Colombia's entry into NATO last year makes much sense when the oil of Venezuela was the target.
Venezuela: Resistance or disintegration?
- Thread starter jhonny
- Start date
I thought it looked like a staged photo op when I came across it too. It's just silly. As if Bolton jots down bullet points of major US plans on his notebook and then goes walking around with them face out. Seems to me that it was just to get the media talking about the idea that 'the military option' in Venezuela is a possibility. I think this story is pretty much the same thing:
Did Trump float 'military option' in Venezuela with war-hark Lindsey Graham?
My guess is they do this type of thing in part to gauge where US public is at (and thus how it needs to be steered), to try and rattle Maduro, and maybe to keep the 'fire' lit with the Guaido dupes.
Galaxia2002
Dagobah Resident
Mabar these minimun salary are not well compared. In mexico about 4.9 $ is the salary per day, while in venezuela about 7.5 $ per month!!! so you see the wage/day in venezuela is about 7.5/20 workdays = 0.37 $/day. My father spent his whole old-age pension (one minimum wage) in 1 kg of onions and a bit of spring onion. This is surreal.
edit: I updated the value of the minimum wage
That was also my blink reaction. It can be seen as putting pressure on Maduro, but it can also be seen as a way to put Trump in a bad light by his voters. Lindsey Graham and the Deep State wouldn't mind if they could rattle the popular support that Trump has by putting out that Trump floated the idea of a military foreign intervention. It appears that it was Pence, Bolton and the Deep State who started the ball rolling after which Trump was caught off guard. Now he has to show that he is in charge by going along with the whole thing. That is at least a possibility.
ah ... my fault then, sorry
I missed that big detail, thank good the gasoline price is ridiculous ...
1peacelover
Jedi Master
My observation is there is so much happening across the planet that skills of discernment is critical in order to filter out the truth from much of the dis/misinformation. This Utuber seems to add critical thinking skills to what's happening in Venezuela. Some of his earlier vids breaks down the process.
Then there is this from CARICOM
STATEMENT BY THE CONFERENCE OF HEADS OF GOVERNMENT OF CARICOM ON THE LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN THE SITUATION IN THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA
The following Heads of Government of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) - Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Jamaica, Montserrat, St. Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago; Foreign Ministers of Grenada and Suriname [1] ;, meeting by video-conference on 24 January 2019, issued the following statement.
https://caricom.org/media-center/co...ation-in-the-bolivarian-republic-of-venezuela
Then there is this from CARICOM
STATEMENT BY THE CONFERENCE OF HEADS OF GOVERNMENT OF CARICOM ON THE LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN THE SITUATION IN THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA
The following Heads of Government of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) - Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Jamaica, Montserrat, St. Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago; Foreign Ministers of Grenada and Suriname [1] ;, meeting by video-conference on 24 January 2019, issued the following statement.
“Heads of Government are following closely the current unsatisfactory situation in Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, a neighbouring Caribbean country. They expressed grave concern about the plight of the people of Venezuela and the increasing volatility of the situation brought about by recent developments which could lead to further violence, confrontation, breakdown of law and order and greater suffering for the people of the country.
Heads of Government reaffirmed their guiding principles of non-interference and non-intervention in the affairs of states, respect for sovereignty, adherence to the rule of law, and respect for human rights and democracy.
Heads of Government reiterated that the long-standing political crisis, which has been exacerbated by recent events, can only be resolved peacefully through meaningful dialogue and diplomacy.
In this regard, Heads of Government offered their good offices to facilitate dialogue among all parties to resolve the deepening crisis.
Heads of Government reaffirmed their guiding principles of non-interference and non-intervention in the affairs of states, respect for sovereignty, adherence to the rule of law, and respect for human rights and democracy.
Heads of Government reiterated that the long-standing political crisis, which has been exacerbated by recent events, can only be resolved peacefully through meaningful dialogue and diplomacy.
In this regard, Heads of Government offered their good offices to facilitate dialogue among all parties to resolve the deepening crisis.
Reaffirming their commitment to the tenets of Article 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter which calls for Members States to refrain from the threat or the use of force and Article 21 of the Charter of the Organization of American States which refers to territorial inviolability, the Heads of Government emphasized the importance of the Caribbean remaining a Zone of Peace.
Heads of Government called on external forces to refrain from doing anything to destabilize the situation and underscored the need to step back from the brink and called on all actors, internal and external, to avoid actions which would escalate an already explosive situation to the detriment of the people of Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and which could have far-reaching negative consequences for the wider region.
Heads of Government agreed that the Chairman of Conference, Dr the Honourable Timothy Harris, Prime Minister of St. Kitts and Nevis would seek an urgent meeting with the United Nations Secretary-General to request the U.N’s assistance in resolving the issue.”
