Maduro (Venezuela) sees what Putin is doing, and how the West is maybe half supporting Ukraine, and sees an opportunity to do the same to their neighbor (Guyana), expecting the West will probably do nothing. It's remarkably similar in "justification" because "we want this land we owned 100s of years ago back, forget about the prior agreements and the borders that have long been in place.
tl;dr it's really about the oil, which does make it different from Putin trying to feel like a big man
Euromaidan happened because UKR voted in a Pro-EU, relatively anti-corruption (by UKR standards) candidate. Russia never invaded before because they basically called the shots via corruption and the mafiya.
When it looked like he wasn't going to die from poison or riots and would stick around, "separatists" launched an effort to take the eastern part of the country, with a lot of industry, as well as Crimea -- a highly desired port for the Russian fleet.
That kicked off a whole mess of EU and NATO assistance to UKR, so the recent war was to gobble up the rest of the country before it got too strong to resist. Turns out they took too long -- they probably would have won handedly in 2016, but in 2022 the AFU had been training and re-equipping, and realized what was at stake.
I watched some analysis a while ago that stared that the war broke out to prevent Ukraine from tapping into some natural gas reserves that were uncovered at that time. Those reserves are located near Crimea. Sounds more plausible than pure ego.
Both sides know that to be the truth. NATO would never start a war, the rules prevent article 5 from being usable should a member decide to start one on their own
edit, I see parent edited their "NATO threat" comment to be "prevent NATO expansion", the JM thesis is utterly wrong, these countries are choosing to be part of a defense alliance, it is not forced on them
The threat Ukraine poses to Russian leaders is a demonstration that a better life is possible without an authoritarian at the helm
> publicly stated reason
Putin wrote an essay in July 2021. That is the foundation, and most plausible publicly stated reason, to understand why they decided to invade
Russia has plenty of oil & gas in their existing territory. If anything, Putin wants to prevent Ukraine from becoming the supplier to Europe
Most experts see the reasoning as Putin wants a sphere of influence, and since no one is volunteering besides Belarus, he decided to do it by force. It's more Make Russia Great Again (like the times of czars, not soviet union)
This one: "Sounds more plausible than pure ego"? We seem to believe ego well enough (we certainly succumb to it), so if that's what you refer to, I do take your point.
> which does make it different from Putin trying to feel like a big man
This simplification ignores alot of contextual history of the region. Regardless, even with Putin out of the picture, I suspect the situation would be the same. If the USSR invaded Mexico, I suspect the US would be rolling tanks in real fast. This is just an extension of Cold War posturing, like during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
> Maduro (Venezuela) sees what Putin is doing, and how the West is maybe half supporting Ukraine, and sees an opportunity to do the same to their neighbor
I'm sorry, I'm completely lost on what exactly you think about the Russian adventure in Ukraine is worth emulating. It's been a disaster for Russia. Ukraine too, obviously, but no way would Putin do this again if he knew a two-year stalemate and global shaming of his vaunted army was going to be the result.
He is still occupying large parts of Ukraine that may become Russian permanently if Ukraine doesn't manage to take them back. That may be the most important thing for him.
oh, I don't think they should try to emulate, just that there is an amount of similarity in the self-justification of the dictators. China's claims to Taiwan fit the same mold
But the schomburgk line author stated it wasn't intended to include legitimate territory. This is reflected for instance on Google maps not showing a solid border. The line was a rough survey with an explicit agreement between Britain and Venezuela that didn't establish territorial borders and agreed to not colonize vicinity of either side.
To this day the area disputed is largely lawless jungle with no agreed territorial line. It is very much a modern question due to this loosely defined state.
Who decides if it's justified or not? The same countries that stole the land? The countries that waged countless unjustified wars of oppression based on lies? The countries who would now like to exploit that land?
In this case: it was my opinion, person with minuscule influence on foreign policy.
But "war is pretty bad idea" is a widely shared opinion, as war is pretty bad one.
> The same countries that stole the land? The countries that waged countless unjustified wars of oppression based on lies?
Yes, these countries. Approximately all countries stole land (even if this land was stolen from Venezuela: guess how Venezuela acquired it? and "give it back to local tribes" does not work, because they stole it from other tribes).
Also, approximately all countries waged some unjustified wars of oppression based on lies.
Yeah, sure... we heard that crap before on the Malvinas/Falklands. Didn't work very well for Argentina, did it? Btw, Guyana is part of the British Commonwealth, just saying...
If your logic makes any sense then why don't you Venezuelans return your country to the natives and kick all the European descendants out? White people stole the land from the Waayu and Timoto-cuicas, right?
And all the while you’re figuring out how to compromise nobody is dying. Eventually, people figure something out and move on with their lives, because most people have no desire to spend their life in conflict.
