Everything you say is correct. And yet... Chile was a democracy when the CIA deposed Allende, but Venezuela was a dictatorship already. Moreover, Venezuela has not actually seen "regime change" -- it was the removal of a dictator. It is not at all clear what will replace Maduro. The previous Vice President, Delcy Rodriguez, has taken over as Acting President. She is not a democrat, but she has considerably more technical credentials than the bus driver. Perhaps she would be less economically incompetent. There may not be regime change at all -- what Mr Trump most appears to want is more economic competence, more cooperation with the US on oil, much less friendliness with Russia and China, and fewer Venezuelan economic refugees. So it is not clear that the study you cite is relevant. Authorization by Congress is a red herring by opponents of Mr. Trump -- the War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires that the President inform Congress within 48 hours of military action in a foreign country; troops must be withdrawn within 60 days unless Congress authorizes the action. This action is legal by US law, although international law may differ. I am gonna be eating a lot of popcorn while watching this.
So much to discuss here. No two situations are exactly identical. The big question is what happens now, I am not sure the U.S knows what it wants. The future doesn’t look brighter but the possibilities are endless. Having a chance to live a better life provides hope.
If anyone tells you they know what’s going to happen next, and if the citizens will be better off, they are lying.
1) the Absher paper is based on 5 case studies, how relevant are any of those to the Venezuela case?
2) I thought "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" was dismissed as conspiracy theory (someone told me this in Grad School), I just asked chatGPT and it seems to agree. Is it really worth a read?
1. No two cases will ever be the same but in this case very different than the Absher paper. The takeaway here is that, transition is something we must consider. Sadly, not sure it’s fully flushed out.
2. I have not heard that. Whether it is non fiction or a fiction book, it’s still a great read. As someone that grew up on the Middle East, I can tell you that there is a lot of “influence” to take on debt and change culture to abide by America’s expectations. It’s a good read and discussion starter.
One argument being raised centers on the Monroe Doctrine. It increasingly feels as though major powers are playing a global game of Risk. Current U.S. policy appears focused on maintaining dominance in the Western Hemisphere—consider its strategic interests in places like Canada and Greenland. Similarly, Russia’s actions in Ukraine and China’s posture toward Taiwan reflect parallel efforts by other nations to solidify or expand their spheres of influence.
Gold... to the tune of $1.8T in untapped resources (at last estimate, 2024?)
Neodymium is in large supply, 3rd most on planet. 300k metric tons of REE worth $400B for the plundering.
Gaming it out puts Cuba on the domino list for next to fall. China and Russia can't deliver oil to them, making the supply shock from Venezuela that much worse. Rubio has a personal grudge that this works towards resolving.
But the model is Libya and Iraq when it comes to governance, those turned out well 5-10 years out. This time might require more physical presence from the U.S., which going into an election year and MAGA not wanting to underwrite the costs... it's either a quick political solution OR a long-term military clusterf*ck.
Was talking to a friend about this last night. Intervention through regime change tends to be short and sharp. What is needed often is long-term support and guidance, not a topple and disappear which is what we tend to do and that sets the table for long-term instability. Venezuela needed a change, but this may not have been the way to go about it.
Uncertainty is the name of the game for sure. The idea that this was a power-play for the U.S. seems very likely, but it is true that Venezuelan's were living through corruption and lesser economic conditions. Seems like only time will tell how this will affect both Venezuela and the rest of the world.
We have seen this before in Iraq and Afghanistan as well. The wellbeing of a nation can knly be decided by the people of that nation. From a economic stand point ruling from a far adds noise to markets. I hope this doesn't take a turn for the worse. The risks are high.
Everything you say is correct. And yet... Chile was a democracy when the CIA deposed Allende, but Venezuela was a dictatorship already. Moreover, Venezuela has not actually seen "regime change" -- it was the removal of a dictator. It is not at all clear what will replace Maduro. The previous Vice President, Delcy Rodriguez, has taken over as Acting President. She is not a democrat, but she has considerably more technical credentials than the bus driver. Perhaps she would be less economically incompetent. There may not be regime change at all -- what Mr Trump most appears to want is more economic competence, more cooperation with the US on oil, much less friendliness with Russia and China, and fewer Venezuelan economic refugees. So it is not clear that the study you cite is relevant. Authorization by Congress is a red herring by opponents of Mr. Trump -- the War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires that the President inform Congress within 48 hours of military action in a foreign country; troops must be withdrawn within 60 days unless Congress authorizes the action. This action is legal by US law, although international law may differ. I am gonna be eating a lot of popcorn while watching this.
So much to discuss here. No two situations are exactly identical. The big question is what happens now, I am not sure the U.S knows what it wants. The future doesn’t look brighter but the possibilities are endless. Having a chance to live a better life provides hope.
If anyone tells you they know what’s going to happen next, and if the citizens will be better off, they are lying.
Couple of questions
1) the Absher paper is based on 5 case studies, how relevant are any of those to the Venezuela case?
2) I thought "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" was dismissed as conspiracy theory (someone told me this in Grad School), I just asked chatGPT and it seems to agree. Is it really worth a read?
1. No two cases will ever be the same but in this case very different than the Absher paper. The takeaway here is that, transition is something we must consider. Sadly, not sure it’s fully flushed out.
2. I have not heard that. Whether it is non fiction or a fiction book, it’s still a great read. As someone that grew up on the Middle East, I can tell you that there is a lot of “influence” to take on debt and change culture to abide by America’s expectations. It’s a good read and discussion starter.
Hi Matt, just want to say that I appreciate your thoughtful contributions to comments.
Very good text. Congrats.
One argument being raised centers on the Monroe Doctrine. It increasingly feels as though major powers are playing a global game of Risk. Current U.S. policy appears focused on maintaining dominance in the Western Hemisphere—consider its strategic interests in places like Canada and Greenland. Similarly, Russia’s actions in Ukraine and China’s posture toward Taiwan reflect parallel efforts by other nations to solidify or expand their spheres of influence.
I had not thought of it that way, but I can see how the spheres of influence are shifting.
Hard to know what the real reason is for this takeover and to say it’s about oil is easy and obvious. Perhaps it’s more about rare earth?
Gold... to the tune of $1.8T in untapped resources (at last estimate, 2024?)
Neodymium is in large supply, 3rd most on planet. 300k metric tons of REE worth $400B for the plundering.
Gaming it out puts Cuba on the domino list for next to fall. China and Russia can't deliver oil to them, making the supply shock from Venezuela that much worse. Rubio has a personal grudge that this works towards resolving.
But the model is Libya and Iraq when it comes to governance, those turned out well 5-10 years out. This time might require more physical presence from the U.S., which going into an election year and MAGA not wanting to underwrite the costs... it's either a quick political solution OR a long-term military clusterf*ck.
I heard that too. Oil might be too specific, maybe natural resources in general?
Was talking to a friend about this last night. Intervention through regime change tends to be short and sharp. What is needed often is long-term support and guidance, not a topple and disappear which is what we tend to do and that sets the table for long-term instability. Venezuela needed a change, but this may not have been the way to go about it.
Uncertainty is the name of the game for sure. The idea that this was a power-play for the U.S. seems very likely, but it is true that Venezuelan's were living through corruption and lesser economic conditions. Seems like only time will tell how this will affect both Venezuela and the rest of the world.
I agree. Both things can be true. Time will tell.
We have seen this before in Iraq and Afghanistan as well. The wellbeing of a nation can knly be decided by the people of that nation. From a economic stand point ruling from a far adds noise to markets. I hope this doesn't take a turn for the worse. The risks are high.
Nation building is hard. There is an overconfidence in the assumption that everything will be ok now.