The Government of Guyana, on Friday 25 January, confirmed its endorsement of this Statement.[1]Heads of Government called on external forces to refrain from doing anything to destabilize the situation and underscored the need to step back from the brink and called on all actors, internal and external, to avoid actions which would escalate an already explosive situation to the detriment of the people of Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and which could have far-reaching negative consequences for the wider region.
Heads of Government agreed that the Chairman of Conference, Dr the Honourable Timothy Harris, Prime Minister of St. Kitts and Nevis would seek an urgent meeting with the United Nations Secretary-General to request the U.N’s assistance in resolving the issue.”
https://caricom.org/media-center/co...ation-in-the-bolivarian-republic-of-venezuela
angelburst29
The Living Force
I still haven't come across the article I was searching for but it was a spin-off from this one:
07/20/18 - What is Putin trying to tell us?
What is Putin trying to tell us?
Tue Jan 29, 2019 - Bogota Says It Has No Clue About Bolton’s Puzzling ‘5,000 Troops to Colombia’
Farsnews
Colombian Foreign Minister Carlos Holmes said he is unaware of the “importance and reason” behind Bolton’s memo, noting that his country will only act “politically and diplomatically” in dealing with Venezuela, RT reported.
The White House was conspicuously reluctant to clarify the meaning of the note, and distributed the same brief comment to multiple news agencies: “As the president has said, all options are on the table.”
During the same briefing, Bolton and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin announced that a package of sanctions would be imposed on Venezuela’s state oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela SA. According to Bolton, the sweeping restrictions will freeze $7 billion in assets and cause more than $11 billion in lost export revenues during the next year. The US buys a sizeable amount of Venezuelan oil, but Mnuchin stated that the sanctions would have a “modest effect” on American imports.
Jan. 29, 2019 - Lavrov: US policy aimed at toppling Venezuela’s government
Lavrov: US policy aimed at toppling Venezuela’s government
Washington and its closest allies are openly pursuing a policy aimed at overthrowing the legitimate authorities in Caracas, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Tuesday.
We are concerned about what the US and its closest allies are doing with respect to Venezuela, brazenly violating all imaginable norms of international law and actually openly pursuing the policy aimed at overthrowing the legitimate government in that Latin American country," the Minister said.
The decision to exempt American businesses from the sanctions against Venezuela is evidence of Washington’s intention for regime change in that country while at the same time maximizing profit from it, he added. "This merely underscores the cynicism of the current developments. US companies operating in Venezuela are exempt from these sanctions. In other words, they wish to topple the government and derive material gains from this," Lavrov said.
The anti-Maduro forces are getting their orders from Washington, who instruct them not to make any compromises with the authorities in Caracas, Lavrov stressed.
January 28, 2019 - Kremlin comments on US sanctions against Venezuelan oil company
Kremlin comments on US sanctions against Venezuelan oil company
US sanctions against Venezuelan Oil Company PDVSA (Petroleos de Venezuela) is blatant illegal intervention, said Russian Presidential Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov on Tuesday.
"The legal leadership of Venezuela has already described these sanctions as illegal. We can fully join this point of view," he said.
January 29, 2019 - US Coup in Venezuela Motivated by Oil and Corporate Interests – Militarist John Bolton Spills the Beans
US Coup in Venezuela Motivated by Oil and Corporate Interests - Militarist John Bolton Spills the Beans | The Grayzone (Transcript)
US President Donald Trump’s hyper-militaristic National Security Adviser John Bolton spilled the beans in an interview on Fox Business, admitting that the United States government is working with corporations to target Venezuela’s massive oil reserves.
“We’re looking at the oil assets,” Bolton said. “That’s the single most important income stream to the government of Venezuela. We’re looking at what to do to that.”
“We’re in conversation with major American companies now,” he continued. “I think we’re trying to get to the same end result here.”
“It will make a big difference to the United States economically if we could have American oil companies really invest in and produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela,” Bolton admitted.
January 29, 2019 - The Making of Juan Guaidó: How the US Regime Change Laboratory Created Venezuela’s Coup Leader
The Making of Juan Guaidó: How the US Regime Change Laboratory Created Venezuela's Coup Leader | The Grayzone
Before the fateful day of January 22, fewer than one in five Venezuelans had heard of Juan Guaidó. Only a few months ago, the 35-year-old was an obscure character in a politically marginal far-right group closely associated with gruesome acts of street violence.
Even in his own party, Guaidó had been a mid-level figure in the opposition-dominated National Assembly, which is now held under contempt according to Venezuela’s constitution.
