways for a country to legally use force in another country: a UN Security Council Resolution to that effect (article 42 UN Charter), collective self-defence (article 51 UN Charter) or an intervention upon invitation from another state. Humanitarian intervention, while proposed by Britain, is very much illegal. Its successor, R2P (responsibility to protect) still requires a resolution from the Security Council to be enacted.

While Gauido could technically, as the recognised head of state, invite the US to intervene, such an intervention is shaky because 1) he doesn't hold actual power, and as such will not be recognised by the majority of States, and 2) a civil conflict is often seen as an internal matter in which a foreign nation can never intervene, not even upon invitation. The country needs to fight that out themselves, which is why most countries supply arms to foreign civil wars instead of deploying their armies.

So, whether intervening on behalf of Gauido is legal is still very much up for debate.

Something something from a certain point of view.

Visiting a lawyer's office for advice just ends you up 70 bucks lighter with knowledge of 8 different viewpoints and no word on what you should do.

[Orostan]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-call-fro ... 1548430259

>guyz I promise this isn’t a CIA coup

[Valrifell]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-call-from-pence-helped-set-an-uncertain-new-course-in-venezuela-11548430259

>guyz I promise this isn’t a CIA coup

I'ma level with you chief, regardless of legitimacy, I think anyone is better than Maduro for the people of Venezuela at this point.

[Orostan]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-call-from-pence-helped-set-an-uncertain-new-course-in-venezuela-11548430259

>guyz I promise this isn’t a CIA coup

I'ma level with you chief, regardless of legitimacy, I think anyone is better than Maduro for the people of Venezuela at this point.

Even the guys who will do everything in their power to fight Venezuelan workers?

[Valrifell]

I'ma level with you chief, regardless of legitimacy, I think anyone is better than Maduro for the people of Venezuela at this point.

Even the guys who will do everything in their power to fight Venezuelan workers?

There comes a point when you have to sacriface ideological purity because it's being implemented by the worst people and hurting everyone.

[Zurkerx]

I'ma level with you chief, regardless of legitimacy, I think anyone is better than Maduro for the people of Venezuela at this point.

Even the guys who will do everything in their power to fight Venezuelan workers?

Like the workers that are starving, are in desperate need of medical supplies, and can't even afford the basic necessities...? Yeah, anyone is better than Maduro, I agree with Val here.

[Frievolk]

Not really. A Head of State can call for help when they need it. It's seen in poor taste (as it gives foreign countries a level of power over your country that you may not be able to get back) but it's still there. Gauido has shown to have a popular base. Not necessarily majority yet (but that will eventually come). If Gauido is spineless enough to call for help, the US has a blank cheque to cash in.

Asking for help against the Venezuelan military doesn't make someone "spineless", as they're still kissing Maduro's ass. I wouldn't support offensive intervention by the U.S. Military, but I wouldn't blame Gauido for asking for help.

The "spineless" comment is less about whether or not the Venezuelan military should be opposed and more about the fact In that situation Gauido would be shown as the guy who brought those Americans into our country by his popular base. Then again, if that means less Venezuelans killed in violence against other Venezuelans, let him be spineless.

Oh golly, I wrote my bachelor thesis on this subject.

There are actually three ways for a country to legally use force in another country: a UN Security Council Resolution to that effect (article 42 UN Charter), collective self-defence (article 51 UN Charter) or an intervention upon invitation from another state. Humanitarian intervention, while proposed by Britain, is very much illegal. Its successor, R2P (responsibility to protect) still requires a resolution from the Security Council to be enacted.

While Gauido could technically, as the recognised head of state, invite the US to intervene, such an intervention is shaky because 1) he doesn't hold actual power, and as such will not be recognised by the majority of States, and 2) a civil conflict is often seen as an internal matter in which a foreign nation can never intervene, not even upon invitation. The country needs to fight that out themselves, which is why most countries supply arms to foreign civil wars instead of deploying their armies.

So, whether intervening on behalf of Gauido is legal is still very much up for debate.

Huh, you learn something new every day! I stand corrected. My point regarding "they could make it look like that if America managed to convince most of its allies to stop recognizing Maduro and recognize Gauido instead" still kinda stands tho.

[Shrillland]

Well, Guaido's now telling Congress to install new directors to both PDVSA and Citgo: https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-venezuelas-guaido-rushing-control-citgo-april-debt-200041456--finance.html

[Sneudal]

That's literally one of the two ways countries intervene in foreign politics since world war one made the "I'ma just occupy you, you can't do nothing about it" system moot. (The other is, of course, "Humanitarian intervention") so not really "a certain point of view"

Politics and diplomacy is just easy to bend like that.

Excuses are no legal basis.

[Sneudal]

Well, Guaido's now telling Congress to install new directors to both PDVSA and Citgo: https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-venezuelas-guaido-rushing-control-citgo-april-debt-200041456--finance.html

Pretty much what a puppet of foreign powers would do. He's only confirming Maduro's accusations by making such moves.

