No transition, no money for Guaido to implement his plans (taking over the oil for example). They aren't recognizing Guaido for several reasons one being they would be giving money to someone without the authority to secure what it's spent on or reliably pay it back.
They are cutthroat capitalists willing to do anything to make money, if they aren't backing Guaido it's because they don't think he's a smart bet. Nothing in the news or events on the ground indicate that's going to change.
Also worth noting despite some impressions Guaido has been seeking IMF money since the start and the IMF members have consistently failed to recognize him in sufficient numbers for more than 2 months now.
WASHINGTON, Feb 7 (Reuters) - The International Monetary Fund is still awaiting guidance from its member countries on whether to recognize Venezuela’s opposition leader Juan Guaido as the country’s legitimate head of state, IMF spokesman Gerry Rice said on Thursday.
For all intents and purposes they've made their decision.
For those unfamiliar with Venezuela they may be surprised to find out the military has always been corrupt. At least long before Chavez or Maduro got there.
Here's a youtube video from CGP grey explaining how "ruling" works in the real world regardless of the country (similar to my explanation at the very start of all this). 4:00-6:00 covers the meat of it.
That CNN article is effectively stenography for an anonymous "defense official" (with no ethical explanation) for why they are anonymous. Can't be sure it was even the same meeting or not something completely different or whether this anonymous "defense official" has any clue.
To the article itself and "deterrence"
Instead, deterrence options could include US naval exercises in the immediate region to emphasize humanitarian assistance and more military interaction with neighboring countries. The idea would be to challenge any Russian, Cuban or Chinese notion that they could have unchallenged access to the region.
I would hope after Iraq (anon officials doing this same thing), or more regionally applicable Cuba (bay of pigs/Missile crisis), we don't go down this road again. Or put any faith in Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, Elliot Abrams and the Trump administration to not be horrific war criminals (some not for the first time).
– Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was granted.
Here's a primer on how to read anonymously sourced stories from 538 (prompted in part by CNN's history with unethical reporting, but before the Lanny Davis one)
journalists themselves also say the practice is overused. They argue that using unnamed sources limits journalistic accountability, since readers and other reporters can’t easily check the accuracy of an account if they don’t know where it comes from. Unnamed sources are often a feature of stories that I would argue are more about reporters showing how savvy and in the know they are than truly informing and enlightening readers.
These are some of the reasons I find GrayZone to be a far more reliable source on this topic in general, though still imperfect of course.
Alternatively the US could mind it's business and the UN and other aid agencies could increase aid through existing channels and negotiations returned to by the opposition that was surprised by Guaido swearing himself in.
I think though, with consideration for the situation in Yemen and US support of Saudi Arabia, it can get a lot worse before the US stops it's approach.
Again though, with consideration to Yemen and Saudi Arabia, the sanctions never have been and never will be in support of marginalized people in Venezuela and the US will always oppose any leader that doesn't welcome their neocolonialism.
A leader that transfers that stolen wealth to anyone but US oligarchs and their lackeys will always be painted as a monster and be opposed by the US. You can look at any country in the world and see that their obedience to US economic interest always supersedes how they treat their or other people.
If Maduro agreed to steal the money to give to US oligarchs they'd hold a parade for him instead of trying to overthrow him.
Do you know anything about Guaido before he swore himself in as President? You just keep talking about him like your unfamiliar or simply disregarding his history.
You can say "because they support one doesn't mean they will only support that type" but if you don't have a counter example it sounds like wishful thinking at best.
I don't forget at all that Russia and China exist, their (recent) foreign policy is indisputably less horrific than the US from my perspective.
I was just trying to establish whether your faith in Guaido was tempered by researching his history before he swore himself in as president or it was, as it seemed to me, without consideration for it.
...none of what you said was guaranteed to happened has.
he was postulating based on history, asking for caution in the case of Guaido. you are all in for Guaido with your hopes running high while history showed a different story riddled with mini-Hitlers coming from the side of 'the good guys'.
he's not arguing which one is better, Maduro or Guaido but rather that you've learned nothing from history. the honest course to proceed here is you to admit you argue on faith/hope alone and are to emotionally invested to acknowledge that there's a good chance Guaido will be just as bad with some chances that he would be worse than Maduro.
his promise of restoring the constitution and the judicial branch
that's to thin to go on; look at Turkey and what Erdogan did with his judicial branch.
i think what would satisfy GH on an argumentative basis is for you to hypothesise that Guaido has failed(is as close to Maduro as it gets as far as ruling the country goes), then make a case for what could be possible courses of action to remedy your fuck up('cause you put it there).
Edit: basically, in the case of the lesser evil, it's on you, the one driving the change, to have fail-safes for a worse case scenario and you have nothing but hopes and dreams.
EPT