But after a single phone call from from US Vice President Mike Pence, Guaidó proclaimed himself president of Venezuela.
Anointed as the leader of his country by Washington, a previously unknown political bottom-dweller was vaulted onto the international stage as the US-selected leader of the nation with the world’s largest oil reserves.
(Note - this next article was first published on 23 April 2014 and has been updated. It compliments and gives background history of NED Foundations involved in the info in the prior article. )
23 April 2014/January 28, 2019 - The Dirty Hand of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) in Venezuela
The Dirty Hand of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) in Venezuela - Global Research
These Washington agencies have also filtered more than $14 million to opposition groups in Venezuela between 2013 and 2014, including funding for their political campaigns in 2013 and for the current anti-government protests in 2014. This continues the pattern of financing from the US government to anti-Chavez groups in Venezuela since 2001, when millions of dollars were given to organizations from so-called “civil society” to execute a coup d’etat against President Chavez in April 2002. After their failure days later, USAID opened an Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI) in Caracas to, together with the NED, inject more than $100 million in efforts to undermine the Chavez government and reinforce the opposition during the following 8 years.
Indeed my friend,these power hungry members of the deep state surely knows how to manipulate.It appears their intention is becoming more and more explicit to most resident in Venezuela. The US Foreign Relation Council Members are digging a hole so deep it may take sometime to cover. Try as they might the military and the judiciary of Venezuela will not allow this puppet on a string to overthrow Madura. This guy has been caught with his pants down many times (SOTT).
Good video 1peacelover.
The 'new way' for becoming a president: 'Just call Pence!'
It is a 'calculated' risk.
Bolton Prevented Trump From Holding Dialogue With Caracas
30.01.2019
Chinese investments most at risk from US sanctions against Venezuela
29 Jan, 2019
Venezuelan Crisis Has Zero Impact on Oil Market So Far - Saudi Energy Minister
28.01.2019
I'm sorry, I have arrived a little late to this conversation.
It is true that the disinformation disseminated throughout the world has contributed greatly to the enormous confusion that exists regarding what is happening in Venezuela, but I believe that we have to consider that disinformation has two sides, one that would be the mainstream western media carrying out an artful campaign against the Venezuelan government, and another that would be constituted by all those (inside and outside the country) who sympathize and support it. The first is well known, the second may be less organized and systematized, but IMO exists. It is made up of an army of alternative media that sympathize with progressive leftist Latin American governments perhaps not so much because of their virtues or merits, but because they are anti-imperialist and crosscuttingly oppose the hegemonic power led by Washington.
I must admit, I too have long been sympathetic to the Bolivarian Revolution and Latin American left-wing governments such as Brazil or my country (Argentina). But by virtue of all the material we have been sharing here and in SOTT over the last few years about the true nature of left movements, the polarizing effect, and the social decomposition produced by the ideological possession of these groups as they spread in society, my personal vision, with pain and sadness, has been slowly changing.
The constant interference of the US and its perverse agenda to destroy any possibility of independence and growth on the part of Venezuela (and other countries as well) is undeniable, only a fool could deny it. But in light of what I have seen, read, and lived in my country (in many respects Argentina had a government with characteristics very similar to Venezuela), today my perception of this whole affair is aimed at placing part of responsibility for the state of chaos and disintegration of the Venezuelan people in the hands of the government. I know this idea may be unfriendly to many, and I recognize that I may be mistaken or my judgment clouded, but it is still what I think at this moment.
The United States has been interfering in Latin America for decades. Despite all the damage done, the poverty and misery caused, every intervention in the 1970s did nothing more than increase a national and sovereignist sentiment in the bulk of the population (beyond a small elite aligned with Washington).
The social decomposition we see today in Venezuela, IMHO, is not at all a direct product of US intervention, but of a social dynamic and political practices imposed by the Bolivarian Revolution from the beginning.
In the search for more objective information, over the last few days, I have been compiling and reading some analyses of the Venezuelan government's economic and social investment policies. This is a summary of what I have read, but it is advisable for those who read Spanish to keep an eye on them for a more exhaustive and detailed analysis; the reports are extensive and abundant in data.
NOTE: It is worth clarifying that the reports do not seem passionate anti-Chavez speeches, but detailed analyses. In fact, the authors do not seem to be against the active participation of the State as the engine of the economy, they do question (IMO with pretty good judgment) the way in which this was carried out.
- High public social spending (GPS in Spanish) was tied directly to oil revenues (2004-2005 period was the highest GPS in Venezuelan history, repeated in 2011-2012, both election periods). However, the progressive increase of the GPS does not seem to have been accompanied by policies tending to make it sustainable along the time. The beginning and early abandonment of several "social missions" (this is the term used for government to name social plans) denotes a high level of improvisation and a consequent bad spending of public funds.
