This isnt chess. The government and military are still intact, the VP seems vehemently against rolling over, it just pisses off America's enemies more and lets them know that kidnapping a head of state is now on the table and they'd better close the Kidnapping Gap and be more ready for that possibility and look into how to do it themselves. That just leads to holding foreign kings for ransom again, it's not done cause under a system that isnt absolute monarchy the snake works just fine without the head, no one does this cause it's pointless and opens up equally dirty retaliation, if a head of state orders the kidnapping of another head of state the target could be more on them personally than before, which usually people who want to stay alive try to avoid. How does this advance American Interests as opposed to a more normal act of aggression? Seems like really bad strategy to me.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] xiaohongshu@hexbear.net 31 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Absolutely. We should not expect the new leadership to accept the US offer immediately. The goal here is to sow political division.

At some point, it will be ideology versus economic reality as I said. The government will have to address its people for the deteriorating economic situation. The staunchly ideological proponents will of course want to continue the resistance, but some will begin to be swayed. The US simply have to wait and monitor the situation and dial up the knob as needed.

After all, the empire can afford to wait. Look at how the US waited 10 years before carving up Syria in an instant last year. A superpower can always outlast a small economy, this is simply a reality we have to accept. Without assistance from other equally powerful forces, there is only so much that a small economy can do.

[–] ColombianLenin@hexbear.net 20 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The government will have to address its people for the deteriorating economic situation

If this were an effective tool it would have already worked, don't forget Venezuela has been heavily sanctioned for decades now. This would have also been the case for Iran, or Cuba.

Syria's issue is a bit different, Assad played his hands wrong. Attacked his allies, went to bed with his enemies, and ended up not taking a particular side while maintaining his country in a terrible state. Venezuela is a marked contrast, they are as of today at their highest levels of economic growth in years, and the control over the military is much more solid than Assad had hoped for Syria.

Economic blockade has been the longest used tool in the US arsenal, it hasn't really worked in the big majority of cases. Venezuelaa went though the mythical hyperinflation and survived. That really counts for something.

[–] newacctidk@hexbear.net 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

All of these are different situations, but like you said it did work with Assad for various reasons, it worked with Burkina Faso, it succeeded with Ghana, etc.

It is not a sure thing, but I also wouldn't dismiss how fracturous this plan can be.

[–] ColombianLenin@hexbear.net 3 points 1 week ago

Maybe, the point is more that this is not a sure shot that will topple the regime and if anything has already been tried so there doesn't seem to be a clear indication that this time it will work.