news

Yeah, the conditions that caused the fall of Bolivia are really not present in Venezuela today.

• The political opposition is split between people that want intervention and people that don't.
• The PSUV is firmly galvanized against intervention, and there is no factionalism, as happened between Evo and Luis Arce.
• The people are firmly against intervention, even the right wing in civil society does not accept it.
• The left in civil society is armed (!) and organized in civil militias.

I think the US attacking Venezuela would surely cause huge damage and death. They might even kill Maduro. But causing a collapse of the Bolivarian Revolution is unlikely IMO. It doesn't discard the fact that Latinoamérica is bound for some years of hell if this intervention goes through.

Death to Amerikkka of course.

Even if they get Maduro I can't see them gaining full control of the country either, in the absolute best-case scenario for the US they get a coup followed by a 20 year insurgency that eventually wins.

That is a win for them though and I'm not sure the insurgency would necessarily have to win depending on how it goes down.

While they'd prefer full control and a stable American comprador regime that lasts forever, simply removing Venezuela as an enemy state by plunging it into strife is a victory in their minds. They either seize the oil or take it off the market and make the oil of their comprador gulf monarchies and their own drilling more valuable while threatening China's supply of friendly countries who can be assured won't cut off oil after a stern US demand and reducing China to Iran and whatever Russia can produce as sources in a future conflict.

Looks like more chessboard setting up to me, as after this they merely need to cut off land routes to Iran to strangle China in a conflict and they've set things up nicely to disrupt China's B&R between it and Iran. US military runs heavily on oil as do most so their thinking and it's not wrong is if they can choke off enough of China's oil they can prevent them from having any real reach to fight the US anywhere but on their shores as well as inflict economic pain as oil is necessary for a lot of things in civilian industry.

And also as we've seen with Syria, simply subjecting the people to a decade or more of brutal war, terrorism, CIA terror operations, etc can sap the will of the population enough that they might be amenable at the end of that to accepting or not resisting a compromise government that defers to Washington and slowly rots away at the remaining revolutionary elements with revisionism but isn't run by outright raving fascists and appears or claims to be nominally left but is deeply corrupt/compromised, etc. It also creates opportunities for coups, moving pawns into position, etc. So the US likes this and it paid off well in Syria as we've seen as people will follow their stomachs and wallets and after enough deprivation more people on the fence will turn turn-coat for the promise of "stability and bread".

At the very least it gives the US a decade of time to move against China without Venezuela being able to supply them with oil if they're stuck in war for that long.

It mostly depends on local compradors being numerous enough and able to be organized and armed into some kind of force though as I don't think the US has an appetite for a long occupation and fight against an insurgency so much as installing pawns, beating down the visible opposition, weakening the most visible elements of the military and maybe providing a green zone for them by taking and holding the capital to offer them legitimacy as the legitimate government that the US and NATO recognize and give assets and money to.