[Novus America]

Well, Guaido's now telling Congress to install new directors to both PDVSA and Citgo: https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-venezuelas-guaido-rushing-control-citgo-april-debt-200041456--finance.html

Pretty much what a puppet of foreign powers would do. He's only confirming Maduro's accusations by making such moves.

No, hardly.
He is doing the logical thing for someone in his position.
Plus he is desperately trying to save them, probably too late.

Venezuela is probably losing CITGO, when it next defaults CITGO is probably gone as Maduro already used the majority of its shares as collateral.

But that part does not seem to bother you.
Hmm. Guaido trying to save Venezuelan control CITGO bad, Maduro turning it over to foreign companies good...

Why the blind hatred for Guaido?

Maduro’s regime is the one selling out Venezuela, not Guaido.

[Frievolk]

That's literally one of the two ways countries intervene in foreign politics since world war one made the "I'ma just occupy you, you can't do nothing about it" system moot. (The other is, of course, "Humanitarian intervention") so not really "a certain point of view"

Politics and diplomacy is just easy to bend like that.

Excuses are no legal basis.

Not "Legal Basis", "Valid Claim". This isn't the US taking Venezuela to court, it's the US making a legitimate claim for intervention. All claims, regardless of validity or legitimacy, are inherently excuses. This scenario just has a more easy-to-legitimize claim.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Well, Guaido's now telling Congress to install new directors to both PDVSA and Citgo: https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-venezuelas-guaido-rushing-control-citgo-april-debt-200041456--finance.html

Pretty much what a puppet of foreign powers would do. He's only confirming Maduro's accusations by making such moves.

No, he's removing Maduro's corrupt cronies from the positions to make changes within the government.

[Liriena]

Pretty much what a puppet of foreign powers would do. He's only confirming Maduro's accusations by making such moves.

No, he's removing Maduro's corrupt cronies from the positions to make changes within the government.

Both assertions can be true.

I'm towing the Thotskyist party line and argue that both sides in this are the worst power hungry garbage.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

No, he's removing Maduro's corrupt cronies from the positions to make changes within the government.

Both assertions can be true.

I'm towing the Thotskyist party line and argue that both sides in this are the worst power hungry garbage.

"Thotskyist"?

I don't even...what?

Anyways, the political situation in Venezuela seems to be at a standstill at the moment, but as expected, the American liberals are throwing themselves behind Maduro blissfully ignoring his disgusting mismanagement of the country while the right have been setting themselves up with the opposition leader thinking he's rightist when in reality, he's just a fucking SocDem.

[Liriena]

Both assertions can be true.

I'm towing the Thotskyist party line and argue that both sides in this are the worst power hungry garbage.

"Thotskyist"?

I don't even...what?

Trotsky is a thot. He's a freaking nasty hoe.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

"Thotskyist"?

I don't even...what?

Trotsky is a thot. He's a freaking nasty hoe.

What a morally confusing word.

[US-SSR]

The decision to recognize or not recognize a leader is a bit more complex than just the will of the recognizing nation. It'd be a bit silly for the UK to not recognize Trump as US President after the 2016 election, or not recognize Putin as Russia's President after the 2018 presidential election. If in doubt, the recognition goes to the old regime. Right now, the countries recognizing Guaido are taking a huge risk. If his faction loses in this struggle, Venezuela can pull out assets from said countries as punishment, since, as you said, they still recognize Venezuela as a sovereign nation.

Be that as it may, the right to recognize another government or not is an essential element of sovereignty. It was more than a bit silly for the US to recognize the Chinese Nationalist government in Taipei as sovereign over all of China, but from the end of the Revolution to Nixon that is how things were. And as announced today, the Maduro regime can neither pull its assets from the US (they're frozen) nor collect payments due to PDVSA or its refinery (those go into blocked accounts), exactly because the US recognizes Guaido as interim President of Venezuela and not Maduro.

Afghanistan was never the graveyard of empires. That is at best a misinformed meme.

The US could easily crush Venezuela. Then spend 20 years playing whackamole and getting hit by terrorists. The price tag would be in the trillions and by the end the entirety of Latin America would hate the US and China/Russia would gain strong allies in the region. It's simply not worth it. Better to sit back and wait to counter any overt attempts by China/Russia to gain influence. If Venezuela remains a dictatorship well... Status quo. If it is toppled by it's own people then it is up to Latin America to stabilize it.

I'm sorry but the first sentence here is the kind of statement made by those who have no concept of military or diplomatic realities. The US cannot "easily crush" Venezuela or any other nation or group. Doing so, even if advisable which it is decidedly not, would involve spending money to move soldiers there, equip them, supply them and maintain them, as well as ship the dead home and pay for the health care of the wounded for the rest of their lives. The rest of the paragraph is accurate.