Nobody. In fact Venezuela gained independence from the colonizers in 1811. The Spanish and the German originally stole that land from the native populations. Venezuelans are neither Spanish or German.
Yeah, let's start a war with the british or whomever over some bullshit land nobody cares about. Let me just grab some popcorn so I can enjoy the fireworks.
I mean come on, dude. These communists can't even manage to develop the land they already have. And they're looking to start wars with developed nations? Over this nonsense? It's comical.
I perceive that part of the reason the west doesn't wade into the conflict in Ukraine (rightly or wrongly) is that there is a fear of the conflict escalating into a brawl between western nations and Russia (which is probably at least a near-peer to western militaries and nuclear armed). Venezuela is neither a near-peer military power nor nuclear armed as far as I understand, and their ability to hit back (again rightly or wrongly) against other regional powers, the US or whatever other western nations that might intervene (maybe Britain or France?) seems very limited, and thus Maduro's tactical and strategic position seems really different than Putin's.
Sure, but with the situation in Ukraine rapidly deteriorating and likely heading into a push for a ceasefire - if not officially, then at least effectively over the winter - it would make for another ideal proxy war location in the “war of pawns”.
Both Russia and the US would greatly prefer to keep this at a Kabinettskriege level instead of escalating to full blown Volkskriege WW3.
If that's his strategy then Maduro's even dumber than I thought. Putin's got nukes. What the hell do these south american communists have?
It's hilarious. These communists are actually delusional. They actually think they can create some kind of south american soviet union here. All they've managed to do so far is throw our economies into the gutter. And now brazilian president Lula is "moving troops" and generally making moves that get us all further into this mess instead of away from it just because it's his communist friend Maduro's ass on the line? It's unreal. Imagine actually dying for this bullshit.
Why do you doubt that? China's population is so large, even their ample farming capacity isn't enough to support it on its own. To whom do you think they turn to fill the deficit if not South America?
Common sense tells you they grow more than 64% of their own food. And any imports would mainly come from other Asian countries or North America, not across the Panama Canal and 6,000 miles of ocean,
Just a little bit of geographic, economic, political, historical sense would be adequate to raise that doubt.
china imports around 10% of its food needed. the specifics get complex depending on how you measure and what you measure - but it is not at all credible that 36% of china's food is from south america. and in the recent past they were far less integrated with global trade
It's probably 36% of food imports, but oil & gas is also an incredibly important strategic resource China does not have nearly enough of. Which means their domestic crops are reliant on oil imports from which fertilizer is derived. But also most everything else they hope to manufacture.
That's not really comparable. Southeast Asia was an area of high population density engaged in a series of real and very deeply motivated civil wars. Vietnam (Cambodia too) was tearing itself apart entirely separate from the fact that global superpowers decided to use the nation as a proxy war.
This is a dispute over an almost empty tract of land motivated by local politics in its neighbors (and potentially also over oil wealth, something that is new to Guyana in the last few years). Most likely nothing happens, but if it does the only larger power that's going to care much is Brazil. The US is more than capable of defending the relevant oil rights whether or not Guyana controls its western jungle.
Venezuela’s (relatively sudden) refusal to honor its treaty obligations that admit the land is owned by Guyana is obviously due to oil greed.
Guyana has almost no military, but the Venezuelan military doesn’t really have any offensive capabilities that the US cant easily deter. The US actually appears to be a stabilizing force in this case; if the US committed to non-intervention, it would make sense for Venezuela to invade immediately.
As is, the strategic balance is not in favor of Venezuela attempting to annex the land by force.
Guyana being part of the Commonwealth of Nations also seems like it may mean that the British could get involved on their side, which could also be a significant factor.
This is what the much maligned "world's police" role the US military actually plays. It's a shame the NeoCons didn't understand the point of the threat is to never have to use it. the first gulf war didn't need a round two.
Round two was based on manufacturing a better ally in the region than the Saudis. After all, this was not too long after 9/11 and despite the lack of public attention, nobody was foolish enough to ignore the role of Saudi nationals in private.
If, as a democracy, Iraq became what Iran could have been (until the revolution), our influence would have played a much stronger moderating force in the middle east.
Instead, we discovered that democracies don't work when people don't want them to. It was a pipe dream that was doomed to fail from its inception.
One unforced error lead to another, and that's a lesson that nobody ever seems to learn.
"""Principled anti-imperialists""" love nothing more than jumping through rhetorical hoops to support naked imperialism by any brutal dictator who says "death to America!"
The history of the dispute is quite messy, and shows how these things never end. It involves miltiple treaties ratified and then disputed.
I find the analysis particularly ridiculous. It of course blames the USA--a country which has never used military in the region, has no bases in guyana, and wasn't the colonial power that created this mess--as the instigator.
Because America is to blame always. It's responsible for all actions it takes, but also responsible for not taking action when it should have.
reply