- The Executive Power developed a progressive strategy tending to the centralization of GPS control and financing. This centralization grew throughout the Chávez administration and continued with Maduro. Ultimately, the state apparatus grew so large that it became very complicated to manage efficiently and corruption in intermediate bodies became more frequent.
- During the Chávez government a growing portion of the GPS was done through actors outside the government but under the control of the government (extra-budgetary funding) . This occurred mostly through PDVSA. In this way, it is assumed that the government concealed part of GPS and was able to increase it over and above the budget approved by the legislature and outside of the ordinary controls that various state agencies usually have over the execution of budgets. In this graph it can be seen that what is spent exceeds what is budgeted/planned:
- Apparently around 2006 there are indications that Chávez began to see some deficiencies in the GPS and tried to strengthen control and coordination mechanisms of the missions, although it seems that this could never be achieved.
- The GPS seems to have focused on giving direct benefits to citizens without this having a direct correlation with the development and growth of the productive matrix. This seems to have been a fundamental factor in making unsustainable the prosperity experienced by some sectors of the population in the middle of Chávez's government.
- Poverty reduction during the Chávez administration was one of the strongest arguments in favor of the Bolivarian Revolution. The studies I was reading explain 2 things: (1) There are several ways to measure poverty. One is to establish lines that produce a scale based on citizens' incomes. The "poverty line" is the line that indicates that those below are poor. The other way is to measure "unmet basic needs". The latter seeks to identify deficits in the objective situation of the population on the basis of a set of needs that are considered to be the minimum that a household should satisfy in order to achieve decent living conditions. There is a third method, the integrated method, which incorporates both factors. (2) During the Bolivarian government the poverty movement (measured in both ways) looks like this:
As can be seen, income indicators show that poverty fell between 2004 and 2010. But when you look at the indicator related to basic needs you can see that poverty was not substantially reduced. This suggests that GPS was oriented towards direct allocation rather than the creation of adequate infrastructure to enable these marginalized sectors to improve their quality of life. This also suggests what many have pointed out as criticism of the Revolution: GPS has had a welfare strategy under the image of a paternalistic state and was not oriented mainly to creating opportunities for the poor sectors to improve their living conditions through their own efforts.
The studies also report that the social effects and results of the missions, over time, were increasingly losing their effectiveness.
This graph shows the relationship between GPS and poverty as measured by the integral method:
As can be seen, from 2005-2006 the inverse relationship between GPS and poverty tends to become more chaotic, suggesting an increase in the weight of other variables in the equation.
... continue below...
This is what the reports establish as hypotheses based on data obtained from state agencies and other sources. But beyond these analyses, I think we should also consider information that is not so objective but of a testimonial nature. According to what was reported by those who experienced it in the first person (some even members of this forum) it is possible to try to reconstruct some additional factors that are fuzzier and difficult to sustain with objective information. One of them is that the government seem to has imposed a binary logic: that is to say "you are with us or against us" or "you are a patriot or a traitor to the homeland". This way of seeing the world and society in black and white did nothing more than push people towards one of these sides, leaving no room for alternative and/or moderate visions. Any critical voice, even any friendly voice, before the slightest criticism or observation, was stigmatized or put in place immediately.
I would like to add that I personally sympathize with the idea of a State playing a primary role in social life, helping to create a fairer scenario with opportunities for all, and promoting a more balanced distribution of wealth. But that does not mean that state resources should be squandered in order to artificially and compulsively improve the lives of those in worse conditions. Governments such as the Venezuelan, Argentine, and Brazilian, IMO made the state apparatus grow much faster than their economies were growing. This caused the first few years to increase the welfare of the population and to grow many statistical indicators, such as poverty, illiteracy, access to health, etc. (which, by the way, excited many, including myself), but in the medium term this was a time bomb. On the other hand, the excesses in the granting of benefits made many social sectors (mostly the working middle class) feel victim of an injustice; a lifetime of hard work, forging a future for their children, and suddenly they began to see how their neighbors without much effort, even without a steady job, earned wellbeing. In fact, the compulsive use of this resource by the government caused a very unwanted effect: the conviction of all those marginalized sectors benefited that the State must make up for their shortages, and the idea that there is no need to overcome oneself and strive to progress because the State is there to equilibrize the balance.
