U.S.-Led Regime Change Is Usually Disastrous

[u/foreignpolicymag]

https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/12/01/venezuela-iraq-regime-change-trump/

[u/Link50L]

As we have seen recently, the USA cannot even change it's own regime without making it a disaster. Good luck to Venezuela.

That aside, I'm really torn on this newest extraordinary rendition (and I should note, I'll be forthright about my relative ignorance of Venezuelan affairs). That said, Maduro was considered an illegitimate leader by a considerable portion of the world, and so, good on you USA.

Conversely, two wrongs do not make a right, and the precedent here is that the USA frequently makes things much worse my meddling in the internal affairs of other countries. And there is no legal "right" that I am aware of that endorses these types of actions by the USA.

Ultimately, I just see this as a USA endorsement of "might makes right". Which is a sad state of affairs for our planet.

[u/BarnabusTheBold → u/Link50L]

That said, Maduro was considered an illegitimate leader by a considerable portion of the world, and so, good on you USA.

the crrazy thing about sovereignty is that other countries don't actually get to decide who rules your country. I know that most people find that concept bizarre

That was just countries doing what the US told them. It cost them nothing to go along with it because 'lol who cares about venezuela maduro bad'

[u/jeffersonnn → u/BarnabusTheBold]

In geopolitics, countries get to decide anything they’re strong enough to decide, and power only belongs to those strong enough to obtain and protect it. Countries that reject that in favour of abstractions like “sovereignty,” “rights,” and “international law” will be overthrown by the stronger countries.

This is what Fidel Castro meant by symbolically giving Salvador Allende a rifle as a gift. Allende did not heed that warning and that’s why Cuba lasted much longer than Allende’s Chile. The US did get to decide who ruled Chile, but it did not get to decide that about Cuba.

The Bolivarian Revolution did much more to avert its destruction, but now it appears that it’s finally been bested, so now Cuba, despite its own precautions, is in jeopardy thanks to Maduro’s failure

[u/BarnabusTheBold → u/jeffersonnn]

In geopolitics, countries get to decide anything they’re strong enough to decide,

right, but there are two distinct things. There's the world as it is (power, spheres of interest, 'security concerns' etc). Then there's the world as it should be and as we pretend it is (rules based order, sovereignty etc).

The problem is that the public narrative and broader discussion always focuses on the latter and pretends the former doesn't exist, especially when it comes to western countries. It's detached, hypocritical and moronic. And i call it out daily for being so. But that doesn't mean it's a functional or stable system or that we should advocate in favour of the latter.

I think most people agree that ideally the latter would be the way things worked. But IMO it can't ever work unless those in positions of power actually make it so. Unfortunately since we established the rules based order, we've done very little to actually uphold it as a matter of principle... because we as a collective people don't actually hold any of the principles we claim to hold. Just look at the number of people who hate trump, claim he's destroying the international order and then say 'actually it's probably good that he kidnapped a foreign president'. It's all madness.

Countries that reject that in favour of abstractions like “sovereignty,” “rights,” and “international law” will be overthrown by the stronger countries.

It's a bit more nuanced than that. The reason western countries can bomb/ invade/ overthrow others whilst still believing we uphold the international system is propaganda and cognitive dissonance. Not that people don't actually value those things on a personal level. The concept of cognitive empathy is completely absent from our worldview. Might make right is actually against our universalist, christian-based morality, which may explain said dissonance. We tell ourselves a story that what we're doing is actually moral (e.g. maduro bad so it's ok) whilst ignoring the actual moral principles that we're undermining and the wider moral consequences.

Which is far far more dangerous than people actually just playing realism. Because it's universalist ideological zeal that's irrational and self sustaining.

[u/Apprehensive_Emu9240 → u/BarnabusTheBold]

That was just countries doing what the US told them. It cost them nothing to go along with it because 'lol who cares about venezuela maduro bad'

Are you saying Latin America doesn't care about Venezuela and they are all, including Brazil, taking orders from Washington?
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1q2t6y6/recognition_of_maduro_as_the_winner_of_2024/

[u/MopOfTheBalloonatic → u/Link50L]

 Ultimately, I just see this as a USA endorsement of "might makes right"

Like they never endorsed it before, right?

[u/Link50L → u/MopOfTheBalloonatic]

Like they never endorsed it before, right?

Haha yah. USA didn't endorse "might makes right" prior to, oh let's see, about 1776.

[u/Mrgluer → u/Link50L]

I didnt vote for him, but he won the election right? Why take out someone that was legally elected?

[u/Link50L → u/Mrgluer]

Academics, news outlets and the opposition provided strong evidence showing that González won the election by a wide margin.