In any case, I must say that these are just considerations and an attempt to give a broader view of the whole issue. I am not sure of anything, but I have a strong impression that, at least in part, the seed of failure was sown by the Revolution itself before the U.S. escalated the economic attack on Venezuela to the extreme (or before this attack began to have serious effects). And in this sense, I think it is very possible that ideological possession has led the Venezuelan government to dream of achieving socialist utopia and to distance itself completely from reality. In fact, I have the impression that once the U.S. economic attack began to wreak havoc on the Venezuelan economy (fundamentally tied to the value of crude oil), much of the government's efforts were geared toward sustaining itself in power and defending socialist ideals, rather than solving real problems. We usually refer to errors or erroneous decisions of the government as a result of the clumsiness of its officials, but I wonder if it is possible that there are pathological factors at play when it comes to contextualizing these errors.
In recent times we have had the opportunity to see the effect on society of trying to frame reality within a rigid and polarizing dogma (the Marxist dogma of oppressed vs. oppressors). At the moment I tend to believe that the U.S. did what it has done for decades, but it is quite possible that the Bolivarian Revolution has laid the groundwork for it to take a long time for Venezuela to find its way again.
Obviously, there is a question that remains unanswered: If Venezuela had not been under the economic siege of the U.S., would it have, with the passage of time learned from its mistakes and achieved the dream of a fairer society with sustainable material well-being? Possibly we will never be able to know...
I would like to add that I personally sympathize with the idea of a State playing a primary role in social life, helping to create a fairer scenario with opportunities for all, and promoting a more balanced distribution of wealth. But that does not mean that state resources should be squandered in order to artificially and compulsively improve the lives of those in worse conditions. Governments such as the Venezuelan, Argentine, and Brazilian, IMO made the state apparatus grow much faster than their economies were growing. This caused the first few years to increase the welfare of the population and to grow many statistical indicators, such as poverty, illiteracy, access to health, etc. (which, by the way, excited many, including myself), but in the medium term this was a time bomb. On the other hand, the excesses in the granting of benefits made many social sectors (mostly the working middle class) feel victim of an injustice; a lifetime of hard work, forging a future for their children, and suddenly they began to see how their neighbors without much effort, even without a steady job, earned wellbeing. In fact, the compulsive use of this resource by the government caused a very unwanted effect: the conviction of all those marginalized sectors benefited that the State must make up for their shortages, and the idea that there is no need to overcome oneself and strive to progress because the State is there to equilibrize the balance.
In any case, I must say that these are just considerations and an attempt to give a broader view of the whole issue. I am not sure of anything, but I have a strong impression that, at least in part, the seed of failure was sown by the Revolution itself before the U.S. escalated the economic attack on Venezuela to the extreme (or before this attack began to have serious effects). And in this sense, I think it is very possible that ideological possession has led the Venezuelan government to dream of achieving socialist utopia and to distance itself completely from reality. In fact, I have the impression that once the U.S. economic attack began to wreak havoc on the Venezuelan economy (fundamentally tied to the value of crude oil), much of the government's efforts were geared toward sustaining itself in power and defending socialist ideals, rather than solving real problems. We usually refer to errors or erroneous decisions of the government as a result of the clumsiness of its officials, but I wonder if it is possible that there are pathological factors at play when it comes to contextualizing these errors.
In recent times we have had the opportunity to see the effect on society of trying to frame reality within a rigid and polarizing dogma (the Marxist dogma of oppressed vs. oppressors). At the moment I tend to believe that the U.S. did what it has done for decades, but it is quite possible that the Bolivarian Revolution has laid the groundwork for it to take a long time for Venezuela to find its way again.
Obviously, there is a question that remains unanswered: If Venezuela had not been under the economic siege of the U.S., would it have, with the passage of time learned from its mistakes and achieved the dream of a fairer society with sustainable material well-being? Possibly we will never be able to know...
Last edited:
Sorry, I forgot to put references to reports:
References:
References:
- https://www.academia.edu/31296973/Ascenso_y_vulnerabilidad_del_gasto_social_en_Venezuela_1999-2012
- Pobreza y gasto social en la Venezuela de la Revolución Bolivariana
- Misiones Sociales: Contextualización de su origen, concepto y evolución
- El gasto público social durante los períodos presidenciales de Hugo Chávez: 1999-2009
1peacelover
Jedi Master
So much for "democracy" from a corporation country spreading democratic policies around the globe.
No, as how is the world behaving, I am very pessimistic in that regard, there is the inner country corruption that had plagued it for centuries, Mexico had not been under "that" economic siege of US, it had been lured, and it had been not much work either, I had been reading Pemex Rip by Ana Lilia Perez, is like how Arturo Rodriguez write in his article:
https://notassinpauta.com/2018/02/06/pemex-rip-historias-de-un-latrocinio-sistemico/ said:
